John Krull: The innocents at home, anti-mask tales of purity – Terre Haute Tribune Star

None dare call them hypocrites.

The conservative politicians who oppose Gov. Eric Holcombs statewide mandate that Hoosiers wear masks while in public have the purest histories and the cleanest hands one could imagine. They wouldnt dream of endangering their fellow citizens lives and creating dissension in a time of crisis out of personal pique.

No, no, no.

These guys have unblemished reputations of selfless, unimpeachable devotion to serving both the state and its citizens, uncorrupted by baser considerations or loyalties. They are above such crass motivations.

Take Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, for example.

Hill issued an opinion at the request of several conservative state lawmakers that Holcombs order exceeded his authority. The attorney general devoted at least 15 or 20 seconds of research and analysis to this carefully reasoned argument.

One would expect such diligence and creativity from a man who argued with vehemence that he should remain as attorney general even though his license to practice law had been suspended and Indiana law requires that one be an attorney in good standing to hold the office.

The demands that Hill resign his office came from every corner. The chorus calling for him to leave included most Hoosier Republican officeholders.

But Hill recognized that to honor his duty to the law he must ignore, even break, the law. To do otherwise would be to violate his oaths both as an officer of the court and as the states highest-ranking defender of the law.

So, Curtis Hill stayed fought tooth and nail, in fact, to hold onto his office in the face of unending criticism and censure from the Indiana Supreme Court because his devotion to the law knows no bounds. He knew it would be wrong to deprive Indiana of such a paragon of principled commitment to the rule of law.

No, none dare call them hypocrites.

Then theres Indiana Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour.

Lucas recently found himself on the receiving end of a spanking from his own partys leadership. He lost several key committee assignments because he had posted a racist meme on Facebook a picture of a laughing Black child in what appeared to be a diaper chortling, We gon get free money.

After his trip to the woodshed, Lucas said he was going to leave social media and try to strike a more respectful tone.

That lasted about 90 seconds.

The day after the governor announced the mask mandate, Lucas offered the following calm and reasoned post on Facebook:

Starting Monday, the governor wants to lock me in a cage for 180 days and fine me $1,000 if I dont wear a mask that has no published standards for effectiveness.

What if I dont comply, Governor Eric Holcomb?

The words sat atop a photo of a gun and a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution.

Many people who saw the post called it a threat to the governor and thus a violation of the law. Lucas denied that.

He always does.

Thats because Lucas is like the kid in the band who just knows that everyone but him is marching out of step.

His devotion to the Constitution is depthless. Thats why he likes to berate and shout down citizens who want to exercise their First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances. Thats also why he tried to waive gun owners Fourth Amendment rights a few years back so he could make it possible for them to bring their guns to school.

Hes just following the wisdom of the Vietnam War general who said, In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy the village.

Lucas knows that, to save the Constitution, sometimes one must destroy the Constitution.

No, none dare call them hypocrites.

Eric Holcombs motivations arent nearly so high-minded and complicated. Hes requiring Hoosiers to wear masks because, selfishly, he wants to see fewer of us getting sick and dying.

What a cad.

What a tyrant.

Hill, Lucas and the others who oppose the governors mandate have one other thing in common.

They all say theyre pro-life.

No, none dare call them hypocrites.

John Krull is director of Franklin Colleges Pulliam School of Journalism and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

The rest is here:

John Krull: The innocents at home, anti-mask tales of purity - Terre Haute Tribune Star

Protester in Portland sues Trump for ‘conspiracy to violate the U.S. Constitution’ after alleged attack by feds – Pamplin Media Group

Jeff Paul was allegedly beaten by federal law enforcement while peacefully protesting in Portland.

A Seattle resident is suing president Donald Trump and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf for "conspiracy to violate the U.S. Constitution" after allegedly being beaten by federal law enforcement officers at a Portland protest on July 18.

The lawsuit, first reported by The Oregonian, was filed in U.S. District Court on July 21.

It alleges that Jeff Paul, who works in special education, attended a protest outside the Justice Center when federal officers charged without warning and "viciously beat and mutilated" Paul with a baton. According to court documents, Paul spent the night in a hospital emergency department.

The lawsuit alleges that Wolf and the federal agents who work for him violated Paul's First and Fourth Amendment rights to peacefully protest and from unlawful uses of force. It further alleges that world and federal law enforcement conspired to deprive Paul of his civil rights and failed to prevent that conspiracy.

Trump, Wolf and federal agents also allegedly threatened to violate Paul's First and Fourth Amendment rights with their "their repeated threats to deploy violence against protestors demonstrating against racial injustice generally and in Portland specifically."

The lawsuit cites statements made by Trump on Twitter, such as, "a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them."

Paul is represented pro bono by Michael Fuller, Kelly D. Jones and Jane Moisan. The lawsuit is one of many filed by the team of Portland lawyers on behalf of protesters and homeowners who have been impacted by the law enforcement tactics used at protests.

"As a lawyer, it's disgusting to see the Constitution violated for political purposes," Fuller told the Portland Tribune.

This is the first complaint they've filed against Trump. "This is a rare case where we know that the administration did in fact conspire with other agencies to break the Constitution, and we know that because he's tweeted as much," Fuller said.

Fuller said it will be an uphill battle to sue a sitting president, but Trump has made their job a little easier. "He's just made it very clear that he is employing these federal agents, he's encouraging them to use excessive force, and he's doing it for political reasons," Fuller said.

Fuller said the primary goal of the lawsuit is to get an "order prohibiting Trump from continuing to beat and abuse peaceful protesters for political purposes," as well as an unspecified amount in monetary damages for Paul.

Gina ScalponeReporteremail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts.Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

See the article here:

Protester in Portland sues Trump for 'conspiracy to violate the U.S. Constitution' after alleged attack by feds - Pamplin Media Group

LETTERS TO THE – Central Wisconsin News – Tribune Phonograph

E DITOR Want to stop COVID-19? Start wearing a face mask

To the editor: Many people are confused about face masks because back in April the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) issued statements suggesting they were not needed. Both institutions have changed and now strongly recommend face masks.

There are several reasons for the change, but mostly it is because the coronavirus is constantly evolving and we are learning more about it. We now know the virus is commonly spread simply by people speaking. The virus organisms are expelled from a persons lungs when they speak and can float in the air for as much as eight hours. A face mask prevents some from being expelled and slows those that are so they do not travel as far from the speaker.

That is why social distancing is so important. You have a much greater chance of being infected by standing close to someone that is infected. If the virus cannot infect another individual, it goes through its infectious cycle and appears to die. The vast majority of scientists say if everyone would wear a face mask and use social distancing for two weeks, we could be on the way to beating COVID-19, and cautiously re-opening our businesses and our schools.

In addition to killing some of its victims, we now know COVID-19 affects other organs that can have long, life altering results. We know COVID-19 infects young children and they can pass it on to others. We know that going to parties or attending other social, religious, or governmental gatherings helps to spread COVID-19 and perpetuates the pandemic.

Its simple; you can help re-open our schools and our economy, and you might save your own or someone elses life by wearing a face mask, washing your hands and social distancing. If you do not do these things you are part of the problem.

Mary Luchterhand

Unity

Colby Fire/EMS decides to cancel Aug. 5 banquet

To the editor: You may have heard by now that the Colby Fire Ems Associations banquet has been cancelled. The banquet was going to be Aug. 5.

Due to the uncertain decisions of the Clark and Marathon health departments, we felt this was the best decision at this time. With the number of people who attend and the size of the VFW hall, we could not properly social distance.

Our members will be contacting ticket holders and the businesses that made donations already. Hold on to your tickets so we can refund your money.

If the member that sold you a ticket does not contact you within the next few weeks, please feel free to reach out to them.

We appreciate your understanding and support. We look forward to seeing you in April 2021.

Lin Mueller

Colby Fire/ EMS Association

Poor leadership produces bad results for the U.S.

To the editor: Leaders of the European Common Market and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have several things in common that leave them, and the current condition of their countries, in stark contrast to President Trump.

They have had national requirements for wearing face masks and have enforced social distancing. They instituted economic recovery plans that kept people employed and they enjoyed universal health care that paid medical bills. They have the trust and respect of a majority of their citizens while they work together to defeat a common enemy.

Finally, they invest in, believe in, and work with science.

President Trump said he believes face masks are not important and encouraged people in several states to protest social distancing. The $2 trillion U.S. Economic Recovery plan encouraged extended unemployment and Trump has consistently attempted to gut the Affordable Care Act which provides health care for millions of Americans.

Trump is a nationalist and has refused to work with other countries to defeat COVID-19, first defunding the World Health Organization and then withdrawing from it. He abolished the National Security Councils Pandemic Response Team in 2018, cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control by $690 million, and has never relied on science to help fight COVID-19.

The result of these differences and more is that Canadian and European economies are opening back up while ours is closing down. Coronavirus transmission rates in Canada and Europe are less than 20 per 100,000 while in the U.S. they are greater than 120 per 100,000!

We are still fighting over face masks, enduring an increase in daily deaths and are a nation divided with our economy in chaos with no recovery plan while much of the industrialized world is slowly moving forward. COVID-19 is out of control, our economy is a disaster, and both are due in large part to a terrible lack of leadership by President Trump.

Darlene and Dennis Bucheger Greenwood

President Trump clearly violated U.S. Constitution

To the editor: President Trumps recent actions to deploy federal agents in American cities, against American citizens, violate Article 1, Section 8 and Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

When those agents appeared in uniforms with no agency or personal identifi cation and apprehended a protester, shoving him into an unmarked vehicle without saying where they were taking him or why, they were in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . .

We know Trump admires the most tyrannical dictators in the world and has expressed a desire to have those same dictatorial powers. It should be frightening to anyone concerned with civil liberties, including the right to assemble, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to petition the government as is granted in the First Amendment.

Trump has declared himself to be your law and order president and thinks of himself as a war time president. He has called for the military to be deployed to dominate protesters. His acting secretary for Homeland Security said he is protecting federal property and indicated these agents will be deployed to other American cities.

Despite Congress being in session and no requests from the states, Trump feels free to violate several articles of the most sacred document this country has. Can you imagine what he will do if he is reelected? Conspiracy planners are suggesting the placement of federal troops in cities around the nation as part of Plan B in case he is not re-elected and attempts to stay in office. He is violating fundamental American laws and should be stopped. Where are our representatives in Congress? Their silence is deafening.

Richard A. Slone Neillsville

More:

LETTERS TO THE - Central Wisconsin News - Tribune Phonograph

The Federal Coup to Overthrow the States and Nix the 10th Amendment Is Underway – River Cities Reader

I dont need invitations by the state, state mayors, or state governors, to do our job. Were going to do that, whether they like us there or not. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolfs defense of the Trump Administrations deployment of militarized federal police to address civil unrest in the states

This is a wake-up call.

What is unfolding before our very eyes with police agencies defying local governments in order to tap into the power of federal militarized troops in order to put down domestic unrest could very quickly snowball into an act of aggression against the states, a coup by armed, militarized agents of the federal government.

At a minimum, this is an attack on theTenth Amendment, which affirms the sovereignty of the states and the citizenry, and the right of the states to stand as a bulwark againstoverreach and power grabs by the federal government.

If youre still deluding yourself into believing that this thinly-veiled exercise in martial law is anything other than an attempt to bulldoze what remains of the Constitution and reinforce the iron-fisted rule of the police state, you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

This is no longer about partisan politics or civil unrest or even authoritarian impulses.

This is a turning point.

Unless we take back the reins and soon looking back on this time years from now, historians may well point to the events of 2020 as the death-blow to Americas short-lived experiment in self-government.

The governments recent actions in Portland, Oregon when unidentified federal agents (believed to be border police, ICE, and DHS agents), wearing military fatigues with patches that just say Police and sporting all kinds of weapons,descended uninvited on the city in unmarked vehicles, snatching protesters off the streets,and detaining them without formally arresting them or offering any explanation of why theyre being held is just a foretaste of whats to come.

One of those detainees was a 53-year-old disabled Navy veteran who was in downtown Portland during the protests but not a participant. Concerned about the tactics being used by government agents who had taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, Christopher David tried to speak to the secret police. Almost immediately, he wasassaulted by federal agents, beaten with batons, and pepper-sprayed.

Another peaceful protester wasreportedly shot in the head with an impact weaponby this federal goon squad.

The Trump Administration has already announced its plans todeploy these border patrol agents to other cities across the country(Chicago is supposedly next) in an apparent bid to put down civil unrest. Yet theoverriding concerns by state and local government officialsto Trumps plans suggest that weaponizing the DHS as an occupying army will only provoke more violence and unrest.

Weve been set up.

Under the guise of protecting federal properties against civil unrest, the Trump Administration has formed atask force of secret agents who look, dress, and act like military stormtroopers on a raid and have been empowered to roam cities in unmarked vehicles, snatching citizens off the streets, whether or not theyve been engaged in illegal activities.

As theGuardianreports, The incidents being described sound eerily reminiscent of the CIAs post-9/11 rendition program under George W Bush, where intelligence agents would roll up in unmarked vans in foreign countries, blindfold terrorism suspects (many of whom turned to be innocent), and kidnap them without explanation. Only instead of occurring on the streets of Italy or the Middle East, its happening in downtown Portland.

The so-called racial-justice activists who have made looting, violence, vandalism, and intimidation tactics the hallmarks of their protests have played right into the governments hands.

They have delivered all of us into the police states hands.

Theres a reason Trump has tapped the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for this dirty business: These agencies are notorious for their lawlessness, routinely sidestepping the Constitution and trampling on the rights of anyone who gets in their way, including legal citizens.

Indeed, it was only a matter of time before theseroving bands of border patrol agents began flexing their muscles far beyond the nations borders and exercising their right to disregard the Constitution at every turn.

Except these border patrol cops arent just disregarding the Constitution.

Theyretrampling all over the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government from carrying out egregious warrantless searches-and-seizures without probable cause.

As part of the governments so-called crackdown on illegal immigration, drugs, and trafficking, its border-patrol cops have been expanding their reach,roaming further afield,and subjecting greater numbers of Americans to warrantless searches, I.D. checkpoints, transportation checks, and even surveillance on private property far beyond the boundaries of the borderlands.

That so-called border, once a thin borderline, has become an ever-thickening band spreading deeper and deeper inside the country.

Now, with this latest salvo by the Trump administration in its so-called crackdown on rioting and civil unrest, America itself is about to become a Constitution-free zone where freedom is off-limits and government agents have all the power and we the people have none.

The Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with its more than60,000 employees, supplemented by the National Guard and the U.S. military, is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, a national police-force imbued with all the brutality, ineptitude, and corruption such a role implies.

As journalist Todd Miller explains:

"In these vast domains, Homeland Security authorities can instituteroving patrols with broad, extra-constitutional powers backed by national-security, immigration-enforcement, and drug-interdiction mandates. There, the Border Patrol can set up traffic checkpoints and fly surveillance-drones overhead with high-powered cameras and radar that can track your movements. Within twenty-five miles of the international boundary, CBP agents can enter a persons private property without a warrant."

Just about every nefarious deed, tactic, or thuggish policy advanced by the government today can be traced back to the DHS, its police-state mindset, and thebillions of dollars it distributesto local police agencies in the form of grants to transform them into extensions of the military.

As Miller points out, the government has turned the nations expanding border regions into a ripe place to experiment with tearing apart the Constitution, a place where not just undocumented border-crossers, but millions of borderland residents have become the targets of continual surveillance.

In much the same way that police across the country have been schooled in the art of sidestepping the Constitution, border cops have also been drilled in the art of anything goes in the name of national security.

In fact, according to FOIA documents shared withThe Intercept,border cops even have a checklist of possible behaviors that warrant overriding the Constitutionand subjecting individuals including American citizens to stops, searches, seizures, interrogations, and even arrests.

For instance, if youredriving a vehicle that to a border cop looks unusualin some way, you can be stopped. If yourpassengers look dirtyor unusual, you can be stopped. If you or yourpassengers avoid looking at a cop, you can be stopped. If you or yourpassengers look too long at a cop, you can be stopped.

If youreanywhere near a border(near being within 100 miles of a border, or in a city, or on a bus, or at an airport), you can be stopped and asked to prove youre legally allowed to be in the country. If youretraveling on a public roadthat smugglers and other criminals may have traveled, you can be stopped.

If yourenot driving in the same direction as other cars, you can be stopped. If youappear to be avoiding a police checkpoint, you can be stopped. If yourcar appears to be weighed down, you can be stopped. If yourvehicle is from out of town, wherever that might be, you can be stopped. If youredriving a make of car that criminal-types have also driven, you can be stopped.

If yourcar appears to have been altered or modified, you can be stopped. If thecargo area in your vehicle is covered, you can be stopped.

If youredriving during a time of day or night that border cops find suspicious, you can be stopped. If youredriving when border cops are changing shifts, you can be stopped. If youredriving in a motorcadeor with another vehicle, you can be stopped. If yourcar appears dusty, you can be stopped.

Ifpeople with you are trying to avoid being seen, or exhibiting unusual behavior, you can be stopped. If youslow down after seeing a cop, you can be stopped.

In Portland, which is 400 miles from the border, protesters didnt even have to be near federal buildings to be targeted. Some claimed to be targetedfor simply wearing black clothingin the area of the demonstration.

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

This was never about illegal aliens and border crossings at all. Its been a test to see how far we the people will allow the government to push the limits of the Constitution.

Weve been failing this particular testfor a long timenow.

It was 1798 when Americans, their fears stoked by rumblings of a Quasi-War with France, failed to protest theAlien and Sedition Acts, which criminalized anti-government speech, empowered the government to deport dangerous non-citizens and made it harder for immigrants to vote.

During the Civil War, Americans went along when Abraham Lincolnsuspended the writ of habeas corpus(the right to a speedy trial) and authorized government officials to spy on Americans mail.

During World War I, Americans took it in stride when President Woodrow Wilson and Congress adopted the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to interfere with the war effort andcriminalized any speech critical of war.

By World War II, Americans were marching in lockstep with the governments expanding war powers to imprison Japanese-American citizens in detainment camps, censor mail, andlay the groundwork for the future surveillance state.

Fast-forward to theCold Wars Red Scares, the McCarthy eras hearings on un-American activities, and the governments surveillance of Civil Rights activistssuch as Martin Luther King Jr all done in the name of national security.

By the time 9/11 rolled around, all George WBush had to do was claim the country was being invaded by terrorists, and the government was givengreater powers to spy, search, detain, and arrestAmerican citizensin order to keep America safe.

The terrorist invasion never really happened, but the government kept its newly-acquired police powers made possible by the nefarious USA Patriot Act.

Barack Obama continued Bushs trend of undermining the Constitution, going so far as to givethe military the power to strip Americans of their constitutional rights, label them extremists, and detain them indefinitely without trial,all in the name ofkeeping America safe.

Despite the fact that the breadth of the militarys power to detain American citizens violates not only U.S. law and the Constitution but also international laws, the government has refused to relinquish its detention powers made possible by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Then Donald Trump took office, claiming the country was being invaded by dangerous immigrants and insisting that the only way to keep America safe was to build an expensive border wall, expand the reach of border patrol, andempower the military to assist with border control.

That so-called immigration crisis has now morphed into multiple crises (domestic extremism, the COVID-19 pandemic, race wars, civil unrest, etc.) that the government is eager to use in order to expand its powers.

Yet as weve learned the hard way, once the government acquires and uses additional powers (to spy on its citizens, to carry out surveillance, to transform its police forces into extensions of the police, to seize tax-payer funds, to wage endless wars, to censor and silence dissidents, to identify potential troublemakers, to detain citizens without due process), it does not voluntarily relinquish them.

This is the slippery slope on which weve been traveling for far too long.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder explains, This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regimes, whether its Francos Spain or whether its the Russian Empire.The people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.

Sure, its the Trump Administration calling the shotsright now, but itsgovernment agentsarmed with totalitarian powers and beholden to the bureaucratic Deep State who are carrying out these orders in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and all it represents.

Whether its Trump or Biden or someone else altogether, this year or a dozen years from now, the damage has been done: As I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American People, we have allowed the president to acquire dictatorial powers that can be unleashed at any moment.

Theres a reason the Trump Administration isconsulting with John Yoo, the Bush-era attorney notorious for justifying waterboarding torture-tactics against detainees. Theyre not looking to understand how to follow the law and abide by the Constitution. Rather, theyre desperately seeking ways to thwart the Constitution.

As Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe recognizes, The dictatorial hunger for power is insatiable.

This is how it begins.

This is how it always begins.

Dont be fooled into thinking any of this will change when the next election rolls around.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president ofThe Rutherford Institute.

Read more:

The Federal Coup to Overthrow the States and Nix the 10th Amendment Is Underway - River Cities Reader

The Majority of Americans Oppose Qualified Immunity. Where Is Congress? – Reason

A majority of Americans now support police reform measures like chokehold bans, demilitarization of domestic law enforcement, and the prioritization of investigating violent crimes instead of misdemeanor offenses.*

But, perhaps more significantly, a Pew poll recently found two-thirds of Americans oppose qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that makes it difficult to sue police officers when they violate your rights. Until recently, discussion of qualified immunity was confined largely to legal circles and to magazines like Reason.Now, it appears the doctrineand opposition to ithave simultaneously gone mainstream.

Qualified immunity shields public officials from being held liable in federal civil suits if their misconduct did not exist near-identically in a court precedent prior to the alleged incident. Created by Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), the doctrine has stripped Americans of their right to sue civil servants even in the most egregious of instances.

In theory, the doctrine provides public officials with fair warning of what is and is not acceptable conduct and thereby allows them to do their jobs without fear of being sued. How does the doctrine actually work? Let's consider the case of two cops from Fresno, California, who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant.

When deciding if the victims would be allowed to sue the officers, the judiciary condemned the stealing as indefensible but still protected the officers from any lawsuits. Although "the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong," wrote the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, it decided that the officers "did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment."

Put more plainly: You and I know stealing is wrong, and the cops definitely should've known stealing is wrong. But even if they did know that, they couldn't be held liable for violating the Fourth Amendment protections against government theft because there was no specific legal precedent declaring that it is unconstitutional for cops in a situation exactly like theirs to steal from the people they are sworn to protect and serve.

There are plenty of examples of qualified immunity protecting awful government behavior: The sheriff's deputy who shot a 10-year-old;the cop who shot a 15-year-old; the officers who assaulted and arrested a man for standing outside of his own house; the prison guards who locked a naked inmate in cells filled with raw sewage and "massive amounts" of human feces; the cops who sicced a police dog on a surrendering suspect;the officer who body-slammed a 130-pound woman after she disobeyed his command to "get back there."

But while Americans appear to see the very obvious and well-documented issues with qualified immunity, Congressthe branch of government best positioned to abolish the practicewon't touch the topic with a 10-foot pole.

The legislative stagnation isn't for lack of trying. Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.) introduced legislation to eliminate qualified immunity. With Rep. Ayanna Pressley (DMass.) as his co-sponsor, the bill eventually picked up Republican support. Sen. Mike Braun (RInd.) followed suit and crafted his own legislation, which would grant qualified immunity only to officers whose conduct is expressly permitted by federal regulation, federal statutes, state statutes, or case lawessentially the opposite of the current approach.

President Donald Trump has dismissed these efforts to reform qualified immunity as unworthy of his consideration. He is the law-and-order president, and even though qualified immunity is an insult to both law and order, it is also an insult to police unions.

Should presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden win in November, it's not completely clear what he would do on the issue. "Vice President Biden thinks qualified immunity has gone too far and needs to be severely reined in," says Jamal Brown, National Press Secretary for the Biden campaign. "It should not protect officers who abuse their power." That statement echoes Biden's "Unity Task Force" recommendations, which were drawn up in coordination with Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.).

The former vice president has not offered concrete details on how his reforms will distinguish between officials who deserve protection from federal civil lawsuits, but his track record suggests he will go (almost) wherever center-leftists tell him to. In this case, everyone to the left of Trump overwhelmingly supports sunsetting the doctrine.

For now, though, it appears qualified immunity is poised to meet a rather typical fate, in that it will likely stay exactly as it is.

CORRECTION: The original version of this piece misstated the third poll's findings. A majority of Americans support prioritizing violent crimes over misdemeanor crimes, not victimless crimes.

View original post here:

The Majority of Americans Oppose Qualified Immunity. Where Is Congress? - Reason

Oregon sues US agencies over protest arrests; what gave feds authority to intervene? – ABA Journal

Constitutional Law

By Debra Cassens Weiss

July 20, 2020, 11:00 am CDT

Image from Shutterstock.com.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum alleged in a lawsuit Friday that federal agencies dispatched to Portland, Oregon, demonstrations are violating protesters constitutional rights.

The lawsuit says federal officers are driving in unmarked vehicles, wearing military fatigues with patches marked police and detaining protesters without stating a reason.

The Washington Post, the Oregonian and Oregon Public Broadcasting have stories; a press release is here.

Defendants are injuring the occupants of Portland by taking away citizens ability to determine whether they are being kidnapped by militia or other malfeasants dressed in paramilitary gear (such that they may engage in self-defense to the fullest extent permitted by law) or are being arrested (such that resisting might amount to a crime), the suit says.

The suit cites the July 15 detention of Mark Pettibone, who says he was confronted by armed men dressed in camouflage, pushed into a van, placed in a cell and read his Miranda rights. He was released without any paperwork or record of his arrest, the suit says.

The suit alleges violations of the First Amendment right to protest racial inequality, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Defendants in the suit are the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Protective Service.

The agents were sent to Portland to protect federal property as a result of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, the New York Times reports. Officials cited the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which gives Customs and Border Protection the authority to deputize federal agents to help the Federal Protective Service protect federal property.

Other federal laws allow arrests away from federal property if a federal crime is committed, Peter Vincent, former principal legal adviser for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told the New York Times.

Homeland Securitys authorities are so extraordinarily broad that they can find federal laws that they are authorized to enforce across the spectrum, so long as it has some national security, public safety, human trafficking, criminal street gang conspiracy, Vincent said.

Usually, federal agents are sent to a local jurisdiction in response to a request by officials there; Portlands mayor and Oregons governor oppose federal intervention.

The suit seeks an injunction requiring federal agents to identify themselves and their agency before detaining or arresting any protester, to explain the reason for the detention or arrest, and to stop making arrests without probable cause or a warrant.

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon also took legal action Friday by adding federal agencies as defendants to a suit filed against local law enforcement on behalf of journalists and legal observers, according to a press release.

A federal judge has already blocked local law enforcement from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest or using physical force against journalists or legal observers at protests. The suit asks the judge to expand the order to block those actions by federal agents.

The rest is here:

Oregon sues US agencies over protest arrests; what gave feds authority to intervene? - ABA Journal

Can use of force restrictions change police behavior? Heres what we know – PBS NewsHour

The phrase I cant breathe used by both Eric Garner and George Floyd in their fatal encounters with police has become a rallying cry for a nationwide movement demanding an end to excessive use of force by police.

In the wake of Floyds death, there has been a renewed call from reform advocates to restrict police use of force. But measuring the impact of different restrictions can be complicated, making it hard to get a clear picture of whether they are effective. Some officers have also expressed concern that significant limitations may jeopardize their safety or prevent them from doing their jobs effectively.

Some cities are proposing additional regulations to their use of force policies. Others are implementing trainings on bias or de-escalation. President Donald Trump issued an executive order on policing last month that calls for a federal database to track incidents of excessive use of force. Two pieces of legislation introduced in Congress, also in June one by House Democrats and another by Senate Republicans sought to limit chokeholds and encourage different training and alternatives to force.

Researchers said that what the country knows about how police use force, as well as the success of proposals to reduce it, is limited. What is considered an unnecessary use of force can be different from department to department. Federal and state data tracking use of force is lacking, and the quality of policies and training what skills or techniques they emphasize also varies.

The U.S. has more than 12,000 local law enforcement agencies, and none are required to report use of force incidents to the Justice Department.

In recent years, the federal government has made efforts to collect more data on police use of force, but participation is voluntary. The FBIs National Use-of-Force Data Collection project, launched in 2019, received submissions from 40 percent of police agencies. The findings of the information gathered so far have not yet been published.

Most states do not have a standardized system for police departments to report use of force, said Seth Stoughton, an associate professor of law at the University of South Carolina who worked as a police officer in Florida for five years.

We really dont have any comprehensive data federally or at a state level, Stoughton said, adding that the available federal data is wildly inaccurate. The most comprehensive tracking of police use of force or fatal encounters do not come from the federal government, he said, but rather from journalists.

In 2015, the Washington Post began tracking fatal shootings by on-duty police officers across the country. Between 2015 and 2020, the Post found more than 5,000 fatal officer-involved shootings. But not every fatal encounter involves a shooting, as exhibited in the cases of Garner and Floyd.

MORE: Why police unions are so powerful and what that means for reform

A report from the Guardian found that police killed 1,093 people in 2016, of whom 1,011 died of gunshot wounds. Another comprehensive database, by NJ Advance Media, tracked five years worth of use-of-force reports 72,677 in total from every local police department in New Jersey. Among the projects findings: Ten percent of police officers accounted for 38 percent of all instances of use of force.

These three investigations do not assess whether force was justified in any of the cases.

Research indicates that of the roughly 60 million police-civilian encounters in the U.S. each year, about 1.8 percent may involve use of force, Stoughton said, but states and departments do not have uniform definitions of force and what interactions officers are required to report. Lower level uses of force like a shove or tackle to the ground are more likely to go unreported, Stoughton said.

The variation between police jurisdictions underscores the need for a national database to provide a centralized way to identify and compare trends, said Kami Chavis, a professor and director of the criminal justice program at Wake Forest University School of Law.

Demonstrators walk towards the White House and away from the U.S. Capitol Building during a protest against the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd, in Washington, U.S., June 6, 2020. Picture taken June 6, 2020. Photo by Lucas Jackson/Reuters.

Researchers who spoke with the NewsHour said disparities exist in how police use force against people from different racial groups, but measuring these differences is complicated. Many studies analyze police killings against nationwide Census data, while some try to account for crime rates in a particular area.

The Washington Post report found that fatal police shooting rates were twice as high among Black Americans as they were among white Americans, and Hispanic Americans had the second highest rate of fatal police encounters. An analysis from The Guardian found that in 2016 police killed Native Americans at the highest rates (10.13 per million people), followed by Black people (6.66 per million). The rate for Latino people was 3.23 per million, and 2.9 per million for white people. The NJ Advance Media investigation concluded that statewide in New Jersey, a Black person was more than three times more likely to face police use of force. And a 2019 national study from university researchers found that Black people are 2.5 times more likely than white people to be killed by police.

One Bureau of Justice Statistics survey determined that in 2015, reported rates of nonfatal threats or uses of force were also higher for Black and Hispanic people 3.3 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively compared to 1.3 percent for white people.

But its hard to measure racial disparities, in part because every case has a unique set of circumstances, said Robin Engel, director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police/University of Cincinnati Center for Police Research and Policy. Simply taking the total number of Black people killed by police and comparing it to their overall population size is not a good comparison because it removes the situational factors that may play a role in the use of force, Engel said.

Im not claiming that [racial disparities] are not real. They are. Its very clear there are racial and ethnic disparities, Engel said. But the reasons for those disparities is what we really need to better understand as social scientists so that we can better inform the solutions.

One of the strongest predictors of whether police use force is civilian resistance, she said. Use of force is also more likely when officers are engaged in enforcement activities like making an arrest, Stoughton said. However, these predictors do not speak to different reasons people of color might be more likely to encounter an officer in the first place.

Its very clear there are racial and ethnic disparities, but the reasons for those disparities is what we really need to better understand as social scientists.

These reasons can include disparate decision making in how police are assigned to different neighborhoods, as well as whether and why people choose to call the police, Stoughton said. Incidents of Black people having the police called on them while sleeping on their university campuses, barbecuing and birdwatching, among other activities, have gained national attention. Numerous high-profile cases of police killings also involve Black people who were unarmed and engaged in nonviolent, low-level offenses.

Some of this behavior can be explained by racial bias, said Jennifer Eberhardt, a Stanford University psychologist and leading researcher on the science of bias. In a series of studies, she found that a group of police officers and a group of graduate students were each more likely to associate Black faces rather than white faces with images and words related to crime, such as knives or guns.

One California police chief told the NewsHour he believes racial disparities can be a problem in policing, but added that officers face a difficult task when making split second decisions about whether to investigate a potential crime or to walk away.

Ultimately its about communicating the role the police have and the job of trying to maintain public safety, said John Perez, chief of the Pasadena Police Department and research fellow with the National Police Foundation.

To assist with this goal, Perezs department began working with a nonprofit in 2018 called Whyd You Stop Me, which seeks to foster positive civilian-police interactions by dispelling misconceptions about police to the community and training officers to understand community issues.

A memorial to George Floyd, who died after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into his neck on May 25, is lit by morning light one month later in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. June 25, 2020. Photo by REUTERS/Nicholas Pfosi

Currently, 36 states have laws regulating lethal and non-lethal force, Stoughton and other researchers wrote in a piece for The Atlantic. More than three-quarters of those statutes were adopted in the 1970s, and most have not been amended recently, according to their findings.

For states without statutes, courts have the discretion to interpret use of force cases. Courts often evaluate use of force by referring to the Fourth Amendment, which is meant to regulate seizures, Stoughton said.

In recent years, some police departments and states have moved to limit officers use of force. One notable example is Cincinnati, which entered into an agreement with the Justice Department in 2002 that mandated sweeping changes to the citys police department, including restrictions on use of force. Engels research found that between 1999 and 2014, Cincinnati saw a 69 percent decline in police use-of-force incidents, a 56 percent reduction in citizen injuries during police encounters and a 42 percent decrease in citizen complaints

The city of Camden, New Jersey, dissolved and rebuilt its police force in 2014. In 2019, Camden police adopted an 18-page policy that emphasized de-escalation and authorized deadly force only as a last resort.

It started with two real principles that were laid as the cornerstones for how we would use force. One is that the sanctity of human life underpins everything that we do, Scott Thomson, the citys police chief until 2019, told the PBS NewsHour Weekends Hari Sreenivasan. We review every incident of force thats used with multiple layers of review from first line supervisor to the commander, to an internal affair review to the training unit review.

Camden found that civilian excessive force complaints declined by 95 percent from a peak of 65 complaints in 2014 to three complaints in 2019.

After the 2018 police shooting death of Stephon Clark, a 22-year-old Black man, California enacted one of the countrys strictest use-of-force laws, which only allows police to use deadly force in the necessary defense of the officers or another persons life. That same year, Pasadena police chief Perez implemented a 30-day review requirement for all use of force incidents in his department, which he said allows them to more quickly identify and discuss potentially unnecessary use of force incidents. Between 2018 and 2020, Perez said the number of use of force incidents decreased by 50 percent.

Tennessee, Delaware and Iowa also have laws that require officers to exhaust other reasonable means before using deadly force. And in the weeks since George Floyds death, several states and cities have moved to make changes such as banning chokeholds or no-knock warrants, Chavis of Wake Forest said.

Now is the time for a meaningful change so that no one, especially black men and women, has to ever again think that could have been me, Isaiah McKinnon, a retired chief of the Detroit Police Department, wrote in a USA Today piece that recounted his experience being stopped by one of his own officers.

READ MORE: Body cameras are seen as key to police reform. But do they increase accountability?

But a policy change is one of many things that may affect officer behavior, and may not change the rate of fatal encounters, Stoughton said. For example, he pointed out that the available data between 2015 and 2018 suggests officers killed more people per capita in Tennessee (about 3.6 per million people) than in Florida (2.9 per million), a state that gives broad authorization for officers to use deadly force.

Evidence indicates that in order for administrative policies to change officer behavior, the policy must clearly dictate what officers can and cannot do, must be widely communicated, and must be enforced, said Michael White, a professor at Arizona State Universitys School of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

Police disperse protesters rallying against the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd, in Portland, Oregon, U.S. June 13, 2020. Picture taken June 13. REUTERS/Terray Sylvester

A 2016 report by the Use of Force Project looked at 91 police departments and assessed eight different force-related policies various departments had in place. Among these, the report found the policies most effective at reducing police-involved killings were those that require comprehensive reporting of when officers use force (25 percent reduction), those that require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before using a firearm (25 percent reduction), and those that ban chokeholds and strangleholds (22 percent reduction).

The report found that police departments that had implemented four or more of the eight policies had 37 percent fewer police-involved killings than those with zero or one policy in place, and that departments with all eight policies in place would kill 72 percent fewer people, on average, between 2015 and 2016.

When it comes to bias or de-escalation training, research on their efficacy is virtually non-existent. Over the last decade police departments have shown a growing interest in both styles of training to mitigate use of force or address racial disparities. As of 2017, 16 states required officers to have de-escalation training, according to American Public Media, eight of which enacted the policies after the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. A CBS News report found that 57 percent of 155 police departments it contacted had implemented racial bias training in the five years since Browns death.

In January of this year, Engel and other researchers published a systematic review of studies that look at the effectiveness of de-escalation training. And do you know how many we found for policing? None, Engel said. Not one study had been conducted to examine the impact of de-escalation training on officer attitudes or behavior.

Of the 64 studies examining de-escalation training for other industries like nursing and psychiatry, Engel said the quality of the methodology was not strong, but the findings showed slight-to-moderate individual and organizational improvements as a result of the training. Based on this and anecdotal evidence, theres reason to be optimistic about de-escalation training, Engel said.

READ MORE: How a VP with law enforcement experience could help Biden win over moderate voters

On bias, theres hardly any study on the effectiveness of training, Eberhardt said. Furthermore, she said, evidence indicates that simply becoming aware of a bias does not change behavior.

The composition and quality of the training varies, said Lorie Fridell, CEO of Fair and Impartial Policing, a company that has provided bias training to officers in New York City, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Arlington, Texas and others. For Eberhardt, the most effective programs look to disrupt circumstances that may trigger bias. Fridell said her focus isnt about eliminating bias but instead managing bias. Both strategies may involve prompting police to ask certain questions of themselves to figure out why they are engaging a particular civilian.

Rather than simply informing people about the conditions under which bias is most likely to occur, we should be actually working to change those conditions, Eberhardt said.

Fridell said the attitudes of officers in her companys bias training range somewhere between defensive and outright hostile. But when she approaches bias as a human and societal problem rather than just a police problem, they become much more receptive, she said.

Bias and de-escalation training has received more broad support from law enforcement and lawmakers, but officers have voiced frustration over use-of-force restrictions and disciplinary action taken against them for using force. In 2019, the Crime and Justice Institute released a report on focus groups conducted with police officers in Baltimore. The summary said officers fear and believe that too many documented uses of force will be used as evidence against them and result in disciplinary action, a criminal investigation, or restrict reassignment and advancement within the department. It added that the officers said they felt less safe on the job and apprehensive about when to use force.

Perez of the Pasadena Police Department said he respects the Black Lives Matter movements calls for reform but he also understands some of the anxieties officers may have regarding strict limitations. Rigid policies that dont take into account the challenges of policing could make officers hesitate to take actions to protect themselves during a confrontation, Perez said. It could go too far, Perez said. It requires so much more discussion to make the changes that we need. We have to get the empirical evidence and look at it to protect the young officers who are working in the streets.

Advocates, however, continue to push forward with proposals for sweeping systemic changes. As conversations about policing continue, Eberhardt said, it will take more than training or restrictions on excessive use of force, but they are an important start, she said. Its about addressing the entire context under which these police-civilian interactions occur.

See original here:

Can use of force restrictions change police behavior? Heres what we know - PBS NewsHour

Judge refuses to dismiss claims Balch Springs police violated rights of murdered teen Jordan Edwards – The Dallas Morning News

A federal district judge on Monday denied a motion from the city of Balch Springs to dismiss claims that the citys police department violated the constitutional rights of a group of teenagers that includes Jordan Edwards, a 15-year-old who was shot and killed by one of the citys police officers in 2017.

Edwards was leaving a party on the night of April 29, 2017 with his friends, Maxwell and Maximus Everette, and his brothers, Vidal Allen and Kevon Edwards, when former Balch Springs police officer Roy Oliver shot into the car five times. One of the bullets hit Jordan Edwards in the head, killing him, while the other teenagers in the car were detained and not told why, according to court documents.

Oliver was convicted of murder in 2018 and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Family members of the five teenagers filed a motion July 2 asking for the city to be held liable for allowing the Balch Springs Police Department to promote an unconstitutional use-of-force policy and failing to train, supervise and discipline its officers, claiming the policies violated the teenagers Fourth Amendment rights.

Joe Tooley, the attorney representing the City of Balch Springs, said the city filed motion to dismiss the claims each time they were entered by the families. He said he didnt feel the pleadings were adequate to move forward in court.

Its not untypical, many federal cases go through the state, and some get dismissed and some dont, and we just have to now proceed with the next step and defending the allegations, he said.

In the motion, the families argue that the departments use-of-force policy is unconstitutional because it doesnt specify that force may only be used when an officer is in immediate danger, and that it allows an officer to consider subjective factors when deciding how much force to use.

A district judge originally granted multiple requests from the city to dismiss various versions of the motion, but the families were allowed to amend their filing each time.

The district judge will set a date for the case to be held before a jury trial once all other motions are decided, court documents state.

Go here to read the rest:

Judge refuses to dismiss claims Balch Springs police violated rights of murdered teen Jordan Edwards - The Dallas Morning News

East Bay Homeless Living On Caltrans Property May Be Entitled To Cash – KALW

Homeless people in the East Bay may be entitled to compensation for belongings confiscated during unannounced cleanup sweeps.

If your stuff was removed by an East Bay cleanup crew between 2014 to 2019, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) may owe you money.

Thats because non-profit advocates filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the homeless in 2016, claiming Caltrans violated their Fourth Amendment rights.

Instead of duking it out in court, Caltrans and the advocates agreed to settle.

In February, an Alameda County Superior Court judge approved a $2 million settlement against the agency, including $1.3 million, which is allocated to people who had their property destroyed. The rest of the money is slated to go towards the nonprofit organization Homeless Action Center.

If you were one of those people, you may be entitled to $200 to $5,500. The settlement also requires Caltrans to start posting notices 48 hours before future sweeps. The claim filing process opened up last week. And the settlement is in effect for seven years.

Here's a link to the claim form.

View post:

East Bay Homeless Living On Caltrans Property May Be Entitled To Cash - KALW

As journalism jobs decrease, the future of the discipline might depend on general education – Poynter

Recent racist incidents and police violence have been caught on video, uploaded to social media and viewed millions of times, sparking protests and outrage and accelerating diversity agendas at colleges and universities.

In most of those incidents, the photographer was not a reporter but a bystander or victim of abuse themselves.

Reporters have been arrested in record numbers covering protests associated with the May 25 killing of George Floyd. Some 10,000 mostly peaceful protesters have been arrested and assaulted, too, with many such incidents caught on tape. In an op-ed in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, I ask, What makes a journalist, the person or the device?

Increasingly, I argue, it is the device.

In the hands of a journalist, however, or a civilian who knows reporting basics, you double its power.

Power is at the core of controversies about police brutality. Smartphone technology has empowered civilians whose photographs and videos undermine the authority of law enforcement, at times exposing lies, racist agendas and prosecutorial negligence.

Police departments rely on video and security cameras for traffic control, license plate recognition and crime detection. But when the lens is turned on them, they often are less enthusiastic.

Units equipped with body cameras may not release videos to the public or wait months to do so, as was the case in the killing of Elijah McClain. He had done nothing illegal but was wearing a mask while on an errand to pick up iced tea for his brother.

The issue here is accountability and transparency, key tenets of journalism. Reporters are watchdogs over government and file freedom of information requests to foster openness. They embrace the credo of afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.

These are lessons for everyone.

In 2005, Wired ran an article with that maxim:

When man bites dog, whos the first to report it? Dont assume its your local paper or CNN. These days, our man on the scene is often a swarm of amazingly prolific nonprofessionals posting up-to-the-minute stories and pictures of breaking news from their laptops.

When I first read this, I was skeptical, fearing so-called citizen reporters would undermine the credibility of journalism. A month after the Wired piece, I wrote The Media World as It Is for Inside Higher Ed:

(T)he promise of technology that it would build social networks, democratize news and generally enhance information in two-way flows has always hinged on the presumption of readily available and verifiableinformation. What are the consequences, not only for media, but for academe, when opinion displaces fact?

I was worried about fake news years before President Donald Trump claimed to have invented that term.

But my own opinion has changed as technology became more powerful, mobile and ubiquitous in the form of a cellphone, especially the iPhone, which first made its debut in 2007.

Apples inaugural device included many features we still use every day, such a web browser, email, text messaging, music and video players, and maps applications. It also came with a first-generation YouTube default app.

By 2009, YouTube was registeringmore than a billion views per day. Now there are more than 2 billion users.

The power of cellphones is epic. We call them smartphones for a reason. The2020 iPhone 11 Pro Max boasts a 12-megapixel ultra-wide, wide angle, and telephoto lens. Its video is as sharp as any network television camera, with a processor and neural engine capable delivering more than 1 trillion operations per second.

It can capture just about anything within a 120-degree field of view.

The increasing power of cellphones coincided with the decreasing presence of reporters. They are not yet extinct, but on societys endangered species list. Between 2008 and 2020, U.S.newsrooms lost half of their employees, according to Pew Research Center.

News deserts are popping up all over. As Penelope Muse Abernathy, Knight Chair in Journalism and Digital Media Economics at the University of North Carolina, notes in News Deserts And Ghost Newspapers: Will Local News Survive?:

Many of the countrys 6,700 surviving papers have become ghost newspapers mere shells of their former selves, with greatly diminished newsrooms and readership. The loss of both journalists and circulation speaks to the declining influence of local newspapers, and raises questions about their long-term financial viability in a digital era.

The choice is obvious: Bemoan journalisms decline or inspire thousands of opinionated but omnipresent smartphone users. I embrace the latter. They may be the only option left to hold government and law enforcement in check.

They also have cellphones. Increasingly they document racism under the genre while being Black with African Americans insulted, threatened or arrested doing everyday things. Earlier this year Amy Cooper, a white woman, threw a viral tantrum and called police after a Black birdwatcher in Central Park asked her to leash her dog.

These frequent encounters are becoming more ominous. In June, Mark and Susan McCloskey brandished weapons at protesters who passed their palatial home in St. Louis. Another white couple, Jillian and Eric Wuestenberg, were charged with felonious assault in a parking lot incident during which Jillian pointed a gun at a Black mother and her 15-year-old daughter.

Because cellphones recorded each incident, consequences ensued. Cooper lost her job at an investment corporation and faces misdemeanor charges. Eric Wuestenberg was fired from his support staff position at Oakland University. The McCloskeys were each charged with one count of unlawful use of a weapon.

These videos are deeply troubling, but the one shot by 17-year-old Darnella Frazier was horrifying. Some called the documented killing of George Floyd a state-sponsored execution.

Frazier was on a grocery store run with her 9-year-old cousin when she saw Floyd being arrested. She used her cellphone to capture former police officer Derek Chauvin with his knee on Floyds neck, killing him.

Fraziers lawyer, Seth Cobin, told the BBC, She felt she had to document it. Its like the civil rights movement was reborn in a whole new way, because of that video.

The comment about civil rights reverberates in former reporters of that era. The primary goal in the 1960s and early 1970s was equal treatment in all aspects of society for African Americans. I covered protests by the American Indian Movement whose leaders, including Dennis Banks and Russell Means, sought economic independence, preservation of native culture, autonomy over tribal areas and restoration of stolen lands.

Civil rights and liberties are fundamental aspects of journalism education, which utilizes case law associated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, among other statutes.

Civil liberties are associated with the Constitution.

Every journalism graduate should know freedoms of the First Amendment press, speech, religion, assembly and petition as well as unlawful seizures of the Fourth Amendment and due process of the Fourteenth.

Those liberties are at the heart of a federal lawsuit filed against the city of Minneapolis and its police department for actions against reporters covering George Floyd protests. The suit alleges that reporters were assaulted and arrested by police without cause, all after these journalists identified themselves and were otherwise clearly engaged in their reporting duties.

Protesters have the same rights as reporters, according to 42 U.S. Code 1983, which protects citizens from being deprived of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution.Any entity violating that law can be held liable in class actions.

Everyone should know that.

But does everyone need journalism? I think they do.

And yet, journalism rarely is on the list of required courses in colleges and universities. That has to do in part with the history of general education. Originally, in the early 19th century, it sought to complete the liberal education of the aristocracy. In the 1960s, it attempted to make liberal education more accessible to nontraditional students. The culture wars of the 1980s heightened consciousness about feminism and canons of underrepresented groups. More recently, general education exploded with dozens of courses based on budget models rewarding departmental enrollment.

Nevertheless, gen-ed courses still fall under the usual umbrellas of humanities, social sciences, and math and physical/biological sciences.

Rarely will you find journalism in the mix. Many reporting courses are skill-based and excluded on that basis. Journalism is neither humanities nor social sciences; it is one or the other and sometimes both. Courses like media history clearly fall in the humanities camp; others like public affairs reporting in the social sciences group; and science communication in both.

General education includes survey, theory and concept classes. When viewed in that manner, several journalism courses easily adapt.

They also may be popular. Americans on average use smartphones about 5.4 hours per day. The 16-24 demographic interacts on social media about 3 hours per day. As such, general education students would benefit from courses in news/media literacy, cultivating the next generation of news consumers who possess the ability to spot fake news and dis/misinformation.

A survey course in media law and ethics also might enlighten students about rights, liberties and precedents, all of which are vital for future generations seeking change.

A theory class in world press systems might expand and diversify knowledge. Specialized courses might be popular, too, such as History of the Black Press, Social Media and Change or Gone Viral: Videos That Made History.

Journalism education has focused for decades on graduates securing media jobs. As those decrease, along with enrollments, the future of the discipline might depend more on general education. But the case here is about democracy, accountability, transparency and empowerment.

Without a robust news industry monitoring government and investigating the corporate elite, our only hope may be in the hands of the people, literally and figuratively.

Michael Bugeja, distinguished professor of journalism at Iowa State University of Science and Technology, teaches media ethics and technology and social change. He can be reached at bugeja@iastate.edu.

This article was originally published on July 22.

See the article here:

As journalism jobs decrease, the future of the discipline might depend on general education - Poynter

Trenton cop found a flask inside a councilwoman’s car after crash, tried covering it up – The Trentonian

TRENTON City police officer Derek Simpson made a startling discovery in the glove compartment of councilwoman Marge Caldwell-Wilsons vehicle earlier this year a silver flask.

Finding a flask often used to store alcohol may have raised another officers suspicion that Caldwell-Wilson could have been under the influence during a Feb. 2 two-vehicle crash along Route 129 in the capital city.

Not Simpson.

Not only did he not mention the flask in a report that he filed with findings of the crash investigation, but body-worn camera footage that The Trentonianhad to sue to uncover showed Simpson purposely hiding the flask from being captured on another officers body-worn camera.

Simpson found the flask while securing Caldwell-Wilsons personal belongings and searching the glove box for her insurance and registration.

The video later captured Simpson, a 21-year veteran, calling over Trenton cop Anthony Cariola to show him what he uncovered in Caldwell-Wilsons car.

Turn that way, Simpson told Cariola, who was also outfitted with a body-worn camera.

Once Cariola positioned his body camera away from his colleague, Simpson showed him the flask.

Cariola appeared surprised but did not utter a word before walking off.

Screengrab of bodycam footage shows a Trenton police officer showing a flask to another officer that he found in the car of Trenton Councilwoman Marge Caldwell-Wilson after she was involved in a crash.

Apparently, Simpson who was standing behind his patrol cruiser door was unaware that he did not hold the flask high enough out of view that it couldnt be seen on his own body-worn camera.

Simpsons actions that day prompted an internal affairs investigation.

A spokeswoman confirmed the matter was referred over to the Mercer County Prosecutors Office for possible criminal prosecution but TPD was advised to handle the matter administratively.

Trenton Police spokesman Lt. Jason Kmiec said the IA investigation into Simpson is still pending.

Simpsons actions raised questions for police and legal experts who wondered about his motivations for hiding the flask.

Was it being hidden because you guys were thinking of taking other law enforcement actions but because she was a councilperson, you decided not to? What would be the possible need to try to hide something? That would have my Spidey sense up, said Robert Bianchi, a criminal defense attorney and former Morris County prosecutor. I find that suspicious.

Richard Rivera, a former cop and police accountability expert, said Simpsons actions smelled of a cover-up.

The seemingly simple car-crash investigation is now being viewed through the lens of a raging national debate about police brutality and misconduct, prompted by the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died in police custody in Minneapolis.

A city councilman has alleged that Trenton cops attempted to cover up for Caldwell-Wilson, the North Ward representative who is in her third term on the legislative body.

Jerell Blakeley said he tried learning, months ago, about the circumstances of the crash involving Caldwell-Wilson.

He filed a public records request but said he was stymied in his efforts to uncover the truth by several high-level members of Mayor Reed Guscioras administration.

He refused to provide names of those who he claimed dissuaded him from pursuing the matter.

Gusciora said he "absolutely" did not dissuade anyone from getting the records. His chief of staff Yoshi Manale also did not recall trying to influence Blakeley to drop the matter.

Alarmed upon learning about the flask and Simpsons actions, Blakeley credited the newspaper for continuing to dig into the crash andcalled for the case to be re-examined by an independent investigator.

This stinks to high heaven, he said.

For Caldwell-Wilson, who was hospitalized for a few days with a serious head injury but has since recovered, its a painful chapter that she is eager to put behind her.

In an interview this week, Caldwell-Wilson acknowledged paying the fines after being ticketed once it was determined that she was at fault for the crash.

She was not cited for having the flask in her vehicle, which she could have been under New Jerseys open container law, and denied having a sip of alcohol at any point before the crash.

It was in the middle of the afternoon on a Sunday, for crying out loud, she said.

She claimed the flask which she planned to gift to a friend who she wouldn't name never contained alcohol and was stored in the glove box for more than a year.

Why are you making a big deal about this? It was empty. It had never been used. They could do forensics on it, and it never had any alcohol in it ever, Caldwell-Wilson said.

The crash happened around 4:15 p.m. on Super Bowl Sunday, a day when many spectators knock back a few cold ones while taking in the big game.

According to Nielsen, in 2019, Americans spent $1.2 billion on beer in the two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, $568 million on distilled spirits and $652 million on wine.

Caldwell-Wilson said she was struck from behind while returning from buying groceries. Corroborating parts of her version of events, Simpson was captured on body camera removing cloth grocery bags from Caldwell-Wilsons vehicle and storing them in his police cruiser.

The second driver, Mighty Chadrick, told cops that Caldwell-Wilson was in the left lane, stopped at the traffic light, at the intersection of Route 129 and Hamilton Avenue, according to the body camera and Simpsons accident investigation report.

The councilwoman appeared to be turning left when she suddenly swerved in to the middle lane, Chadrick said. He tried avoiding her but rear-ended the vehicle.

One of two passengers in Chadrick's vehicle complained of chest pain. He was checked out on scene by a firefighter who recommended the passenger get screened at the hospital to ensure no internal bleeding, the footage shows.

Meanwhile, Caldwell-Wilson suffered a large gash on the back of her head and was temporarily knocked unconscious from the collision. She came to when Cariola opened her driver-side door.

Cariola radioed for an ambulance and asked Caldwell-Wilson how she was doing.

The officer did not know at that point about the flask and didnt ask Caldwell-Wilson whether she consumed alcohol, the footage shows. At no point did he say whether she showed signs of being under the influence.

He asked the disoriented Caldwell-Wilson if she knew her name.

Marge Caldwell-Wilson, councilwoman, she responded.

Then he asked the councilwoman if she knew the date and the year but she couldnt respond.

Its OK, honey. Its all right, the officer said. You were in a car accident. Its OK. Are you in pain anywhere? Just the back of your head? Dont touch it. We have an ambulance on the way for you. Just dont move.

First responders arrived and tended to the councilwoman. She was eventually hauled off on a stretcher and taken to Capital Health Regional Medical Center for treatment.

Simpson found the flask after Caldwell-Wilson was carted away.

Screengrab of bodycam footage shows Trenton police finding a flask inside the car of Councilwoman Marge Caldwell-Wilson after she was involved in a car crash.

Legal experts said Simpsons warrantless search of the glove box which it could be construed as a Fourth Amendment violation of unreasonable search and seizure was lawful under the community caretaking doctrine.

Officers dont always function as law enforcement investigating crimes and can act as community caretakers to aid those who are ill and distressed in emergency situations.

In this case, the officer was acting in that role by securing Caldwell-Wilsons purse and groceries, and then scouring the glove box for more valuables, along with her driving documents.

If theyre in a lawful place, and they make an observation of something thats criminal, its also a plain-view doctrine case, Bianchi said.

Following Simpsons investigation, Caldwell-Wilson was ticketed for careless driving and failing to maintain a lane.

Under state law, she could have been cited for having an open container, legal experts said, since a flask can be used to store alcohol. The law says someone shall be presumed to have consumed an alcoholic beverage in violation of this section if an unsealed container of an alcoholic beverage is located in the vehicle.

Caldwell-Wilson said officers didn't ask her about the flask at the hospital.

With her memory still foggy, she told officers she did not remember what happened before the crash, according to the accident report.

Blakeley wondered why cops didnt press.

I dont have to tell anybody if someone found a flask in councilman Blakeleys vehicle, I would be raked over the coals, he said.

He felt the police should have requested a blood draw that could have detected whether alcohol was present in Caldwell-Wilson's system.

Bianchi said officers would have faced challenges obtaining a warrant for the blood draw.

While she may have been driving erratically and the flask was found in her car, he surmised those factors alone wouldn't have been enough to convince a judge to issue a warrant for the blood alcohol test.

A judge would have also wanted to know whether officers observed signs of impairment.

As a prosecutor, I would want more, Bianchi said. An open container in a vehicle, assuming its alcohol, may or may not have been ingested during the incident. Usually cops are making notations: Do they smell an odor of alcohol on her breath? Were her eyes bloodshot? Was she slurring her words?

To me, I would say thats a pretty close call that you would not get a blood draw on something like that unless you can establish more based upon observations from the officers that she was under the influence. If you had that, plus the flask in the vehicle, assuming its alcohol and its partially been consumed, then I think you would be on your way to that.

That was not the case here, as Cariola didnt ask those crucial questions, according to the body cam, before the councilwoman was transported to the hospital.

Despite the discovery of the flask, officers did not appear to challenge Caldwell-Wilson when they followed up with her at the hospital, in order to try to establish probable cause for the warrant, the records show.

Officers accepted Caldwell-Wilson at her word that she does not remember what occurred, and left it at that once they were couldn't obtain clear footage of the crash.

Now that theres an insinuation she may have been under the influence, Caldwell-Wilson said she wished cops did more adding she would have consented to a blood draw.

The councilwoman planned to contact the hospital where she was treated to see if records exist that could show whether she was tested for alcohol and drugs during her stay.

Those records are normally protected by patient confidentiality laws, but Caldwell-Wilson said she was willing to provide them to The Trentonian. She had not yet produced those records by the publication of this story.

She also fought back against a perception that she may have a drinking issue, claiming the accident is being overblown by a political enemy.

I dont think Ive ever been drunk in my life, she said. Im not a big drinker. Im so sick of this crap. If this is councilman Blakeley doing this, then we have serious problems and a serious lawsuit here. This is defamation of character.

Read this article:

Trenton cop found a flask inside a councilwoman's car after crash, tried covering it up - The Trentonian

Wear a mask to halt spread of COVID-19 – Central Wisconsin News – The Record-Review

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

To the Editor: Many people are confused about face masks because back in April the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) issued statements suggesting they were not needed. Both institutions have changed and now strongly recommend face masks.

There are several reasons for the change, but mostly it is because the coronavirus is constantly evolving and we are learning more about it. We now know the virus is commonly spread simply by people speaking. The virus organisms are expelled from a persons lungs when they speak and can float in the air for as much as eight hours. A face mask prevents some from being expelled and slows those that are so they do not travel as far from the speaker.

That is why social distancing is so important. You have a much greater chance of being infected by standing close to someone that is infected. If the virus cannot infect another individual, it goes through its infectious cycle and appears to die. The vast majority of scientists say if everyone would wear a face mask and use social distancing for two weeks, we could be on the way to beating COVID-19, and cautiously re-opening our businesses and our schools.

In addition to killing some of its victims, we now know COVID-19 affects other organs that can have long, life altering results. We know COVID-19 infects young children and they can pass it on to others. We know that going to parties or attending other social, religious, or governmental gatherings helps to spread COVID-19 and perpetuates the pandemic.

Its simple; you can help re-open our schools and our economy, and you might save your own or someone elses life by wearing a face mask, washing your hands and social distancing. If you do not do these things you are part of the problem.

Mary Luchterhand Unity

To the Editor: President Trumps recent actions to deploy federal agents in American cities, against American citizens, violate Article 1, Section 8 and Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

When those agents appeared in uniforms with no agency or personal identifi cation and apprehended a protester, shoving him into an unmarked vehicle without saying where they were taking him or why, they were in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . .

We know Trump admires the most tyrannical dictators in the world and has expressed a desire to have those same dictatorial powers. It should be frightening to anyone concerned with civil liberties, including the right to assemble, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to petition the government as is granted in the First Amendment.

Trump has declared himself to be your law and order president and thinks of himself as a war time president. He has called for the military to be deployed to dominate protesters. His acting secretary for Homeland Security said he is protecting federal property and indicated these agents will be deployed to other American cities.

Despite Congress being in session and no requests from the states, Trump feels free to violate several articles of the most sacred document this country has. Can you imagine what he will do if he is reelected? Conspiracy planners are suggesting the placement of federal troops in cities around the nation as part of Plan B in case he is not re-elected and attempts to stay in office. He is violating fundamental American laws and should be stopped. Where are our representatives in Congress? Their silence is deafening.

Richard A. Slone Neillsville

View original post here:

Wear a mask to halt spread of COVID-19 - Central Wisconsin News - The Record-Review

Here’s What You Need to Know About Recording the Police – Ms. Magazine

George Floyds murder became known across world solely based on videos taken by bystanders. And in the protests occurring since, footage has captured police violence toward demonstratorsfrom Buffalo police pushing a 75-year-old man, to Brooklyn police pulling down a protesters mask before assaulting him with pepper spray.

During Portlands current occupation by federal agents, video footage has been crucial in documenting instances where protesters have been attacked and had their rights violated. Shocking videos show federal officers dressed in military gear hauling protesters into unmarked vans.

Another viral video shows 53-year-old Navy Veteran Chris David peacefully approaching officers before being beaten with batons and attacked with pepper spray.

That same police violence has also been directed at reportersthe on-air arrest of CNN crew and reporter Omar Jimenez in May is just one of over 500 reported cases of police aggression towards journalists covering protests.

It seems even politicians are not safe from police overreach, as Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) was subjected to tear gas attacks when he joined protesters outside the federal courthouse on Wednesday.

In many cases, videos like these become essential in ensuring officers are held accountable for misconduct and violencegiving strength to nationwide movements for racial justice and police reform. A video has the power to raise awareness and change opinions. In fact: Video footage alone has repeatedly led to officer punishment, firing or prosecution.

As protesters continue to demand police reform and accountability, it is increasingly important to understand the legal right citizens and the press have to record and publish videos of police activities.

Cue: The NYU First Amendment Watch last month released A Citizens Guide to Recording Policewhich breaks down the legal precedent behind our right to record law enforcement officers.

Here atMs., our team is continuing to report throughthis global health crisisdoing what we can to keep you informed andup-to-date on some of the most underreported issues of thispandemic.Weask that you consider supporting our work to bring you substantive, uniquereportingwe cant do it without you. Support our independent reporting and truth-telling for as little as $5 per month.

Here are some of the most important and relevant aspects of A Citizens Guide to Recording the Police:

+ The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers. However, 61 percent of U.S. citizens live in states where federal courts have recognized this right. The other 39 percent of citizens live in states that have not yet ruled on the issue, and its highly unlikely they will.

+ The Supreme Court has recognized the First Amendment protects the ability to seek out and obtain news and information. Furthermore, the government cannot limit the publics stock of informationwhich could include recordings of police officers carrying out their official duties in public.

+ Additionally, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found the First Amendments freedom of speech and freedom of the press includes the right to make audio and audiovisual recordingsestablishing the right to record the police.

+ First Amendment protections given to reporters and members of the press also extend to bystandersespecially important in todays world, where social media enables anyone with a phone to become a reporter.

+ In most cases, police cannot seize or view recordings taken by bystanders. In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court found the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from taking someones recording device or searching its contents. The only legal way for police to seize a phone is with an arrest and warrant.

+ It is only legal to record officers in public while on duty. Additionally, police can limit recording in some cases if it is necessary to maintain safety and control. The police have discretion in deciding when it is necessary to disperse crowds or establish police barriers to prevent public interference.

However, law enforcement cannot single out an individual solely because they are recording. Moreover, the First Circuit Court ruled that officers cannot prohibit peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers performance of their duties. Therefore, in most instances, bystanders have an undeniable right to record police activities.

It is important bystanders continue to record the actions of officers who disregard the rights and safety of demonstratorsand other cities should keep an eye (and a phone) out, since Trump has announced his plan to send a surge of federal law enforcement officers to other large cities like Chicago and Albuquerque. We can expect similar patterns of violence and human rights abuses.

Of course, it is also important to recognize that in some cases, even when police activities are caught on camera, it does not lead to justice and systematic changes. Almost six years ago, Eric Garner told officers he couldnt breathe while being held in a chokeholdbut OfficerDaniel Pantaleo, responsible for his death, was not charged.

Definite proof of racial injustice has time and time again failed to enact meaningful and longterm change over the course of U.S. history.

But while videos do not guarantee that justice will be reached, they remain an important way for Americans to exercise their constitutional rights. Theyre sometimes the only tool we have.

The coronavirus pandemic and the response by federal, state and local authorities is fast-moving.During this time,Ms. is keeping a focus on aspects of the crisisespecially as it impacts women and their familiesoften not reported by mainstream media.If you found this article helpful,please consider supporting our independent reporting and truth-telling for as little as $5 per month.

Original post:

Here's What You Need to Know About Recording the Police - Ms. Magazine

The FBI Is Abusing The All Writs Act To Gain Access To Millions Of Travel Records – Techdirt

from the not-how-the-Third-Party-Doctrine-works dept

When the Fourth Amendment limits your surveillance plans, just go private. That seems to be the standard operating procedure for law enforcement agencies.

When cops aren't willing to canvas neighborhoods to find crime suspects, they just head to Google and ask for info on everyone who happened to be in the area. When they want more data on suspects they're tracking, they don't run subpoenas by judges. They just tap into collections of data harvested from breaches and malicious hacking, all compiled and collated by private companies for easy searchability. And when the CBP decides its own ALPR database just doesn't have enough plate photos in it, it taps into Vigilant's stash of 9 billion plates even as it admits it may not have the legal authority to do so.

The FBI does the same thing. Thomas Brewster reports for Forbes that the FBI has taken an expansive view of the Third Party Doctrine to grab records from a private company that complies records related to several different businesses. The company is Sabre, a publicly-traded entity that compiles travel bookings. First formed in 1964, the company, which began as a division of American Airlines, now handles bookings for nearly every major airline, hoovering up data on a third of world's air travelers.

Sabre gained a lot of traction as an investigative tool following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. But it continues to be used as a convenient compilation of travel records, sparing the FBI (and others) from approaching several different companies with subpoenas.

Brewster has dug up some recent documents detailing Sabre's relationship with the FBI.

[A]s detailed in one international cybercrime investigation, Sabre can be compelled to proactively watch and report on a persons whereabouts as soon as they start travelling. In an order from December 2019, feds asked Sabre to provide the FBI with real-time updates on the travel activities of a hacking suspect, an Indian fugitive called Deepanshu Kher. Sabre was told to provide complete and contemporaneous real time account activity information of the traveler [Kher] on a weekly basis for six months. Sabre would provide any travel orders, transactions or reservations for the suspect.

The order goes on to note law enforcement has already tapped Sabre's vast stores of travel data to assist in three other investigations dating back to 2016. This appears to be an abuse of a very old legal doctrine -- one that dates back much, much further than even the 2001 attacks. The All Writs Act (b. 1789) is in play here, and it appears to be allowing the FBI to skirt subpoena requirements to go to a compiler of third party records, rather than the original source of those records.

[Attorney Mark Zwillinger {who represented Apple in the San Bernardino case}] says that if it wants to leverage the All Writs Act, the government has to show a third party is necessary and close enough to the matter at hand. With Sabre, given there were other ways of getting the information on Khers travel, such as records of him entering the U.S. via Customs and Border Protection databases, that necessity was questionable.

There are also questions on the reasonableness of the burden on Sabre, another requirement for All Writs Act orders, he adds. In one particular order, it might not be that burdensome, but once you start to get some volume here, then it really turns Sabre into a sort of government agent every time they want to find a fugitive.

This isn't how the Act is supposed to work. The FBI is aware of the limits of the Act and its duty to comply with Constitutional rights and applicable law. Unfortunately, the first check on abuses like this is the federal court system, and it appears to be fine with the FBI imposing a burden on a third party one step removed from the original travel records. The second check is the recipient of bogus orders like these. But Sabre doesn't appear to be willing to call the government on its bullshit, allowing the FBI to continue defining the "third party" part of Third Party Doctrine as being anyone holding records created by someone else.

Filed Under: 3rd party records, 4th amendment, all writs act, doj, fbi, privacy, travel records

View post:

The FBI Is Abusing The All Writs Act To Gain Access To Millions Of Travel Records - Techdirt

Democracy, accountability and empowerment: The case for journalism as a gen-ed course – Poynter

Recent racist incidents and police violence have been caught on video, uploaded to social media and viewed millions of times, sparking protests and outrage and accelerating diversity agendas at colleges and universities.

In most of those incidents, the photographer was not a reporter but a bystander or victim of abuse themselves.

Reporters have been arrested in record numbers covering protests associated with the May 25 killing of George Floyd. Some 10,000 mostly peaceful protesters have been arrested and assaulted, too, with many such incidents caught on tape. In an op-ed in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, I ask, What makes a journalist, the person or the device?

Increasingly, I argue, it is the device.

In the hands of a journalist, however, or a civilian who knows reporting basics, you double its power.

Power is at the core of controversies about police brutality. Smartphone technology has empowered civilians whose photographs and videos undermine the authority of law enforcement, at times exposing lies, racist agendas and prosecutorial negligence.

Police departments rely on video and security cameras for traffic control, license plate recognition and crime detection. But when the lens is turned on them, they often are less enthusiastic.

Units equipped with body cameras may not release videos to the public or wait months to do so, as was the case in the killing of Elijah McClain. He had done nothing illegal but was wearing a mask while on an errand to pick up iced tea for his brother.

The issue here is accountability and transparency, key tenets of journalism. Reporters are watchdogs over government and file freedom of information requests to foster openness. They embrace the credo of afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.

These are lessons for everyone.

In 2005, Wired ran an article with that maxim:

When man bites dog, whos the first to report it? Dont assume its your local paper or CNN. These days, our man on the scene is often a swarm of amazingly prolific nonprofessionals posting up-to-the-minute stories and pictures of breaking news from their laptops.

When I first read this, I was skeptical, fearing so-called citizen reporters would undermine the credibility of journalism. A month after the Wired piece, I wrote The Media World as It Is for Inside Higher Ed:

(T)he promise of technology that it would build social networks, democratize news and generally enhance information in two-way flows has always hinged on the presumption of readily available and verifiableinformation. What are the consequences, not only for media, but for academe, when opinion displaces fact?

I was worried about fake news years before President Donald Trump claimed to have invented that term.

But my own opinion has changed as technology became more powerful, mobile and ubiquitous in the form of a cellphone, especially the iPhone, which first made its debut in 2007.

Apples inaugural device included many features we still use every day, such a web browser, email, text messaging, music and video players, and maps applications. It also came with a first-generation YouTube default app.

By 2009, YouTube was registeringmore than a billion views per day. Now there are more than 2 billion users.

The power of cellphones is epic. We call them smartphones for a reason. The2020 iPhone 11 Pro Max boasts a 12-megapixel ultra-wide, wide angle, and telephoto lens. Its video is as sharp as any network television camera, with a processor and neural engine capable delivering more than 1 trillion operations per second.

It can capture just about anything within a 120-degree field of view.

The increasing power of cellphones coincided with the decreasing presence of reporters. They are not yet extinct, but on societys endangered species list. Between 2008 and 2020, U.S.newsrooms lost half of their employees, according to Pew Research Center.

News deserts are popping up all over. As Penelope Muse Abernathy, Knight Chair in Journalism and Digital Media Economics at the University of North Carolina, notes in News Deserts And Ghost Newspapers: Will Local News Survive?:

Many of the countrys 6,700 surviving papers have become ghost newspapers mere shells of their former selves, with greatly diminished newsrooms and readership. The loss of both journalists and circulation speaks to the declining influence of local newspapers, and raises questions about their long-term financial viability in a digital era.

The choice is obvious: Bemoan journalisms decline or inspire thousands of opinionated but omnipresent smartphone users. I embrace the latter. They may be the only option left to hold government and law enforcement in check.

They also have cellphones. Increasingly they document racism under the genre while being Black with African Americans insulted, threatened or arrested doing everyday things. Earlier this year Amy Cooper, a white woman, threw a viral tantrum and called police after a Black birdwatcher in Central Park asked her to leash her dog.

These frequent encounters are becoming more ominous. In June, Mark and Susan McCloskey brandished weapons at protesters who passed their palatial home in St. Louis. Another white couple, Jillian and Eric Wuestenberg, were charged with felonious assault in a parking lot incident during which Jillian pointed a gun at a Black mother and her 15-year-old daughter.

Because cellphones recorded each incident, consequences ensued. Cooper lost her job at an investment corporation and faces misdemeanor charges. Eric Wuestenberg was fired from his support staff position at Oakland University. The McCloskeys were each charged with one count of unlawful use of a weapon.

These videos are deeply troubling, but the one shot by 17-year-old Darnella Frazier was horrifying. Some called the documented killing of George Floyd a state-sponsored execution.

Frazier was on a grocery store run with her 9-year-old cousin when she saw Floyd being arrested. She used her cellphone to capture former police officer Derek Chauvin with his knee on Floyds neck, killing him.

Fraziers lawyer, Seth Cobin, told the BBC, She felt she had to document it. Its like the civil rights movement was reborn in a whole new way, because of that video.

The comment about civil rights reverberates in former reporters of that era. The primary goal in the 1960s and early 1970s was equal treatment in all aspects of society for African Americans. I covered protests by the American Indian Movement whose leaders, including Dennis Banks and Russell Means, sought economic independence, preservation of native culture, autonomy over tribal areas and restoration of stolen lands.

Civil rights and liberties are fundamental aspects of journalism education, which utilizes case law associated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, among other statutes.

Civil liberties are associated with the Constitution.

Every journalism graduate should know freedoms of the First Amendment press, speech, religion, assembly and petition as well as unlawful seizures of the Fourth Amendment and due process of the Fourteenth.

Those liberties are at the heart of a federal lawsuit filed against the city of Minneapolis and its police department for actions against reporters covering George Floyd protests. The suit alleges that reporters were assaulted and arrested by police without cause, all after these journalists identified themselves and were otherwise clearly engaged in their reporting duties.

Protesters have the same rights as reporters, according to 42 U.S. Code 1983, which protects citizens from being deprived of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution.Any entity violating that law can be held liable in class actions.

Everyone should know that.

But does everyone need journalism? I think they do.

And yet, journalism rarely is on the list of required courses in colleges and universities. That has to do in part with the history of general education. Originally, in the early 19th century, it sought to complete the liberal education of the aristocracy. In the 1960s, it attempted to make liberal education more accessible to nontraditional students. The culture wars of the 1980s heightened consciousness about feminism and canons of underrepresented groups. More recently, general education exploded with dozens of courses based on budget models rewarding departmental enrollment.

Nevertheless, gen-ed courses still fall under the usual umbrellas of humanities, social sciences, and math and physical/biological sciences.

Rarely will you find journalism in the mix. Many reporting courses are skill-based and excluded on that basis. Journalism is neither humanities nor social sciences; it is one or the other and sometimes both. Courses like media history clearly fall in the humanities camp; others like public affairs reporting in the social sciences group; and science communication in both.

General education includes survey, theory and concept classes. When viewed in that manner, several journalism courses easily adapt.

They also may be popular. Americans on average use smartphones about 5.4 hours per day. The 16-24 demographic interacts on social media about 3 hours per day. As such, general education students would benefit from courses in news/media literacy, cultivating the next generation of news consumers who possess the ability to spot fake news and dis/misinformation.

A survey course in media law and ethics also might enlighten students about rights, liberties and precedents, all of which are vital for future generations seeking change.

A theory class in world press systems might expand and diversify knowledge. Specialized courses might be popular, too, such as History of the Black Press, Social Media and Change or Gone Viral: Videos That Made History.

Journalism education has focused for decades on graduates securing media jobs. As those decrease, along with enrollments, the future of the discipline might depend more on general education. But the case here is about democracy, accountability, transparency and empowerment.

Without a robust news industry, monitoring government and investigating the corporate elite, our only hope may be in the hands of the people, literally and figuratively.

Michael Bugeja, distinguished professor of journalism at Iowa State University of Science and Technology, teaches media ethics and technology and social change. He can be reached at bugeja@iastate.edu.

Read the original post:

Democracy, accountability and empowerment: The case for journalism as a gen-ed course - Poynter

Second Circuit Nixes Conviction Based on Racially-Motivated Stop – JD Supra

In United States v. Walker, the Second Circuit (Calabresi, Pooler, Carney) considered a challenge to the conviction of Jaquan Walker on drug charges. Police officers found drugs on Walker after they stopped and questioned him. The justification for the stop was that Walker resembles an image of a black men believed to have been involved in a shooting, and because Walker happened to be walking about five blocks from the site of that shooting. In a remarkably pointed decision, the Circuit threw out the conviction.

Background

On September 1, 2017, Sergeant Peter Montanino of the City of Troy Police Department received an email from another officer stating: trying to ID suspect #2 in this photo. Attached to the email was an image of a black man of thin build and medium height labeled suspect #2. Montanino would later testify that he believed the email related to a recent shooting. The email itself, however, did not identify suspect #2 as the suspected shooter, or mention a shooting at all.

The following day, Montanino was on patrol in the central business district, near the scene of the shooting, when he came across Walker and his friend Javone Hopkins. Remembering the email from the prior day, Montanino suspected that Walker or Hopkins could be suspect #2 because both were, as Montanino described, medium to dark skin toned black males with a thin build and goatees.

Montanino called over two of his subordinates, officers Owen Conway and Martin Furciniti, asking whether they recognized either Walker or Hopkins. The other officers were unable to identify Walker or Hopkins after observing them from their patrol car, so Montanino decided to conduct what was called a stop out. In the Troy Police Department, a stop out refers to a standard practice whereby officers get out of their vehicle, approach a pedestrian and request identification, and then check for any outstanding warrants.

Proceeding with the stop out, Conway and Furciniti pulled their vehicle up ahead of Walker and Hopkins, while Montanino pulled his up behind them. The officers got out of their vehicles, converged on Walker and Hopkins, and instructed them to stop. At this point, the officers discerned that neither Walker nor Hopkins was suspect #2. Nonetheless, the officers asked Walker and Hopkins for identification, and the two complied. Hopkins had no warrants and was permitted to leave. Walker, however, had an outstanding felony warrant. The officers placed Walker in handcuffs. A search incident to the arrest uncovered marijuana and fifty grams of crack cocaine.

Walker was charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. In pretrial proceedings, Walker moved to suppress the drug evidence on the ground that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of a crime when they stopped him and Hopkins. The District Court denied the motion, finding the stop proper because Walker (1) resembles the image of suspect #2 in that they both are medium-to-dark skinned males with a thin build and facial hair, and (2) was walking about five blocks from the scene of a previous shooting. It held that the initial stop was lawful and that the arrest and incidental search were lawful on account of the arrest warrant.

Having lost the suppression motion, Walker agreed to enter a conditional guilty plea that preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion.

The Circuits Decision

On appeal, Walker again argued that the officers improperly stopped him because they did not have reasonable suspicion of a crime. The panel reversed the denial of Walkers suppression motion; this was not a close case.

By way of background, a law enforcement officer may, in some circumstances, stop an individual for questioning, even if the officer does not have probable cause to arrest the individual. To conduct such a stopoften referred to as a Terry stopthe officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is committing or has committed a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968). If an officer stops someone without such reasonable suspicion, the stop is unlawful, and any evidence obtained pursuant to that stop is generally inadmissible. Terry was a late-Warren Court decision, a setback for defendants and a ruling rendered after numerous decisions that affirmed the right of the accused, and at a time when crime rates were beginning to rise. Over time, Terry stops have become contentious because of racial disparity in who police decide to stop in many major cities, including cities in New York State.

Here, the panel had little trouble concluding that Montanino, Conway, and Furciniti lacked a sufficient basis to stop Walker. The panel identified several reasons why stopping Walker was unlawful.

First, the email and accompanying photograph depicting suspect #2 did not set forth specific and articulable facts showing that a crime had occurred. The email did not mention a crime, much less a shooting, much less that suspect #2 was the suspected shooter. Given that the picture did not provide reasonable suspicion that suspect #2 has committed a crime, it would have been unlawful to stop suspect #2 even if officers were certain of his identity.

Second, even if the email had sufficiently articulated that suspect #2 had committed a crime, the fact that both suspect #2 and Walker are medium-to-dark skin males with thin builds and facial hair was insufficient to generate a reasonable suspicion that Walker was suspect #2. As the panel noted, black male and medium-to-dark skin are descriptors that capture a wide swath of individuals. So too for the other similarities between Walker and suspect #2. Even combining these characteristics, the panel was not convinced that the similarities identified by Montanino identified a narrow enough subset of individuals to constitute a reasonable suspicion that Walker was suspect #2. As the panel pointed out, even Terry warned that courts needed to guard against police conduct which is over-bearing or harassing, or which trenches upon personal security without the objective evidentiary justification which the Constitution requires. 392 U.S. at 15.

Finally, the fact that Walker had been walking a few blocks from the scene of a previous shooting was insufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in the shooting. The area where officers stopped Walker was the central business district of Troy and it was not uncommon for pedestrians to walk there during that time of the afternoon.

Although the panel found the initial stop unlawful, this does not end the inquiry because the government contended that the outstanding warrant permitted the arrest and search of Walker, under the so-called attenuation doctrine. Under that doctrine, even if an initial stop is unlawful, evidence is admissible if the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance. Here, the government argued that the outstanding warrant was an intervening circumstance that permitted the officers to arrest and search Walker.

The panel disagreed. Courts weigh three factors in deciding whether to apply that exception to the exclusionary rule.

The first factor is the temporal proximity between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence. This factor clearly cut against attenuation because the drugs were found on Walkers person mere minutes after the unlawful stop.

The second factor is the presence of an intervening circumstance. An outstanding arrest warrant for an unrelated offense has been recognized as an intervening circumstance, so that factor weighed in favor of attenuation.

The final, and here decisive, factor is whether the officers conduct was purposeful or flagrant. The panel concluded that the officers conduct here was indeed flagrant for two reasons. First, there was an extreme lack of reasonable suspicion that Walker had committed a crime. As discussed, the entire premise of the stopthe email and image of suspect #2was flawed because nothing in the email identified a crime or identified suspect #2 as having committed a crime. Second, the similarities between Walker and suspect #2 were far too general to justify a stop. Indeed, there were likely many pedestrians walking in the central business district that fit Montaninos recollection of suspect #2. In addition, the panel found the officers conduct flagrant because they continued questioning Walker even after they realized he was not suspect #2. At that time, any reasonable suspicion supported by the image of suspect #2 vanished, and the officers should have ended the stop forthwith.

Having determined that two factors weigh against attenuation, the panel held that the attenuation doctrine did not apply. Because the stop was unlawful, the evidence obtained while searching Walker was inadmissible. Walkers conviction was vacated, and the case sent back to the District Court. In all likelihood, Walker will not be retried on these charges because the drugs are no longer admissible as evidence.

Analysis

Although the panel did not expressly label Montanino, Conway, and Furcinitis conduct as racial profiling, the panel was clearly disturbed by the proffered justification for stopping Walker. If the officers were justified in stopping Walker, they would essentially be justified in stopping almost any black man walking anywhere near a crime scene. This becomes clear in view of the image of suspect #2.

The image is so non-descript that an officer could conceivably stop any black man of average height and weight based on this photograph.

Permitting stops such as this one undermines the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. Equally important, the decision must also be viewed in light of the disturbing reality that black men are disproportionately stopped, questioned, and arrested by police at a higher rate than other demographics. These racially-motivated stops undermine trust in law enforcement and exacerbate racial inequalities. The stop in this case is particularly troubling because it appears to be part of a standard practice of the Troy Police Department to stop individuals who are unknown to officers. The panel did not decide whether this policy is inherently unconstitutional (it likely is), but it is clear that such a policy increases incidents of racial profiling by giving officers carte blanche to stop and question whoever they choose.

Hopefully this decision will serve as a wakeup call that officers may not stop someone without an adequate reason to think the person is committing or has committed a crime. One can only hope that police departments reevaluate their practices in light of this opinion. Although Walker won his case, he is just one of many victims of overzealous policing. Congress is considering legislation to prohibit racial profiling by police officers and police departments, which isto say the leastlong overdue. See H.R. 7120, Title III, Subtitle A (End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2020) (engrossed in House June 25, 2020).[1]

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120/text

See the rest here:

Second Circuit Nixes Conviction Based on Racially-Motivated Stop - JD Supra

Q&A: Brandon Soderberg and Baynard Woods discuss their GTTF book ‘I Got a Monster’ – Baltimore Fishbowl

I first heard the name Det. Daniel Hersl while working at City Paper, where my colleagues and friends Brandon Soderberg and Baynard Woods reported on his harassment of Kevron Evans, better known as rapper Young Moose.

Hersl cited Mooses lyrics and music videos in a warrant to raid the rappers home in July 2014, leading to the arrest of Mooses father, brother and mother. But he did not issue a warrant for the rappers arrest until weeks later. Mooses lawyer, Richard Woods, claimed Hersl was aware Moose was scheduled to open for Baton Rouge rapper Lil Boosie at Royal Farms Arenaa huge boost for the musicians careerjust days before police brought him in.

In March 2016, Moose and his family members were acquitted on drug charges stemming from the raid, one of several instances where Hersl locked up Moose or harassed the Evans family.

Only later did we learn that Hersl was part of the Gun Trace Task Force, a corrupt unit of the Baltimore Police Department whose members were federally prosecuted on racketeering, robbery, conspiracy and corruption charges.

Six of the officersringleader Sgt. Wayne Jenkins, Sgt. Thomas Allers, Momudo Gondo, Maurice Ward, Jemell Rayam and Evodio Hendrixpleaded guilty.

Two former detectives, Hersl and Marcus Taylor, took their cases to trial and were eventually convicted.

Today, Soderberg and Woods release I Got a Monster, a deeply reported account of the GTTFs corruption published by St. Martins Press. With each detailed entry on a robbery or piece of planted evidence from the rogue unit, Soderberg and Woods put the reader right into the car, the house or the interrogation room where it all went down, showing just how calculating and precise these sworn officers were in their crimes.

Even if you followed the trials and news stories on the GTTF closely, I Got a Monstermonster being the units code name for potential targetsis an engrossing read and a much-needed compendium of what they call the rise and fall of Americas most corrupt police squad.

Over emailunder ordinary circumstances, this conversation would have taken place over beers at Mick OSheas, our favorite post-deadline spot in our City Paper daysI talked with Soderberg and Woods about the importance of the details, what shocked even them as they reported more on the GTTF, and what they hope their book contributes to the ongoing national conversation about police reform.

Soderberg and Woods are taking part in a virtual book launch tonight with special guests Lisa Snowden of Real News Network and Baltimore Beat (full disclosure: another colleague and good friend of mine), Johns Hopkins professor Lester Spence, activist Ralikh Hayes of Organizing Black, former BPD officer and current defund the police advocate Larry Smith, Badges Without Borders author Stuart Schrader, and Baltimore Youth Public Defender Jenny Egan.

The event is hosted by Red Emmas and starts at 7 p.m.

Baltimore Fishbowl: I want to go back to City Paper in 2014, when you both reported on Det. Daniel Hersls campaign to harass and bring charges against Kevron Evans, better known as rapper Young Moose. Mooses case is mentioned in the book. Could you have imagined when you were reporting those stories that it would eventually lead to all this?

Brandon Soderberg: Not at all. Although that says as much about my relative naivete about police corruption as a fairly green white reporter at the time as it does about the extent of the Gun Trace Task Force scandal. As you know, that was a story about this rapper Young Moose being harassed by a cop (which was really something we knew about because of our friend D. Watkins) and courts being culpable by believing Hersls version of events and letting him use lyrics and music videos as evidence. That was something I already understood from my music journalism work: Cops mess with rappers because of envy and racism.

And there were the additional parts of what happened that Moose and his father told us, which included theft and accusations of planted evidence. And I believed them and they often provided evidence to back up their claims. From there, we heard more stories about Hersl but even that felt kind of contained, right? A dirty cop and his buddies. That Hersl turned out to be tied to this larger criminal conspiracy, I couldnt have predicted that. Moose is kind of an unsung hero of this story: You read his raps from 2014 about police harassment and they read like parts of the GTTF indictment from 2017.

Baynard Woods: It also happened that a month after that story, the city began to see massive protests in support of Ferguson following the shooting of Mike Brown by police officer Darren Wilson and the failure of the DA to prosecute the cop. As Brandon has said, the protests around Thanksgiving 2014 were, in many ways, the beginning of the Baltimore Uprising. And then, in 2015, that smoldering uprising really erupted in what was almost a revolution. I think at that moment, because revolution always breaks open the possibilities of imagination, we might have been able to get a slightly better sense that the story we had started writing about with Hersl and Young Moose would have very long legs and could be extended into something like a book. But it took the federal trial of GTTF members Hersl and Marcus Taylor to see what shape that would take.

BFB: To report and write the book you gathered wiretaps, body-worn camera footage, surveillance video, trial transcripts, and thousands of documents. And you conducted hundreds of interviews. What was your process for sorting through all that information?

BW: The first thing we had to realize is that we were telling a story, not just dumping out everything we knew about the GTTF. With seven cops originally indicted, with others to follow, and years and years of crime, the story was just too big. So we knew we had to find a lens that would make it clear why we chose certain cases and not others. That turned out to be defense attorney Ivan Bates, who had been battling Jenkins in court for yearsand also had a string of big cases against Jenkins during 2016, when most of the book is set. He was able to play the role that detectives play in a lot of stories like this, standing in for the reader, who can figure out things as he figures them out.

BS: At the same time, we had to be open to reading and obtaining anything and everything and talking to whoever because any character detail or anecdote might be useful somewhere and also because were trying to understand their world. Like, I spent a lot of time just chatting with people they arrested that didnt want to really go on the record (sometimes just through Instagram or Facebook Messenger for a few minutes) because they would have some small detail that might be illustrative or might connect to something bigger for us. But once we identified that this book would focus on these cops through 2016 and it would also follow Ivan Bates, it made it easier to sort through all of the information. Then it was about having to find specific pieces of information to flesh out the scenes that fit the part of this sprawling story that we wanted to tell.

BFB: Stylistically, the first two-thirds or so of the book offers vivid accounts of the crimes carried out by these cops, putting the reader right in the car as the officers approach their next victim. How important was that to show just how precise and calculated these corrupt acts really were?

BS: We wanted to really give readers a sense of what this all felt like. I thought of the book as more like a camera following them around. To make that feel visceral and real, you needed a lot of detail. And the detail is also where you saw just how terrible this was: Its not just that they robbed a couple on July 8, 2016 but that they followed this couple through a Home Depot and that when they drove to the couples home, it was in Westminster and thats a bit of a drive and each turn or exit taken made it worse as the couple slowly realized their house was going to be robbed. So the details build tension too. The robberies were also important to detail because each of them was a way to characterize the cops and their shifting dynamic. These robberies often created small alliances or mini-beefs between the cops and so you want the personal drama to resonate and that only hits when its a detailed scene.

BW: Yeah, writing in scenes was really important to both of us. And to go back to the previous question, it was also a way to narrow down some of the cases. If we could make a good scene, then it had a better chance of making it into the book. If we needed information, but didnt have a scene, we had to find another way to get that in. But it was also important to show all of the calculated ruses and wild improvisations that these rogue cops made because it can serve almost as a handbook for lawyers or other defendantsits laying out a compendium of the kinds of dirty tricks cops can play.

BFB: Did anything you learned in the course of reporting this book shock even you?

BW: The way that policing functions in white communities is so much different than in Black communities. So, for me, maybe the most shocking thing was how a lot of the things that seemed outrageous to me, werent surprising to Black people who had been telling stories about these things for years. And thats one reason we have such hypersegregated, redlined communities is to keep these things out of the view of white people. Only after cellphone cameras became widespread did white reporters start believing the things that Black residents had been telling us about policing for years. But it still shocks me that in 2016, you get this squad, the GTTF together, that had so many detectives who were engaged in their own criminal enterprises with their own drug dealersthat kind of criminality within the department is off-the-charts.

BS: Each person who told us about their experience either told us something that we connected to the cops typical M.O. (which was shocking because it showed me how premeditated and common this all was) and/or they told us some new ugly detail (which was shocking because there was seemingly no bottom to their cruelty). Sgt. Jenkins of the GTTF stealing a mans phone after he robbed and arrested him and texting the mans girlfriend pretending to be the man to get her to send naked pictures is a shocking one just because its so petty and cruel.

A lot of the things we learned from Donny Stepp, the bail bondsman and cocaine dealer, were really shocking. That he was able to use the fact that the Department of Justice was in BPD headquarters investigating BPD as a cover to go into BPD and scheme with Jenkins is pretty wild.

And the biggest shocker was just the sense of how much chaos these cops created. You cant fully quantify how much crime they created, how many people were hurt or even killed possibly because of their actions. Targeting violence interrupters, robbing people of drugs just about every nightthat is going to create more violence. No one has really reckoned with that side of corruption much.

BFB: There isnt much indication that top BPD brass had much oversight of the GTTF, or even offered direction on how the group should carry out its supposed mission of getting guns off the street. How were there no checks on this rogue unit?

BS: The checks, I think, were not there intentionally. A lot of it was about looking the other way. Not giving them oversight was part of the strategy. By not investigating them or even questioning the staggering number of gun arrests they were wracking up (which anybody who cared to notice would have realized were pretty much impossible to do constitutionally), higher-ups in BPD could take advantage of the GTTFs good results and play dumb and get publicly outraged when this was all exposed.

BW: Former BPD spokesperson Eric Kowalczyk wrote a book where he describes Kevin Davis first day as Commissioner and he and Deputy Commissioner Dean Palmere told them that the riot is over and to get back to doing what they knew how to do. Palmere had been a plainclothes cop and he knew how they operated. Beyond that, when BPD and the Feds started a new War Room to deal with the murder crisis, it was run by Sean Miller, another Jenkins mentortheres a great picture that Sean Hubbard took of Jenkins and Miller riding in a car together during the uprising. Now, it is true that there were very few checks on them. But that is by designwe hear people every day arguing that putting checks on officers causes crime.

BFB: Are you convinced the Baltimore Police Department has made enough reforms to prevent a different unit from acting in a similarly corrupt fashion?

BW: Clearly the answer is no. I dont know that theyve made any real reforms that would stop something like this from happening. I mean, just a couple weeks ago, a homicide detective was arrested by county cops for allegedly using his police powers and his squad, all of whom were on the clock, to force a contractor to write him a $3,000 check for private work he thought was unsatisfactory.

BFB: What did the victims tell you about the trauma they experienced from all this? You describe Ronald Hamilton testifying on the stand that the GTTF raid on his Carroll County home destroyed his family and led to divorce.

BW: Hamilton, who they abducted from a shopping center and robbed, was very clear about some of those impacts. He and his wife had just bought a new house. After the GTTF essentially held them hostage in it, she couldnt be there alone. Shed go to Wall-Mart to wait until he got home. She was terrified. But in many ways, they were luckier than a lot of others. When Jenkins chased Umar Burley and he crashed into a man named Elbert Davis and killed him, the cops planted an ounce of heroin on Burley. He was in prison between 2010 and 2017. The Davis family sued Burley and won a million dollar judgmentand he has the weight of Elbert Davis life on him. That kind of trauma becomes so compounded.

BS: Some people who talked to us for the book said it was cathartic though it also meant reliving it all which was certainly retraumatizing. But we also saw how there was so much work the people who were victimized by GTTF had been doing to keep going and wake up in the morning and deal with that trauma. Part of that was coming to terms with what happened to them and trying not to let it destroy them. Often that involved locating some sense of forgiveness or locating some kind of peace within themselves about what happened. I dont want to make too much of that because its a personal choice by the people traumatized but I want to mention the other side of that trauma too: trying to process it and live with it and not let these cops continue to loom over their lives.

BFB: At the same time, you also give the GTTF cops some depth. We learn, for example, that Wayne Jenkins and his wife lost a child, that Momodu Gondo was living kind of a double life as a sworn police officer and a Baltimore native with friends in the drug trade. Did you come out of this with a different understanding of a Jenkins or a Gondo than you had before?

BS: One of the things that made me very interested in this story were the cops because they were complicated people. The trick was showing their lives and being fair to them but not losing sight that there are victims and perpetrators in this story and the GTTF are the perpetrators. Theres a weird dialectic there, right? Theres too much media from the perspective of copscopagandaand yet to tell this story, to really show you how terrible they were, it meant really getting to know these cops.

Getting more information about their lives means you inevitably find some qualities you might relate to at least a little or understand if only because you have to understand them to write this. However, we wanted to avoid locating a single piece of personal info and blowing it up as simple motivation. Jenkins was undoubtedly deeply affected by the death of his child and we had evidence of that but we didnt want to use it to explain why he was who he was. Thats lazy storytelling and bad reporting, and its too simple.

BW: Just to add one little bit to thatJenkins and Gondo, for instance, are very different people not only in terms of character, but in terms of demographics. Jenkins is white and grew up in the county and Gondo is Black and grew up in the city. Their corruption was driven by very different factors. But for both of them, just like for the drug dealers they robbed, the drug war was the economy in post-industrial Baltimore. We kind of have this expectation as a society that cops should really believe in the mission theyre engaged in. So, when we get rid of that, were going to see a lot of complex motivations and complicated decisions made on the job every day. If were going to understand that, we cant pretend theyre all somehow the same person.

BFB: This book arrives in the middle of this national conversation about policing. What do you hope it adds to the discussionparticularly for people outside of Baltimore, who are possibly learning about a lot of these cases for the first time?

BW: As post-uprising cities around the country are dealing with crime spikes, it complicates the argumentwhich we saw recently in Bret Stephens risible piece about Baltimorethat asking police to follow the law leads to crime. It does, but not for the quasi-magical reasons that people like Stephens suggestmorale! Or whatever. In this case, it led to an increase in crime in part because the cops were causing the crime. This leads to a cyclethe more crime there is, the longer leashes and more overtime we give cops, giving them a chance to create more chaos and crime, ramping up the cycle.

BS: I think the story shows that while the GTTFs actions were exceptionalI mean, we call them Americas most corrupt police squadthey are also the logical extension of contemporary American policing and therefore, a strong argument against simple reform. If you dont radically change policing, you will keep seeing GTTF-like cops.

We wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last month that argued that Baltimore Police sabotaged reform and the GTTF scandal is a great example of the limits of reform. During the period our book covers, body cameras were introduced, the Department of Justice was here investigating BPD, and you couldnt go a week in 2016 without some kind of panel about community relations and the cops. None of that stopped GTTF. If they got away with such brazen criminality amid a moment of reform, then you can assume more conventional corruption and brutality wasnt stopped either.

BFB: The book is dedicated to defense attorneys fighting for the Fourth Amendment and its protections against illegal searches and seizures. Following the killing of Breonna Taylor, activists have been pushing for an end to no-knock warrants. Are there other reforms you would like to see to uphold Fourth Amendment rights?

BS: The Fourth Amendment in particular goes out the window when we give police more leeway to police us. By dialing back what police can get away with and by taking away their responsibilities and power and giving that responsibility and power to people more equipped to handle a lot of societal problems (defunding the police pretty much), the right to a reasonable search and seizure might begin to be more easily exercised. Proactive policing where plainclothes cops like GTTF go around the city essentially hunting for people to arrest is straight-up an exercise in violating Fourth Amendment rights (and often Second Amendment rights too). Getting rid ofor if you want to be more moderate about it, at least reducingthe power plainclothes police have would protect the Fourth Amendment.

BW: Its astounding to me that we still refer to anyone on the Supreme Court over the last generation as a strict constitutionalist. We have, as a country, essentially done away with the Fourth Amendment for the sake of the drug war. Weve had plenty of fights over the First and Second Amendments, but then we fall silent about illegal searches and seizures as long as we arent the ones being illegally searched and detained.

Getting rid of no-knock warrants is really important and should be important for cops, too. They are extremely dangerous for everyone involved. But we need far higher standards for warrants in general. For instance, its not just that they shouldnt have been able to raid Taylors house with a no-knock warrantthey shouldnt have been able to get a warrant for it at all. There was no evidence presented to justify any kind of warrant. Part of the problem is with the cops, but a large part also lies with the judges who sign warrants. They should be held accountable.

More:

Q&A: Brandon Soderberg and Baynard Woods discuss their GTTF book 'I Got a Monster' - Baltimore Fishbowl

Family of George Floyd files lawsuit against city of Minneapolis and 4 former police officers – CNBC

A protester wearing a mask holds a large black power raised fist in the middle of the crowd that gathered at Columbus Circle.

Ira L. Black | Getty Images

Members of George Floyd's family filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday against the city of Minneapolis and the four police officers involved in his fatal arrest in May.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleges that the officers violated Floyd's constitutional rights. It claims that the city "caused officers [to] act with impunity and without fear of retribution" and failed to properly train police.

The family is seeking unspecified financial damages in addition to the appointment of a "receiver or similar authority" to ensure that the city "properly trains and supervises its police officers."

Video of Floyd's Memorial Day arrest shows former Minneapolis police officerDerek Chauvin, who is white, kneeling on Floyd's neck while Floyd, who was Black, cries out that he cannot breathe. According to charging documents, Chauvinheld his knee on Floyd's neck for about eight minutes.

Floyd's death while in police custody sparked weeks of protests against police violence around the globe.

Ben Crump, an attorney for the family, said at a press conference announcing the lawsuit that the case was "unprecedented."

"With this lawsuit, we seek to set a precedent to make it financially prohibitive" for police to "wrongfully kill marginalized people, especially Black people, in the future," Crump said.

"The city of Minneapolis has a history of policies and procedures and deliberate indifference when it comes to the treatment of arrestees, especially Black men, that cries out for training and discipline," he said.

The four officers involved in Floyd's arrest are facing charges, and Minnesota is pursuing an investigation into the "policies, procedures, and practices" of the Minneapolis Police Department over the past decade.A separate federal investigation into the arrest is also underway.

The suit names Chauvin as well as the other former officers involved in the arrest, Tou Thao, Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng. The lawsuit claims that Chauvin's actions were unreasonable and that each of the other former officers had a duty to intervene to stop him.

"Every reasonable officer would have known that using force against a compliant, handcuffed individual who is not resisting arrest constitutes excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment," the suit says. The suit also alleges that each of the former officers "had a duty to intervene on behalf of a citizen whose constitutional rights were being violated in their presence by another officer."

Chauvin has been charged withsecond-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. The other former officers were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. All four were fired from the police department.

The suit claims that Minneapolis "frequently fails to terminate or discipline officers who demonstrate patterns of misconduct." It alleges that the Minneapolis Police Department "has observed unlawful or otherwise improper conduct by Chauvin throughout his career but has tolerated it and refused to remedy or mitigate it."

The suit says that the Minneapolis Police Department characterized neck restraints as "non-deadly" force "and did not warn it can cause death" from 2012 until June.

"Training materials offered to officers in 2014, including Defendants Chauvin and Thao, depict an officer placing a knee on the neck of an arrestee who is handcuffed in a prone position," the suit says.

Attorneys for the former officers either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. A judge last week imposed a gag order barring the attorneys from discussing the cases against the officers with the media.

Minneapolis interim City Attorney Erik Nilsson said in a statement that the city was reviewing the lawsuit and that Floyd's death was a "tragedy."

"Criminal charges are pending against four Minneapolis police officers and it's very important that the criminal case proceed without interference," Nilsson said.

Read the original:

Family of George Floyd files lawsuit against city of Minneapolis and 4 former police officers - CNBC

Judge considering whether deputies violated the rights of a Wellsville man arrested on drug dealing and other charges – Cache Valley Daily

Booking photo for Tanner J. Mitton (Courtesy: Cache County Jail).

LOGAN A judge is expected to rule in the next month whether local law enforcement authorities violated a 26-year-old Wellsville mans constitutional rights. Tanner J. Mitton has been in jail since February, when Cache County sheriffs deputies arrested him on multiple drug charges during a traffic stop.

Mitton was in 1st District Court Wednesday afternoon, participating in the hearing by web conference from jail. He was previously charged with 24 felonies and misdemeanors.

On February 8, a deputy spotted Mitton, driving a red Volkswagon Jetta in Smithfield. The deputy claimed he recognized that the suspect had a warrant for his arrest.

Mitton allegedly became verbally confrontational with the deputy. He also appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine and heroine.

Deputies obtained a warrant and searched the Jetta. Inside they found needles, aluminum foil, plastic packages with residue and two electronic scales. They also located two bags of marijuana and a baggy of cocaine. Multiple cellphones, laptops, a hard-drive, financial card swiping device and a printer were also discovered in the car.

Mitton admitted to law enforcement that he had been using drugs. He later tested positive for multiple illegal substances and was booked into jail.

During a virtual court hearing last week, public defender Mike McGinnis asked Judge Angela Fonnesbeck to dismiss the charges, stating law enforcement had violated Mittons Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

McGinnis argued that his client was targeted by deputies, who were waiting for Mitton to leave a home so they could pull him over. They also detained him for an abnormal length of time during the traffic stop, so they could search the vehicle.

Prosecutors claimed the traffic stop was conducted lawfully. They also said the length of time was reasonable, while a K-9 detected the presence of drugs in the vehicle.

During Wednesdays court hearing, Mitton read a letter, asking for the court to release him from jail. He said he was not a bad person but had made some wrong choices because of his addiction to drugs.

Judge Fonnesbeck told attorneys she was going to issue a written ruling on McGinnis motions. She said there were some real important constitutional issues raised by the charges. She anticipated having the ruling completed by next week and ordered Mitton to appear again in court August 3.

will@cvradio.com

Original post:

Judge considering whether deputies violated the rights of a Wellsville man arrested on drug dealing and other charges - Cache Valley Daily

Trump working with Bush torture lawyer to cut Congress out of lawmaking: report – Salon

President Donald Trump suggested in aFox News Sundayinterviewthat he planned to act beyond his legal authority to implement sweepingchanges to immigration and health care policiesbased onan interpretation of a recent Supreme Court rulinggrantinghim "powers that nobody thought the president had."

Axios reportedthat the legally precariousstrategy,which cuts Congressout of the lawmaking process, relies on a theory of executive power floated in June by John Yoo, the George W. Bush administration lawyer who drafted the memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique.

The first of the controversialorders will coverimmigration, per Axios. Trump told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that he would also invoke the authority to create "a full and complete health care plan."

You heard me yesterday. We're signing a health care plan within two weeksa full and complete health care plan that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do. So we're going to solve we're going to sign an immigration plan, a health care planand various other plans. And nobody will have done what I'm doing in the next four weeks.

The Supreme Court gave the president of the United States powers that nobody thought the president hadby approving, by doing what they did their decision on DACA. And DACA's going to be taken care of also. But we're getting rid of it, because we're going to replace it with something much better. What we got rid of already, which was most of Obamacare the individual mandate. And that I've already won on. And we won also on the Supreme Court. But the decision by the Supreme Court on DACA allows me to do things on immigration, on health care, on other things that we've never done before. And you're going to find it to be a very exciting two weeks.

Yoo argued in a National Reviewarticle that a recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)programempoweredthe president to bypass Congress through prosecutorial discretion: choosing not to enforce federal laws.

While the orders may be illegal, Trump would likely be able to run out the clock in the courts until Election Day, according to Yoo. Itwould also create legacy headaches for any successor, who would have to enforce the lawsunless and until the courts overturn them,Yoo claimed.

"SupposePresident Donald Trump decided to create a nationwide right to carry guns openly," Yoo wrote. "He could declare that he would not enforce federal firearms laws, and that a new 'Trump permit' would free any holder of state and local gun-control restrictions."

"Even if Trump knew that his scheme lacked legal authority, he could get away with it for the length of his presidency," he added. "And, moreover, even if courts declared the permit illegal, his successor would have to keep enforcing the program for another year or two."

"According to Chief Justice Roberts, the Constitution makes it easy for presidents to violate the law, but reversing such violations difficult especially for their successors," he concluded.

Yoo is most famousfor what has become known as the "torture memo," which justified the Bush administration's use ofwaterboarding via a constitutional reading called "the unitary executive theory."

As thetheory goes, in wartime a president can exercise virtually unlimited authority, which can only be checked by Congress'spending power.Because the "war on terror" might nothave a definitive end, the president wouldhave nearly dictatorial power in this realmfor the foreseeable future, including deploying federal troops for police actions and suspending the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Axios reported that Yoo's article has been spotted on Trump's desk, and the president had brought it up in meetings with aides.Yoo told the outletthat he had discussed the theory with White House aides in recent virtual meetings.

When Trump firstmentioned the plan, ina recent Telemundo interview, he drew fire from within the Republican tent.Not only would the orderinclude DACA, which the administrationjust spent years fighting to overturn,Trump claimed it would also createa path to citizenship, as well.

"I'm going to make DACA a part of it," said the president. "We're going to have a road to citizenship."

The White House immediately walked back that claim,which runs the risk of alienatingGOPimmigration hawks, as well asthe anti-immigrantbase which carried Trump through the 2016 primaries and general election.

"This does not include amnesty," White House spokesman Judd Deere said in a statement.

Fellow Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas quickly tweeted that "it would be a HUGE mistake if Trump tries to illegally expand amnesty."

"There is ZERO constitutional authority for a President to create a 'road to citizenship"by executive fiat," hewrote.

At the same time, Trump saidhe would change over toa merit-basedimmigration system, as opposed to one based on family connections,something which anti-immigration hardliners like senior White House adviser StephenMillerhave wanted for years.

Under Trump's earlier "merit-based" proposal, immigrants would be selected through a point-based system, which scores for "extraordinary talent, professional and specialized vocations and exceptional academic track records." However, the Republican-led Senate was not on board.

In 2018, Trump offered apath to citizenship as a concession to get Congress to authorize $25 billion for hiswall along the Mexican border, but lawmakers balked. In 2019, the Democratic-ledHouse passed a bill which would allow Dreamers to apply for citizenship, but the Senate still has not voted on it. The White House said at the time that Trump would veto such a bill.

It was not immediately clear how Trump would craft such an executive order to create a health care plan. He made the "repeal and replace" of Obamacare a cornerstone of his 2016 campaign, but allefforts to secure enough Republican votes in Congress failed.

More here:

Trump working with Bush torture lawyer to cut Congress out of lawmaking: report - Salon