by Darren Jones September 10, 2019

HSLDA is responding to a major challenge in our quest to deliver justice for Kentucky homeschool mom Holly Curry in her federal lawsuit.

When the CPS investigator we sued on Hollys behalf argued to the federal court that strip-searching the Curry kids during a nonemergency investigation did not violate the familys constitutional rights, we replied with a legal brief laying out and adamantly defending those rights.

The investigators motion for summary judgment is a big hurdle in what could be a long march to the United States Supreme Court.

The ordeal began on a cool morning when Holly left her children locked in a car for less than 10 minutes while she dashed into a cafe to buy muffins.

Police arrived, questioned Holly, and then reported her to CPS.

Later, an investigator with Kentuckys child protective services arrived at the Currys house, demanding entry (but not identifying herself or providing credentials). Holly invoked her constitutional rights and refused to let the investigator inside. A short while later, the investigator returned with a sheriffs deputybut still without a warrant.

The investigator and officer demanded that Holly let them in, threatening to obtain an order to remove all six children from the home.

Only when the officials repeated their aggressive and intimidating threats did Holly acquiesce to letting them enter her home, fearful that they would otherwise take away her kids, two of whom were infants.

Once inside, the investigator not only privately interviewed Hollys oldest daughter but then proceeded to strip-search all six children (including her daughters) in front of the male police officer.

After officials found no signs of neglect, the investigation was closed. However, because of the injustice done to the Curry family, HSLDA filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Holly and her children.

The particulars of Hollys case should secure her victory, but this is not a foregone conclusion. The investigator and the officer who stood by during the home invasion and strip search have asked the judge to dismiss our lawsuit and legitimize their invasive actions.

As a result, we intend to put every effort into getting justice for Holly and her family. This is not only an important fight for them, but also for every loving family.

There are real situations where government intervention is needed to protect children from harm. Sadly, in the case of the Curry family, the government officials were the source of harmnot the solution.

On Tuesday, September 17, HSLDA responded to the governments motion, pointing out that Fourth Amendment law protecting families from unwarranted government intrusion was clearly affirmed in the 1990s, when the Calabretta family, represented by HSLDA, stood up for freedom and won.

We hopeand anticipatethat the court agrees with the Currys and holds the government officials accountable for their actions. Realistically, though, no matter which side wins this motion, we expect that the next step will be an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then possibly to the Supreme Court.

Homeschoolers around the country have helped us defend the rights of the Currys and families like them. Please click here if you would like to help.

Read more here:

CPS: Strip-Searching Kids is OK. Um, No! - Home School Legal Defense Association

The Egyptian cabinet yesterday approved a presidential bill to amend the aid grant agreement signed between Egypt and the United States on improving health outcomes for target groups.

The amendment aims to provide $10,050,000, as a contribution from the US Agency for International Development(USAID)to enhance the quality of family planning services and reproductive health, according to local media.

The Egyptian Cabinet headed by Mostafa Madbouly also approved the presidential resolution on the fourth amendment of the grant aid agreement signed betweenWashington and Cairoregarding Egyptian-American Cooperation in science and technology.

READ: Sisi is damaging the lives of ordinary Egyptians

The amendment aims to provide a sum of $4 million as a contribution from USAID to consolidate the scientific and technological capabilities of the Egyptian and American sides.

It provides for the promotion of scientific and technological cooperation for peaceful purposes, providing opportunities for the exchange of ideas, information, skills and techniques of common interest between the two countries, developing systems for the dissemination and expansion of technology, while providing an appropriate role for the private sector in this respect.

USAIDs program in Egypt, which has seen over $30 billion spent in the country since 1978, backs the countrys development effortstowards promoting health, education as well as achieving economic growth and reducing poverty. It came as part of an agreement which saw Egypt sign a peace treaty with Israel at Camp David.

See original here:

US allocates $10m grant for family planning in Egypt - Middle East Monitor

DeKALB Newly obtained dispatch audio from the Aug. 24 arrest of an Aurora man includes a DeKalb police officer calling the incident a drug-related traffic stop, as he coordinates getting the DeKalb County Sherrifs Offices K-9 unit to assist.

The 50-second audio clip from 10:57 a.m. Aug. 24, obtained by the Daily Chronicle through a Freedom of Information Act request, the DeKalb officer asks dispatch if the dog is available, to which the sheriffs dispatcher replies yes, although the unit is on another call. The DeKalb Police Department does not have a K-9 unit.

TheAug. 24 arrest of Aurora man Elonte McDowell gained national media attention, after DeKalb police pulled McDowell over in the parking lot of Lincoln Tower, 1100 W. Lincoln Highway, but did not answer his frequent questions about why he was being pulled over. While arresting McDowell, DeKalb police wrestled McDowell to the ground and one officer appeared to wrap his arms around McDowells neck. A DeKalb County Sheriffs deputy then fired a taser at McDowell while he was on the ground.

Well we dont need him right this second, but we may need him soon, the DeKalb officer is heard saying. Because we possibly have a very drug-related traffic stop in just a little bit here.

DeKalb interim Police Chief John Petragallo called the type of stop a Terry stop, a special type of stop where police search someone suspected of an impending crime.

What is a Terry stop, and what are the rights for those who find themselves in such situations with police?

Ed Yohnka, director of communications and public policy for the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Terry stops became a frequent police procedure after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a 1968 case known as Terry v. Ohio.

The case involved a police officer detaining three Cleveland men who they said were behaving suspiciously, seemingly to prepare for an armed robbery. The police did a pat-down search of the men, which found a revolver, which then led to two of the men being charged (and convicted) of carrying a concealed weapon. The men appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the revolver only was found after what they said was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, which grants people the right to be protected from unreasonable searches on their person.

The court ruled the searches were legal however, because the officer had a reasonable, explainable suspicion that the three men could be armed and dangerous.

Under the Terry holding, a police officer can stop you and can then conduct a search of your physical person, Yohnka said. They dont have to explain why, but the trade-off for that, the theory, is that the police officer has to be able to articulate some reason that the officer felt that he or she was in danger.

Petragallo has said the officers who stopped McDowell were acting on reports that McDowell was seen advertising on Snapchat that he was coming to DeKalb with a load of drugs, court records show.

In this particular case, we got a telephone call into our dispatch center from a person that described a lot of what was happening, Petragallo said in a community meeting Sept. 4. The date, time that this vehicle would be coming into town. There was a lot of information as part of this tip. So the DeKalb police coming upon Mr. McDowell was based on the info we received and was corroborated, so we have records of this information coming in.

Petragallo said law enforcement officers engage in Terry stops frequently, and he described the stops as when an officer believes a crime is being committed, about to be committed, or was committed.

If they have one of those three things, they have the authority to stop a vehicle or person for a brief amount or reasonable amount of time to establish whether or not crime is occurring, Petragallo said.

Petragallo also has said he believes better communication could have occurred between DeKalb police and McDowell.

An independent and external investigation of the incident conducted by the Illinois State Police at the joint request of Petragallo and DeKalb County Sheriff Roger Scott is expected to take weeks.

McDowell next will be in DeKalb County court Oct. 11 for a status hearing, as he faces charges of unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, criminal trespass to property and resisting a police officer. If convicted of the most serious charge of unlawful possession with intent to deliver, McDowell could face up to five years in prison.

See the original post here:

DeKalb police break down, explain Terry stop before arrest of McDowell - DeKalb Daily Chronicle

I have read several letters to the newspaper on gun control in the past weeks. The Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment as No. 2 in the Bill of Rights for a reason. They thought of it as the second-most important freedom. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed," Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Cartwright on June 5, 1824.

In the United Kingdom, homicide rates were at an all-time high in 2018. They are now looking at banning knives of certain lengths. Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control in the world, and it is on pace to break the record for homicides in 2019. Criminals don't care what laws are passed.

In 2017, according to FBI statistics, there were more people killed with blunt objects in the United States than with any type of rifle. The FBI reports that over the last 10 years, on average, all rifles make up just 3.2 percent of homicides per year.

Mass shootings are terrible and are heart-breaking. Banning assault rifles will not stop them. The right to bear arms is granted to the people of the United States by our Constitution. I ask my fellow countrymen and women, what other right are you willing to give up? Maybe the Fourth Amendment or perhaps the First?

James L. Peay II

software executive

Zachary

Read this article:

Letters: Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting - The Advocate

Can police officers stop and search a random group of people found near a location where the officers believe gunshots have been fired?

And even if the shooter is not among them, can they arrest an uninvolved person who turns out to be carrying a gun illegally as the result of a felony record?

Yes to both questions, a divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided last week in a precedent-setting Fourth Amendment case that grew out of an incident two years ago in Richmonds crime-ridden Creighton Court.

The majority decision overturned a lower courts decision to suppress evidence the gun that led to the arrest of Richmonder Billy Curry Jr., even though authorities confirmed he had not fired any of the gunshots.

In a vigorous dissent, Judge Henry F. Floyd of South Carolina wrote that the decision completely cripples a fundamental Fourth Amendment protection and creates a dangerous precedent.

In his view, the majority opinion means that the sounds of gunshots, or even something that police perceive as gunshots, ... creates an emergency situation and allows police to stop and frisk anyone in the area without individualized suspicion.

The case began Sept. 8, 2017, when four detectives from the Richmond Police Departments Focus Mission Team heard gunfire within Creighton Court and responded to Walcott Place where it was believed the shots originated no more than 35 seconds earlier.

According to a recital of the facts, the detectives spotted and stopped six to eight men who, though clearly not together, were walking away from the area. The detectives asked the men to lift their shirts. The detectives shined flashlights on the mens waists to determine if they had guns.

All complied and showed they did not have weapons, except Mr. Curry, who did not pull up his shirt. He turned out to have a weapon after he was wrestled to the ground and searched.

Writing for the appeals court majority, Judge Julius N. Richardson, also of South Carolina, found that the de- tectives were operating in an emergency circumstance affecting the public interest, thus triggering an exception to the U.S. Constitutions Fourth Amendmentprohibitionagainst unreasonable government searches.

The officers were not investigating a shooting that occurred days or even hours earlier, he stated. They were rushing to respond to shots fired just seconds earlier in a densely populated residential neighborhood where there had been two homicides and six other shootings in the previous 90 days.

While Judge Richardson acknowledged that the officers did not have any reasonable suspicion that the men they stopped were involved in the gunfire, he found the primary purpose of the stop and flashlight search was the need to protect the public and (themselves) from a shooter and the potential for retaliatory gunfire.

The officers reacted quickly ... with a measured response to address the very real threat of further violence, he wrote in an opinion supported by Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of Maryland.

An unobtrusive flashlight search of the waistbands of those stopped to determine if they had weapons represented an intrusion on the mens liberty (that) was minimal both in scope and duration, Judge Richardson concluded.

View post:

Federal appeals court ruling sets precedent in 'unreasonable' search case - Richmond Free Press

Radley Balko, the investigative opinion writer for the Washington Post, posted an update on Twitter last night to his article last year about the (over)use of no-knock warrants by Little Rock SWAT officers in drug raids. The reduction in over-the-top drug raids under the departments new leadership is welcome.

The past tactics Balko described remain under challenge in litigation.

Balkos original article made these key criticism of the police.

There are three main areas of concern. First, the narcotics unit appears to be routinely violating the Fourth Amendment by serving nearly all of its warrants with no-knock raids. Its asking for no-knock warrants without demonstrating why each suspect merits a no-knock entry, as required by federal law. Worse yet, Little Rock judges are then signing off on these warrants.

Second, the LRPD is serving many of these warrants by using explosives that SWAT veterans Ive interviewed say are reckless, dangerous and wholly inappropriate for use in drug raids. Ive also spoken to at least two people who say there were children in the home when the explosives were used.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, theres clear evidence that one informant whom LRPD drug cops have been using the informant used to obtain probable cause against Talley and others has been lying to police about his drug buys. At minimum, the detectives who worked with him have been inexcusably sloppy in their handling of him. But theres also evidence that raises questions about their own truthfulness.

The Arkansas Times sought permission to publish the entire Balko article in the Post, but the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a subscriber to the news service, wouldnt allow it, presumably because it might publish it. It didnt.

PS: While the Little Rock police have declared a more careful review themselves, a defense lawyer also credits new Criminal District Court Judge Melanie Martin with a more rigorous review of warrant requests than in past practice. Shes been judge of the court since the first of this year. (Shes a former prosecutor and no soft touch on the criminal class.)

More:

Progress reported on Little Rock police use of no-knock searches - Arkansas Times

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

Trump 5th Circuit judge Andrew Oldham wrote an August opinion in Cantu v. Moody that affirmed the dismissal of Daniel Cantus lawsuit for damages against two FBI agents for lying, thus fabricating evidence that resulted in his prosecution on drug charges, from which he was eventually found not guilty, but caused him to spend more than two years in jail. Judge James Graves strongly dissented and maintained that under Supreme Court case law, Cantu should have been able to sue the agents for damages.

Daniel Cantu received a phone call from someone who turned out to be an FBI informant, asking to meet in a parking lot in his car. When Cantu arrived, the informant placed a cooler on the passenger seat of Cantus car with no explanation. Almost immediately, 45 law enforcement agents approached Cantus car, immediately arrested him and seized the cooler, which they discovered contained heroin. Two FBI agents, James Moody and Erin LaBuz, falsely claimed that Cantu had emerged from his car and himself took the cooler and put in his car. Cantu was charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, but a federal jury eventually acquitted him. By that time, he had spent more than two years in jail.

Cantu then sued several of the FBI agents and police involved for damages. Among other charges, his complaint maintained that the actions of Moody and LaBuz in lying and fabricating evidence against him violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, under which he should be able to recover damages. This was based on the so-called Bivens doctrine, named after a case in 1971 where the Supreme Court ruled that damages lawsuits could sometimes be brought against federal law enforcement officers who violate the Constitution and cause harm to individuals. (Unlike state police, federal officials generally cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983). Cantus theory was that he was not the person who the informant had originally intended to provide drugs to and lead the FBI to capture, but after the drugs were put in his car, the FBI agents doubled down, fabricating facts leading to his prosecution and imprisonment.

The district court dismissed Cantus Bivens claims, as well as his other charges, and Oldham wrote a 2-1 opinion affirming the lower court decision. Oldham noted that although the Supreme Court had accepted Bivens-type claims in three cases, it had not done so since 1980. In a 2017 case, Oldham pointed out, the Court referred to recognition of a direct cause of action for damages as a disfavored judicial activity and suggested caution in extending Bivens to other situations. Oldham thus refused to do so in this case, pointing out that federal law enforcement officers can be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

Judge James Graves strongly dissented. As even the majority recognized, the 2017 Court decision specifically recognized that the three Bivens cases remain good law. Unlike the 2017 case, Graves explained, there were no special factors suggesting that Congress did not want a damages remedy to help in enforcing the law and correcting a wrong. Instead, Cantus case concerned standard law enforcement operations, Graves went on, and the claim that FBI agents fabrication of evidence led to prosecution and an improper two years behind bars was exactly the type of law enforcement overreach that the Court has emphasized can still be pursued under Bivens. The FTCA would not help, Graves noted, since it specifically does not provide remedies for constitutional violations.

As Judge Graves pointed out, an injunction against the FBI would not help Cantu, and it was damages or nothing if the agents were to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. But as a result of Oldhams decision, there will be no accountability and no remedy for improper law enforcement action in this case, and quite possibly many others in the 5th Circuit as well.

Follow this link:

Trump Judge Affirms Dismissal of Claims That FBI Agents Lied and Fabricated Evidence: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears - People For the American Way

EAGLE POINT, Ore. Thursday will mark one year since 33-year-old Matthew Thayer Graves death. The district attorney says Graves didnt comply with officers commands and a physical struggle ensued.

But family and friends say he had a mental illness and police used excessive force. Five of 7 grand jurors said the officer who fired the fatal shots acted lawfully in his use of deadly force enough to clear him.

But the family is pursuing civil action to ensure something like this never happens again. The attorney for the family of Graves says they cannot comment since theyre currently in litigation with Eagle Point.

According to the settlement offer NBC5 News obtained this summer, Graves parents have been offered just over a million dollars. The family turned it down and filed thecivil suit arguing Graves was deprived of his Fourth Amendment civil rights leading up to the shooting.

Friends of the family who knew Graves shared their thoughts one year since his passing.

When I found out what had happened I was pretty angry, said Tina Sandoval, a friend of the family who knew Graves for years.

One year ago this Thursday will mark a tragic moment for friends and family of the 33-year-old from Eagle Point. He was shot and killed by Eagle Point Police on September 19, 2018 in the bathroom of a Carls Jr.

Sandoval knew Graves since he was in middle school with her daughters the whole family took the news of his passing very hard.

His smile just lit up a room, she said. Sandovaldescribed Graves as an easy-going, fun-loving guy. He was very funny and had a heart, huge and was always doing something for somebody else.

He was like a son to her and she still has difficulty thinking about how he died.

Constantly just battle with it in my mind, she said. I wish there was something that we could do to bring him back, to have avoided it but I mean hes gone.

Friends and family say Graves had schizophrenia. Sandoval says it developed slowly but got worse.

After a few years, he got to where he just was around his family, she said. He really didnt want to talk to anybody or see anybody.

Eagle Point Police say Graves was not complying with an officer and ended up in a physical struggle. A second officer showed up and during the fight saw what he thought was a gun. It was, in fact, a taser. Graves was shot twice in the back.

Several members of the grand jury felt the officers taser looked too similar to a gun. Eagle Point Police have since made changes to its tasers. The department confirmed this week it has placed fluorescent markings on all its tasers to ensure theyre able to differentiate between their tasers and their guns.

Sandoval also believes if there had been more training on how to handle someone with mental illness this could all have been avoided.

Especially training on how to de-escalate, she said. That was one of the things that instead of de-escalating the officer escalated.

One year later though, Graves friends and family hope action is taken.

It wouldnt have even gotten that far had the officer had better training to recognize the mental illness, she said.

So nothing like this ever happens again.

Eagle Point Police was unavailable to talk on Wednesday about its training to deal with mental health.

A ceremony to remember Graves will be held tomorrow at 7:45 p.m near the Banner Bank in Eagle Point. Organizers hope to share memories of him and raise awareness of the injustice they believe surrounds his death.

NBC5 News Reporter Miles Furuichi graduated from Chapman University with degrees in English and Journalism. He received post graduate experience in Los Angeles in photojournalism and commercial photography. He also spent time in Dublin, Ireland working in print journalism and advertising.

Miles is a Rogue Valley native, raised in Ashland. He enjoys hiking, mountain biking and photography.

Excerpt from:

Ceremony to remember Matthew Graves set one year since his death - KOBI-TV NBC5 / KOTI-TV NBC2

Activists plan a rally to put pressure on the carrier and to inform passengers of their rights

Demonstrators will rally in Portland this weekendand deliver a letter to Greyhound Lines Inc., demanding the bus company stop allowing federal immigration enforcement agents to board its vehicles in order to check passengers immigration statuses.

But whether Greyhound has any choice in the matter is unclear, with Greyhound and federal agencies saying the law dictates the company must allow these checks and activists and the American Civil Liberties Union saying Greyhound has the right to keep federal agents off its buses unless they have a warrant.

Protesters also plan to distribute know your rights leaflets to passengers, informing them they have the right to not answer questions about their immigration status without legal counsel and the right to refuse a search of their belongings.

The rally will take place at 2 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 21, at Greyhounds new loading zone at Northwest Station Way, between Lovejoy and Marshal Streets in Portlands Old Town neighborhood. It is part of a nationwide, coordinated series of protests taking place this month and last aimed at challenging the Trump administrations deportation and immigrant detention practices.

Fight for Im/migrants and Refugees Everywhere, or FIRE, and International Workers Solidarity Network, or IWSN, initially put out the call for action and led a protest that drew about 200 demonstrators to Manhattans Port Authority Bus Terminal on Aug. 23. Protests are also occurring in Houston, Austin, Atlanta, Buffalo, Philadelphia and Boston.

The number of rail and bus passengers being stopped, questioned and detained in the northern United States for immigration enforcement purposes has increased since 2017, according to an NBC News report in June. The increase follows the reversal of an Obama-era policy that restricted the approval of such searches.

Locally, the Portland chapter of Workers World Party, with the endorsement of several other area groups including Occupy ICE, Portland Central American Solidarity Committee and International League of Peoples Struggle PDX, is organizing the demonstration and inviting members of the public to join.

Donald Trumps immigration policy is racist terror, blatant cruelty and creates social divisions that can only be characterized as white supremacy. We are fighting for unity among workers and immigrants everywhere, said local Workers World Party organizer Lyn Neeley.

On the national level, the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents Greyhound bus drivers, has publicly announced its support of the ACLUs effort to pressure Greyhound into ceasing its cooperation with immigration status checks on the buses its drivers operate.

In a statement, however, Greyhound told Street Roots that because its a regulated carrier, it is required to comply with the requests of federal agents.

It said Border Patrol searches of its buses have negatively impacted its customers and operation, and therefore its calling on Congress to change the law requiring its compliance.

We also encourage all our customers to know their rights and share their opinions on this important issue with their members of Congress, the company stated.

Greyhound provides bilingual know-your-rights information at its terminals and online so passengers know their options if confronted by immigration officials during their travels.

But the ACLU disagrees with Greyhounds interpretation of the law, arguing the company does have the right to refuse entry to Border Patrol agents under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

In response, Greyhounds parent company, FirstGroup, sent a letter to the ACLU stating Fourth Amendment protection is extended to individuals in private vehicles, not commercial, regulated operators.

While the national branch of ACLU did not reply to our requests for comment, ACLU of Oregons immigration rights attorney, Leland Baxter-Neal, said he does not believe it has changed its position since receiving the letter.

Greyhound buses has the right to protect its clients and their Fourth Amendment right and to require Customs and Border Protection to produce a warrant before they enter the bus, Baxter-Neal said.

He said Border Patrol, which is an arm of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shouldnt be searching buses for undocumented immigrants because its problematic.

The concern is that folks who may be citizens and in the eyes of a CBP officer dont quote-unquote look American enough might be subject to scrutiny, to harassment, just like we saw with (Mohanad) Elshieky from Portland.

Elshieky, a stand-up comedian, made national headlines in January after Border Patrol agents pulled him off a bus in Spokane, Wash., that was bound for Portland. The agents challenged the documentation he produced when questioned, even though he is in the country legally.

The other concern, Baxter-Neal said, is that (agents) may be walking down the bus picking people based on their looks and asking those individuals whether they have papers, which is just straight-up racial profiling. So the practice is deeply concerning, and the fact that Greyhound lets it happen rather than protect its loyal customers is also deeply troubling, and thats why the ACLU has reached out and asked them to change their practice.

In accordance with requirements attached to federal Title VI funding Greyhound receives, its adopted a policy protecting its passengers from discrimination based on race, color or national origin.

Baxter-Neal argues its cooperation with Border Patrol violates its own policy. Not only that, he said, it also seems like pretty bad business to be exposing your loyal customers to racialized harassment at the hand of an out of control agency like CBP.

When Street Roots inquired with Border Patrol, an agency spokesperson pointed to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, stating it gives agents the authority to board, without a warrant, any railcar, aircraft, conveyance or vehicle within 100 miles of the border in order to question individuals and make arrests.

These actions, according to the act, are supposed to be for the purpose of preventing illegal entry into the United States thats why theyre supposed to take place near a border. However, it seems unlikely that an individual boarding a bus in Spokane or Seattle, Wash., just crossed into the country illegally from Canada.

While these cities are, just barely, within 100 miles of the U.S. border, the state of Oregon is not. For this reason, Border Patrol does not perform bus checks in Oregon, said the agencys regional spokesperson Jason Givens.

Givens did not answer a question about how many people his agency has detained nationally as a result of Greyhound bus searches.

Greyhound corporation should join the ACLU in a suit against ICE and the Border Patrol to stop these unlawful interrogations, arrests and incarcerations of innocent people, said Portland protest organizer Johnnie Lewis. Regardless of what they say, Greyhound has the right to say no.

While much of the rhetoric surrounding the anti-immigration enforcement demonstrations has focused on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, with many promotional materials and signs bearing the slogan Keep ICE off Greyhound buses, ICE is not the agency responsible for conducting bus checks.

ICEs regional spokesperson, Tanya Roman, told Street Roots in an email that her agency does not board Greyhound buses in order to check the immigration status of patrons on board. Any suggestion to the contrary is irresponsible, speculative and inaccurate.

Her statement aligns with what the ACLU of Oregon understands about the bus checks.

I have not heard about this being an issue with ICE, as it is with Customs and Border Protection, Baxter-Neal said. We know this is a tactic specifically that CBP uses to target and racially profile individuals on buses.

For more information about the demonstration on Sept. 21, visit Facebook.com/wwppdx.

Email Senior Staff Reporter Emily Green atemily@streetroots.org. Follow her onTwitter@greenwrites.

Go here to see the original:

Portland protesters to Greyhound: Stop letting immigration agents on buses - Street Roots News

LIMA Alleging multiple civil rights violations, a former Mercer County farmer has filed a lawsuit in federal court against Mercer County Sheriff Jeff Grey.

Jeff Rasawehr, who now lives in an affluent neighborhood northeast of Detroit, has had a long history with the Mercer County Sheriffs Office, and the federal lawsuit is the latest in the public tiff between the two entities. According to his online website, countycoverup.com, Rasawehr alleges that Greys office has unfairly targeted him since 2011 due to a family property disagreement.

In 2011, I was in the beginnings of a very difficult divorce, Rasawehr said in a video published in early 2019. At the same time, there was a family battle over land and trust. My relatives and my ex-wife needed to have me tarnished with a criminal record.

In the same video, Rasawehr said the office had collected 3,800 documents with the intention to arrest him.

According to a 2016 letter sent to one of Rasawehrs six lawyers, Joseph Yamin, by Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney Matthew Fox, the Mercer County Sheriffs Office began receiving communications from Rasawehr beginning in 2012.

I am aware that the Mercer County Sheriffs Office has tried to respond to Mr. Rasawehr in a professional manner, Foxs letter states. Recently, the Mercer County Sheriffs Office has simply ignored his emails and phone calls, although keeping detailed records, including voice recordings, video recordings and copies of electronic correspondence of every contact Mr. Rasawehr has had with the Mercer County Sheriffs Office. Mr. Rasawehrs stated goal is to provoke the Mercer County Sheriffs Office into an over-reaction situation so he can sue the Mercer County Sheriffs Office.

At the time, Fox requested that Rasawehr cease and desist all contact with my office, my staff and employees.

Later in 2016, Rasawehr was arrested for multiple counts of obstructing official business, stalking and telecommunications harassment.

Three years later after an extensive pre-trial period, Rasawehr had been found guilty of the two of the 26 charges filed against him menacing by stalking and telecommunications harassment and he was sentenced to five years of community control sanctions.

In the federal lawsuit signed off by Rasawehrs six lawyers this past Tuesday, Rasawehr alleges that the 2016 arrest violated his first and fourth amendment rights, and that Greys comments in an article published by The Lima News covering Rasawehrs arrest had a significant chilling effect on the further exercise of free speech of the plaintiff (Rasawehr) that continues unabated to this day.

Of the seven counts filed in the lawsuit, the last two concern Greys oversight of the deputy who arrested Rasawehr.

Due to Rasawehrs alleged suffering caused by Grey and Rasawehrs arrest, the lawsuit estimates that damages are not anticipated to be less than $1 million.

Fox declined comment due to the pending litigation.

The full lawsuit can be read online at limaohio.com.

Rasawehr

Reach Josh Ellerbrock at 567-242-0398.

Excerpt from:

Mercer Co. sheriff sued in federal court - Lima Ohio

VINCENT With the concrete block structure of its new elementary school rising less than a mile away, the board of education for Warren Local Schools received an update Monday night on the districts construction project.

Were fully under way with the elementary building, and the high school is about ready to start footers and interior concrete, said superintendent Kyle Newton. Theyre moving scaffolding around the elementary school as they finish it up to the roofline.

The project has proven to be more expensive than originally expected, and the board last month got approval from the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission for the fourth amendment to its agreement. Newton provided the board with a summary of the process and history, which notes that the estimates were originally drawn up in 2015, the bond levy was defeated in November 2016 and then passed in May 2017. Groundbreaking for the elementary school was held in April of this year.

During that period, Newton said, there is no provision in the OFCC process for updating cost estimates.

The district included a $5 million contingency fund in the bond levy, but Newton said the board has been adamant that the state assume its share of any cost increases attributed to market conditions on the co-funded parts of the project.

With the state paying 72 percent of the costs, theres a lot at stake, he said. If you add a million dollars to the co-funded part, thats $720,000 we need to get from the state.

So far, Newton said, the board has been successful in doing that and the state has been co-operative.

The OFCC has been phenomenal, he said.

Newton said Warrens experience points to deficiencies in the states process for what are called lapsed districts those that get state approval but get rejected by local voters several times before being successful. It isnt part of the established process to periodically update the costs for districts that have to appeal to voters over a period of several elections. As a result, at least for Warren, nearly four years had elapsed between the initial estimates and time work actually began.

The original estimate for the entire project was $63 million. Newton said that figure is obsolete but the total cost estimate has not been updated recently.

Board president Bob Crum said Warrens response apparently is unusual.

Most boards just accept that theyre over the budget and go back to the public for more money, but we havent done that, he said. Were not backing down on that, and weve been blessed.

Board vice president Sidney Brackenridge said the OFCC had been reasonable in considering the amendments and picking up its share.

I have to credit the state, theyve really stepped up, he said.

In other matters, the board:

Authorized creation of a new account to receive $369,424 from the newly created state fund intended to provide mental health and social services for students and their families. Treasurer Melcie Wells said creating a separate fund was a condition of the grant.

Heard a presentation from Paul Mock, southeastern regional manager for the Ohio School Boards Association, awarding Warren board president Bob Crum with a certificate recognizing 15 years of service.

Township trustees across Washington County are raising their eyebrows and discussing calendar adjustments as the ...

Fiscal and directional oversight of the Washington County Health Department is set up by state law to allow those ...

Friends of Lower Muskingum River will host a river clean-up for Make a Difference Day with Marietta College on ...

View original post here:

Warren BOE gets construction update | News, Sports, Jobs - Marietta Times

Hopefully the mere fact that youre reading this article means that youre concerned and willing to take action against the all-out assault we are seeing against the Second Amendment.

To make matters worse, the liberal Left and mainstream media just do not get it, nor do they care. Make no mistake, the liberal side of the field (look no further than the current democratic candidates for president) wants to force a mandatory buy back of your assault rifles, outlaw high capacity magazines and implement Red Flag laws. (a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment)

And it wont stop there.

Teaching in the firearms training world on a consistent basis, I make it a point in every single class to ask students if they are aware of anti-gun legislation in their own state much less on the national level. I am frustrated to report that while most know there is some kind of pending law changes, they are woefully unaware of the actual bills and what the implications are, even in their own backyard.

To put things in perspective, the highly debated number of gun laws currently in the US (federal, state and local) range from a low of about 300 to upwards of 20,000 according to a study by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy (I suspect the number is somewhere in the middle). Even if the true number is the lower, there are more than adequate laws on the books to address issues such as the mentally ill or convicted felons from owning or possessing firearms. Just as there are extensive laws prohibiting drunk driving, impaired drivers still continue to drive and kill innocent people, in many instances after having already been convicted of a prior drunk driving offense and their drivers license being suspended.

It is past time to get serious and act, RIGHT NOW!

Below are just a few of the ways and steps to take to fight off the insidious and uneducated attacks against gun ownership.

Spend some time getting to know what legislation has been introduced at the local, state, and national levels. An example is the current push around the nation for red flag laws and high capacity magazine bans. The Red Flag law essentially eliminates you from being secure in your own home against unlawful seizure of your firearms because someone (could be anyone, your neighbor, friend or even a spouse) says you are a threat to yourself or others. The end result is that your right to due process, being secure against unreasonable search and seizure by a warrant-less search (Fourth Amendment issue) will be compromised. There are obvious great possibilities of abuse through any such legislation. This is only one example of current anti-gun legislation being pushed in many states and at the federal level. Do you know what the US Constitution and your own states constitution actually says when it comes to your right to keep and bear arms?

Education is only the first step, now you must act. Contact your state representatives, governor, and congressman to voice your opposition to any legislation that compromises the Second Amendment. Phone calls, emails, and letters to the editor are all ways to make your voice heard. Be courteous and professional but firm in your resolve that anti-gun agendas and legislation will equal voting the politician out of office when the time comes. Currently all Democratic candidates for president in the 2020 elections are running on a platform of mandatory buybacks (confiscation) of assault weapons. Not one of these candidates deserves a vote from any American what believes in and supports the constitution. Nor does any retail outlet deserve my business or support while calling for the disarmament of law-abiding citizens.

Being a part of a bigger united movement is critical. Whether it is the NRA, Gun Owners of America, National Shooting Sports Foundation, your local state gun club/association, or all of the above you must support these efforts. By being involved you will be supporting grass roots efforts to keep and maintain your rights as enumerated in the Second Amendment. All of these organizations have strong gun safety programs promoting safe and responsible firearms use.

I provide firearms training on a regular basis. While I feel it is my responsibility to provide factual information concerning gun issues and legislation to all my students, I maintain a high level of professionalism when doing so. Admittedly it is hard to leave the emotion out of it but I believe this is the best approach. Likewise understand that carrying a firearm openly in todays high emotion climate may not be the best approach. I suggest you carry concealed, discreetly and professionally, all the time.

Keeping yourself well trained, educated and dedicated to a defensive way of life makes you more confident and professional when it comes to daily gun carry. Attend credible advanced training on at least an annual basis. Spend time on the gun range as often as you can. Take part in a course on realty based training, it will help you make solid decision under stress if the day ever comes you have to defend yourself or family.

Firearms enthusiasts and defensive minded folks today are in the fight of their life when it comes to gun ownership and their continued ability to defend themselves, a fundamental right of any human being. All the while those that wish to disarm you ironically enjoy protection from armed security. Its time to get serious and step up to the plate, make yourself heard, and make it known you are not giving up your Second Amendment rights. Those rights are just a critical as the First, Third, or Fourth, and so on. Our founding fathers foresaw these issues and established a path to follow and adhere to against tyranny. Please dont take it for granted.

Image courtesy shutterstock

Visit link:

Five Steps You Must Take Today To Defend Your Gun Rights - OutdoorHub

Making America gun-shy?

Some of the most strident Iran war hawks who counted President Donald Trump as a leader of the flock are coming to fear that he's becoming a bird of a more dovish feather.

After Trump announced Wednesday that he would ratchet up sanctions against Iran in the coming days, Sen. Lindsey Graham said that wasn't enough to answer the attack on Saudi oil facilities for which U.S. officials are holding Iran responsible.

Sanctions so far havent worked and I doubt they ever will. So I think an appropriate military response is in order," Graham said. Asked about Trump's Tuesday night tweet rebuking him for saying Iran saw Trump's previous hesitance to use force as a "sign of weakness," Graham replied, "The Iranians are your target audience, not me."

Trump shot back with a reminder of the Iraq War debacle. It's very easy to attack, but if you ask Lindsey, ask him how did going into the Middle East, how did that work out? And how did going into Iraq work out?"

It wasn't just Graham. In a broad attack on Trump's deal-seeking, ex-national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday told a private Manhattan luncheon for a conservative think tank that any negotiations with North Korea and Iran were doomed to failure and Trump's aborted invitation to meet with the Taliban at Camp David was disrespectful to the victims of 9/11, Politico reported. Trump hit Bolton again for his Bush-era role. "He got stuck in quicksand and we became policemen for the Middle East," the president said.

Still, Trump said, "If we have to do something, we'll do it without hesitation. Reverting to the ominous-sounding rhetoric he has used in past tensions, Trump said, "There are many options Theres the ultimate option, and there are options that are a lot less than that. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who visited Saudi Arabia, said the strike against the oil installation was "an act of war." Trump wouldn't go that far.

Not all GOP hawks are as gung-ho as Graham and Bolton to launch a reprisal attack. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has warned, "Such a conflict would be difficult to de-escalate." Iran, which has denied involvement in the attack, warned the U.S. it will retaliate in a "rapid and crushing" manner if it is targeted. For more on the Iran tensions, see Newsday's story by Laura Figueroa Hernandez.

Get the latest breaking news as it happens.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

Will flattery get you the job of Trump national security adviser? It didn't hurt Robert O'Brien. Back in April, Trump tweeted that he had been praised by O'Brien as "the greatest hostage negotiatorthat I know of in the history of the United States."

That was a fair summary of O'Brien's comments regarding his efforts as a special presidential envoy in getting Americans freed from captivity by foreign fighters and governments. "The president has had unparalleled success in bringing Americans home without paying concessions, without prisoner exchanges, but through force of willand the good will that hes generated around the world, O'Brien said.

Earlier this year, Trump directed OBrien to attend court proceedings in Sweden after American rapper A$AP Rocky was arrested in Stockholm on assault charges. The veteran diplomat served in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. He also worked for Bolton and shared his view, and Trump's, that Obama's Iran nuclear deal was a mistake. For more, see Newsday's story by Figueroa.

Trump made a promise to a foreign leader that a U.S. intelligence official found troubling enough to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, The Washington Post reported.

The inspector general, Michael Atkinson, determined that the complaint was credible and serious enough to be considered a matter of urgent concern a legal threshold that ordinarily requires notification of congressional oversight committees.

But acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguirehas refused to share details about Trumps alleged transgression with lawmakers, setting off a battle with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

The complaint was filed on Aug. 12. The Post said its sources were two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Constitution Week is going by like any other week in the Trump era, with the president making no effort to get the public to revere the founding document he's sworn to uphold, writes Newsday's Dan Janison.

The Constitution assigned coequal powers to the three branches of government, but Trump is stonewalling congressional subpoenas. That's in keeping with his novel interpretation that "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."

A presidential push to end California's separate car emissions regulations underscored a historic role reversal in which progressives now invoke states' rights. Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, yet Trump muses he could take it away by fiat. 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 undocumented immigrants.

He jokes about staying in office beyond two terms. The 22nd Amendment says no.

Seeing what Obama did and doing the opposite is an ethos for Trump. So are key elements of his approach to decision-making, a contrast evident from Obama's remarks at a data analysis company's event in San Francisco Wednesday.

One thing "that's helpful is not watching TV or reading social media," Obama said. "Those are two things I would advise, if you're our president, not to do. It creates a lot of noise and clouds your judgment." His comments were reported by Business Insider.

The curtain may be coming down on Trump's buddy act with Benjamin Netanyahu. The president said he had not spoken to the Israeli prime minister since his future in office was put in doubt by Tuesday's elections.

"Look, our relationship is with Israel. We'll see what happens," Trump said.

During his election campaign, Netanyahu played up his personal relationshipwith Trump.

A few days before his trip to California, Trump mystified officials there with his interest in problems of homelessness in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities. When he finally spelled out his concerns, it became clearer which one was uppermost: the blight on high-end real estate.

"In many cases, they came from other countries and they moved to Los Angeles or they moved to San Francisco because of the prestige of the city, and all of a sudden they have tents, Trump said. Hundreds and hundreds of tents and people living at the entrance to their office building. And they want to leave.

In Los Angeles and San Francisco, Trump said, people are living on the best highways, our best streets, our best entrances to buildings where people in those buildings pay tremendous taxes, where they went to those locations because of the prestige.

Trump has spoken vaguely of a federal intervention to sweep the homeless off the streets, leaving many unanswered questions. Local officials wrote to Trumpseeking more funds for programs like housing vouchers. HUD Secretary Ben Carson, answering for Trump, said no, blaming "state and local policies" in the Democratic-dominated California, such as an "over-regulated housing market."

Trump visited new section of border barrier east of San Diego and was so enthusiastic about its features that the commanding general of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tried gently to caution him not to give away secrets.

They're wired, so that we will know if somebody's trying to break through, and you may want to discussthat a little bit, general," he said to Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite.

Semonite hesitated: "Sir, there could be some merit in not discussing that."

Trump responded: "I'll just tell you they're wired, OK?

After the news conference, Trump signed a slat with a Sharpie.

View original post here:

1600: Iran hawks bare their talons at Trump - Newsday

Sniff and search is no longer the default for police in some of the 33 states that have legalized marijuana.

Traditionally, an officer could use the merest whiff of weed to justify a warrantless vehicle search, and whatever turned up pot, other kinds of illegal drugs, something else the motorist wasn't allowed to have could be used as evidence in court.

That's still true in the minority of states where marijuana remains verboten. But the legal analysis is more complicated in places where pot has been approved for medical or adult use, and courts are beginning to weigh in. The result is that, in some states, a police officer who sniffs out pot isn't necessarily allowed to go through someone's automobile because the odor by itself is no longer considered evidence of a crime.

"It's becoming more difficult to say, 'I smell marijuana, I can search the car.' It's not always an automatic thing," said Kyle Clark, who oversees drug impairment recognition training programs at the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

For nearly 100 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized an "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, giving law enforcement the right to conduct a warrantless search if there is reason to suspect a vehicle is hiding contraband or evidence of a crime. Police have long used the exception to conduct vehicle searches based on the pungent, distinctive odor of pot.

Increasingly, motorists in states where marijuana is legal in some form are pushing back when police insist on a search especially if that search yields evidence of a crime.

Last month, a Pennsylvania judge declared that state police didn't have a valid legal reason for searching a car just because it smelled like cannabis, since the front-seat passenger had a medical marijuana card. The search yielded a loaded handgun and a small amount of marijuana in an unmarked plastic baggie evidence the judge suppressed.

"The 'plain smell' of marijuana alone no longer provides authorities with probable cause to conduct a search of a subject vehicle," Lehigh County Judge Maria Dantos wrote, because it's "no longer indicative of an illegal or criminal act." She said that once the passenger presented his medical marijuana card, it was "illogical, impractical and unreasonable" for troopers to conclude a crime had been committed.

Prosecutors have appealed the ruling, arguing the search was legal under recent state Supreme Court precedent. But they acknowledge that marijuana odor is an evolving issue in the courts.

"We want to get it right," said Heather Gallagher, chief of appeals in the district attorney's office. "We need guidance, so law enforcement knows what to do."

Other states' courts have curtailed searches based on odor.

Massachusetts' highest court has said repeatedly that the smell of marijuana alone cannot justify a warrantless vehicle search. In Vermont, the state Supreme Court ruled in January that the "faint odor of burnt marijuana" didn't give state police the right to impound and search a man's car. Colorado's Supreme Court ruled in May that because a drug-detection dog was trained to sniff for marijuana which is legal in the state along with several illegal drugs, police could not use the dog's alert to justify a vehicle search.

"Smell alone is gradually becoming no excuse for getting around the Fourth Amendment," said Keith Stroup, legal director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "It's a major development, and it's going to provide a layer of protection that we lost sometime in the past."

But not every court has ruled against sniff and search.

Maryland's high court quoted the title of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" in ruling last month that police did an unlawful body search of a motorist whose car smelled of marijuana and contained a joint on the center console. But the court also decided that police were entitled to search the car itself, noting that marijuana is still considered contraband despite the state's medical marijuana program, and people have a "diminished expectation of privacy" in an automobile.

Judges have also ruled that marijuana odor can be used in conjunction with other factors to support a search. If the smell is overpowering, for example, an officer might conclude the motorist has a quantity of cannabis far in excess of what's allowed. Driving under the influence of marijuana is illegal in all 50 states, so police are free to search the car of a driver who shows signs of impairment.

The longstanding federal ban on marijuana, and whether a state's marijuana law is broad or narrow in scope, are additional factors that courts have considered, said Alex Kreit, visiting professor at the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at Ohio State University's law school.

On patrol, some officers are taking heed of the changing landscape.

In Michigan, medical marijuana patient Craig Canterbury said he produced his ID card after state police told him they smelled marijuana in his van during a traffic stop last year.

"They looked at the card, made sure it was legal, and that was that," Canterbury said. He said he wouldn't have agreed to a vehicle search "because I had shown we were legal."

When David Boyer, former Maine political director of the Marijuana Policy Project, was pulled over for speeding last year, the officer said she smelled marijuana in his car. Boyer, who said he had consumed cannabis at a friend's house several hours earlier, reminded the officer it was legal in Maine and told her he wasn't under the influence.

"She pushed back a little bit on it but ultimately, I just got the speeding ticket," Boyer said.

The officer didn't ask to search the car.

See the rest here:

In era of legal pot, can police in U.S. search cars based on odor? - Japan Today

By Leif M. Wright

Despite questions of whether it is constitutional to stop drivers who are not suspected of a crime and a controversy about it last year, Muskogee police are again declaring that they will start conducting roadside checkpoints in Muskogee intersections to check for the following crimes:

The department states that the overall goal is to reduce criminal activity and enhance the safety of our motorists.

While the US Supreme Court has found that DUI checkpoints are violating drivers Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search, the court left it up to the states to determine whether to use them anyway. Eleven states have made them illegal, including Texas, but not Oklahoma. In dissenting the US Supreme Court decision, Justice Clarence Thomas said I rather doubt that the framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered reasonable a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.

A roadblock whose primary purpose is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control violate[s] the Fourth Amendment. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 48, 121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000). In addition, the court ruled [A] general roadblock .established on the chance of finding someone who has committed a crime is quite clearly unconstitutional. The decision, which legally called traffic stops seizures, also noted that the general interest in law enforcement simply does not outweigh the liberty interests of those seized, however brief the seizure may be

Muskogee Polices press release about the stops this month states the objective of the roadside safety checks is to deter and/or identify persons operating motor vehicles that are breaking the laws listed above, which falls under the purview of the Supreme Courts decision affirming that such stops are illegal.

Read more:

Muskogee police to again conduct checkpoint stops despite questionable constitutionality - muskogeenow.com

Apart from a more or less common language, the US and UK share a distressing trend the decline of democracy and justifiable popular frustration with politics. You dont need a think-tank to tell you as much, but its worth noting that a 2018 survey by the Pew Research Center found similar rates of dissatisfaction with democracy in both countries: 58 per cent of American respondents and 55 per cent of respondents in Britain had decidedly negative views about the health of their democracies. These percentages seem remarkably low considering parliaments voter-defiant paralysis over Brexit and the lawlessness, chaos and corruption of the Trump Show. But the Pew survey is over a year old; rates of dissatisfaction, if not disgust, should be higher in both countries today, although in the US a lot of people are simply worn out by daily outrages.

But fear and fury, more than weariness, mark the predominant public response to the horrifyingly predictable series of mass shootings and the failure of politicians to enact what many agree are reasonable gun regulations. An unusually strong majority of Americans (89 per cent) support expanded background checks for public and private gun sales; 86 per cent support red flag laws allowing seizures of guns from people found by a court to be dangerous. The Democratic-controlled House has passed a strong background-check bill, but Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has refused to allow a Senate vote on it. Hes waiting for permission from the president, whos waiting for permission from the NRA and, perhaps, his pollsters, or his id.

The irrelevance of public opinion to public officials is surely one sign of democracys decline. But even in our dysfunctional system, the unusually strong bipartisan consensus in favour of regulating gun ownership (at a time of extreme polarisation), may yet produce some legislative results: around eight in 10 Republicans and gun-owning households support background checks. Red-flag laws enjoy bipartisan support in the Senate, as Republican senator Marco Rubio argued in a New York Times op-ed. Corporate America is also beginning to speak out in favour of gun-safety regulations. The CEOs of 145 companies have sent a letter to the Senate calling for action on background checks; Walmart has asked customers not to carry guns in its stores. All things considered, Trump may okay some modest gun laws, and McConnell may allow the Senate to pass them. But gun-safety advocates should hesitate to allow hope to prevail over experience.

How do we account for the chasm between public opinion and political action on guns? For years it has reflected, in part, the political and financial power of the NRA, which is perhaps beginning to wane. But its also a testament to the anti-democratic nature of the US Senate, where conservative Republican, red-state voters enjoy greatly disproportionate representation. Wyoming, for example, with a population of about 600,000, elects two Senators, just like California population of about 40million. The Senate enacts laws and appoints judges governing the entire country, but it often favours the opinions of a small segment of it (which is why federal courts are increasingly hostile to abortion rights). Passage of new gun regulations may depend on the support of conservative, rural gun owners, or at least their diminished opposition.

How stable is the bipartisan consensus on guns? Democrats calling for more controversial measures, like bans on sales of assault weapons and buy-back programmes, will find out. Opposition to what many might consider reasonable gun regulations has long been fuelled by fears that they represent initial steps in a punitive campaign to limit or even prohibit gun ownership. Presidential candidate Beto ORourke threatens to make those fears come true. Responding to a mass shooting in his hometown of El Paso, he has unequivocally called for the confiscation of assault weapons, to the applause of many in the Democratic base.

Absent another political earthquake, ORourke will not be the Democratic nominee, and, in any event, neither the president nor Congress has the constitutional power to confiscate guns. A ban on assault weapons could conceivably pass muster under the Second Amendment, but Fourth Amendment freedoms from unreasonable searches and seizures would and surely should bar law-enforcement officials from barging into private homes looking for weapons to confiscate. So, ORourke will not succeed in seizing assault weapons, but he could manage to lessen bipartisan support for new gun laws. The NRA should send him a thank-you note. Public opinion has to be exceptionally strong and united to prevail in our weak and divided democracy.

Wendy Kaminer is an author, a lawyer and a former national board member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Here is the original post:

America's dysfunctional democracy - Spiked

ABA Journal Web 100, Best Law Blogs (2017); ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2015-16)

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

2003-19,online since Feb. 24, 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit EleventhCircuit D.C. CircuitFederal CircuitForeign Intell.Surv.Ct.FDsys, many district courts, other federal courtsMilitary Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG, SF State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General's site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Oyez Project (NWU) "On the Docket"Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: --Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) --Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) --Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) --Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) --Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy FoundationElectronic Frontier Foundation NACDLs Domestic Drone Information Center Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." Me

I am still learning.Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).

"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government." Shemaya, in the Thalmud

"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth." Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up." Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!---Pep Le Pew

Website design by Wally Waller, Little Rock

The rest is here:

Fourth Amendment

The following is a video transcript.

We have all heard of it, but what does it mean and how does it affect you?

The language of the Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Simply put, the Fourth Amendment stops government agents (usually the police) from searching or seizing a person without first establishing probable cause and securing a warrant from a judge.

Before the Fourth Amendment came into being, Great Britain would use a legal instrument called a Writ of Assistance in the American colonies. These writs functioned as general search and seizure warrants. They had no requirement of what was or who was to be searched or seized. To make matters worse, they never expired and could be transferred from person to person.

These writs allowed the British government broad and general permission to interfere with the private lives of the colonists with no real restrictions. The British government could come and search whoever or whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted to.

The goal of the Fourth Amendment was to restrict government and provide security to Americans against this abuse. This is part of the right of privacy we as Americans enjoy. Today, in order for the government to search or seize something or someone, the general rule is, they must first obtain a warrant based upon probable cause from a neutral magistrate.

In Mapp v. Ohiothe Supreme Court held that any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment would not be admissible in court.

However, over the years courts have been granting more and more leniency on the admissibility of evidence, even if it could be argued that it is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is because the exceptions to the warrant requirement have almost completely swallowed the rule.

This is due in part to advancements in technology. The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has been stretched to its limit for scenarios the Founders probably could not have imagined such as automobiles, computers, electronic mail, and phone metadata.

We have talked about the nearly endless list of ways police can search your car in the past, with theinventory and automobile exceptions, but it is important to know about other types of government encroachment on your right to privacy.

We see a recurring theme when it comes to this kind of governmental interference. A new technology emerges, law enforcement uses this technology, pushing the limits of the Fourth Amendment, and then the courts (sometimes) reign them in.

For example, there have been many cases dealing with cell phone searches. Up until very recently, the police would just search through someones cell phone without a warrant to see what they could find. The courts have now held that to search through someones cell phone, the police must first obtain a warrant.

Another example is the use of infrared. Essentially, police were using thermal imaging to look directly into a persons house and could see people, fixtures within the home, or anything else that puts off a heat signature. Based upon what the police would see during that thermal search, they would then obtain a warrant for a physical search.

However, in Kyllo v. The United States, the Supreme Court held that the use of thermal image devices from a public vantage point to monitor a persons home constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and required a warrant. This is a fast-changing area of the law, and the courts will have to make decisions relating to the use of new technologies as they advance and whether they implicate the Fourth Amendment.

What you need to know: do not give up your Fourth Amendment rights. If an officer says he is going to conduct a search, invoke your rights and do not consent. They may search anyway, but at least now your attorney may be able to get that evidence thrown out in court.

If you have any questions about the Fourth Amendment, call U.S. LawShield and ask to speak with your Independent Program Attorney.

Like Loading...

See the original post:

The Fourth Amendment Search & Seizure - U.S. & Texas ...

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

See the rest here:

Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica.com

Still, it came as a little bit of a surprise last summer, when the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that a weeks worth of cellphone location data records were protected by the Fourth Amendment, despite being stored by a third-party cellphone provider, because an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements. (The court did leave open the possibility that it might be legal for the government to see location data for a shorter period than a week).

In many ways, the Carpenter ruling was a victory for privacy advocates and signaled the Supreme Courts willingness to rein in third-party doctrine a little bit in an era when almost all of our communications are handled by intermediary companies. But it was also a stark reminder of how much our Fourth Amendment protections depend on what we and, more important, what our judges legitimately expect in terms of privacy.

Some Supreme Court justices have been roundly (and often deservedly) mocked for their ignorance about basic everyday technologies, such as text messages and email. But one advantage to having an older, less tech-savvy judiciary is that their ideas about privacy were formed during an earlier era when it might well have been reasonable to expect that the police would not be able to obtain a weeks worth of detailed location information about you.

In United States v. Jones, decided in 2012, the court ruled that a warrant was required to collect someones location data using a GPS device attached to his car. The majority ruling held that the Fourth Amendment applied because it protected the car from being tampered with, but in a concurring opinion Justice Samuel Alito argued that it was actually the location data not the car that deserved Fourth Amendment protection. By way of explanation, he wrote, Societys expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not and indeed, in the main, simply could not secretly monitor and catalog movement of an individuals car for a very long period.

For many people, especially those of us who grew up with ubiquitous location-tracking devices, to say nothing of ubiquitous large-scale data breaches, that is no longer our expectation. Does that mean we lose our Fourth Amendment protections for the information we no longer expect to be secret?

In March, the Senate confirmed Allison Rushings nomination as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. At 36, she became the youngest federal judge in the country. In many ways, a younger and presumably more tech-savvy judiciary is a good thing for deciding cases that revolve around modern technologies. But at the same time, the Supreme Court and other courts have been reluctant to erode the Fourth Amendments protections for data like location information because it seems reasonable to them that people would expect that material to be private. They themselves expect it to be private. As that expectation shifts with a younger judiciary, then so too may those protections.

Today, our ideas about what is and what should be private are changing fast. As we routinely hand over more and more information about ourselves, our communications, our locations and our activities to tech companies, predicating our legal privacy protections on what we expect, rather than what we think people deserve or have a right to, is deeply problematic.

Originally posted here:

Opinion | Losing Our Fourth Amendment Data Protection - The ...