Daily Archives: August 14, 2021

From Friday's decision in Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski, written by Judge Janet Bond Arterton (D. Conn.):

At approximately 8:34 pm on November 12, 2018, Plaintiff was operating a Kia Sorento LX in the vicinity of Hillside Avenue and Pine Street in Waterbury, Connecticut. Plaintiff had stopped his vehicle with the engine running in an attempt to unfreeze his iPhone GPS, which was located in a holder mounted to the dashboard. The dark and high-crime area where Plaintiff stopped his vehicle was well-known for prostitution, drug transactions, and other criminal activity.

As Plaintiff was attempting to fix his phone, Defendant approached his vehicle, knocked on the driver's side window, and requested Plaintiff's license. Plaintiff handed Defendant his license and gun permit, which he removed from the back of his sun visor. At the time Plaintiff handed over his license and gun permit, he told Defendant that he was in possession of a pistol, which was located in the driver's side compartment door. Defendant handcuffed and searched Plaintiff, and Defendant forcibly moved Plaintiff to the back of his police car. While Plaintiff was inside the police car in handcuffs, Defendant ran a check through the Northwest Communication Center to determine whether the pistol permit was valid.

The court held that the initial detention for questioning about why the car was stopped there was constitutional:

Defendant's basis for stopping Plaintiff's vehicle was that the car was stopped at night in the roadway with the engine running in an area known for drugs and prostitution. In Connecticut, a parked car may "not obstruct or impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." Thus, Defendant observed Plaintiff committing a traffic offense, giving him reasonable suspicion to stop Plaintiff, check his driver's license, and require him to step out of the car.

But the court held that the handcuffing and detention violated the Fourth Amendment, assuming the facts were as the plaintiff alleged:

Defendant conceded at oral argument that his conduct following the initial stop and check of Plaintiff's driver's license exceeded the bounds of a Terry stop, but that the conduct was still justified because he had probable cause to believe Plaintiff was possessing a firearm without a permit as he had not yet been able to verify the validity of the permit.

The question thus becomes whether Plaintiff's disclosure that he had a pistol in the car coupled with presentation of a facially valid, but not yet verified, permit can "arguably" constitute probable cause to believe that he was unlawfully possessing a weapon in his vehicle. An assessment of arguable probable cause requires consideration of the statute Defendant believed Plaintiff might be violating.

Connecticut General Statutes 29-38(a) makes the absence of a permit while possessing a firearm inside a vehicle an element of the offense, meaning that there needed to have been some evidence indicating the probability that Plaintiff was not licensed to possess a firearm in order to suspect that he had committed the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in a vehicle. But at no time did Defendant have any reasonable suspicion or actual knowledge of Plaintiff's possession of the firearm without simultaneously knowing that Plaintiff demonstrated that he had an apparently valid firearm permit.

Indeed, it is undisputed that Plaintiff told Defendant that he had a pistol in the driver's side door compartment at the time he handed his driver's license and pistol permit to Defendant. And in his deposition, Plaintiff stated that when he handed his license and permit to Defendant, he said, "That's my license and including [sic] my pistol permit, I have a pistol on me." In the absence of any articulable reason for Defendant to believe the permit was counterfeit or otherwise invalid, there is no indication that Plaintiff was even arguably unlawfully possessing a firearm.

In light of the uncontested fact that Plaintiff presented his pistol permit to Defendant before or at the time he disclosed that he was in possession of a pistol and the absence of any other indicia that Plaintiff was otherwise violating the statute, no reasonable officer could believe probable cause was present. Any contrary holding "would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals" by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid. To accept Defendant's reasoning would permit police officers to detain any driver because he or she may have a counterfeit or otherwise invalid driver's license which has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Because, on the record read in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable police officer could have believed he or she had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, the Court denies summary judgment on the lawfulness of the de facto arrest .

The court also held that the law was clear enough that the police officer didn't have qualified immunity from the claim. And it likewise held as to the follow-up search of the car:

"[T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on 'specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant' the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and that the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons."

On this record, no reasonable officer could conclude that Plaintiff posed a meaningful threat of being "armed and dangerous" simply because he disclosed that he had a pistol and a license to possess it. Any contrary holding would make it practically impossible for the lawful owner of a firearm to maintain a Fourth Amendment right to privacy in his or her automobile.

Read more from the original source:
Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit - Reason

RIFLE, Colo. (CBS4) Rifle Police Sergeant Carlos Cornejo is a 10-year veteran police officer in the town of Rifle located west of Glenwood Springs.

Four years a sergeant, last year he had a thought about doing something about the misinformation he was seeing on social media.

I saw a picture of one of our officers in a traffic stop and the description of that post was saying that we were arresting people for being outdoors, traveling without a mask, he said. And clearly that was not accurate.

He took a plan to his bosses with the Rifle Police Department asking about posting on issues involving police. That was April 2020. It has totally taken off.

Its weird to say, OK, you know, there are five million views on this thing. Thats why its just its just humbling to just think about that. Its hard to picture at the same time.

His Facebook page, Sergeant Carlos Cornejo, has more than 642,000 followers. All for a cop in a town with a population of less than 10,000.

We started talking about clearing up some miscommunication it also kind of grew to also include other things, like peoples rights talking about police procedures, what we can and cant do and also bringing in a personal touch to it.

At times that includes his singing and guitar playing or performing with a band. The messages will be discussions from his patrol car or around town. He records the messages in his native Spanish. Cornejo was an immigrant from Mexico as a child with his family. His father who worked the fields of the West gained residency under immigration policies approved during the Reagan administration, then was able to get citizenship for most of the family. Carlos grew up mostly in Rifle and became a police officer.

For a while he has visited local radio stations to explain his work. But seeing misinformation online, he saw the opportunity to tell the story in a different way.

I think I think its very needed, and I mean one of the reasons I think that my page has grown as it has is for that reason. That need to connect.

His postings will bring hundreds of comments and questions.

The problem is that sometimes they dont have a lot of places to go find the right information in their language, so bad information gets easily translated transmitted push the out correct information, fact-based information, not so much.

Its funny because a lot of the topics that I talk about that get a lot of attention are traffic-related, which was shocking to me I have this whole thing about, you know your Fifth Amendment rights or Fourth Amendment and theyre more curious about how long do I stop for a stop sign?

COVID has been complicated.

Initially, I mean we were talking about people confused about what regulations were going on.

But when the vaccines came out and the Spanish-speaking community fell behind in vaccination rates, he felt he might be able to help. He is part of Colorados paid efforts to use social media influencers to share messages about vaccines.

Seeing someone similar to you speaking to you, like you speak and giving you this information, I think, builds a little bit of rapport and trust in the community.

But his reach is far beyond Rifle. Hes seen people making all kinds of claims in response, like misinformation that components of the vaccine will cause you to be magnetized and that there are microchips to track people. He tells people the phones they carry would be much better to track you. Police know that well.

They track you a lot more than anything else and service is a lot better.

Its all a change from usual police messaging.

I think that needs to be done a little bit more. Police departments are scared sometimes of you know, putting a police officer out there who might say the wrong thing that is going to, you know be on all these headlines and I think we need to get away from that fear a little bit.

Police have a story to tell he believes, thats not being heard enough.

Its a stressful job we have to deal with a lot of variables evolving, quickly evolving situations, people who are in crisis, people who are upset multiple times a day. And it wears on you when you go and see some horrible scene and the next thing you have to do is go deal with a dad and mom not getting along and then you know you have to go see someone take their life and then you have to pull somebody over.

The replies are not only questions but those of support. It seems to be working. With vaccines, Cornejo believes hes convinced some people and feels good about it.

Ive had people message me and tell me firsthand. You know, I was hesitant and you know I made the decision to do it.

View post:
Small Town Cop With Huge Following Shares Information About COVID Vaccines - CBS Denver

Aug 12th 2021

THE NATIONAL Centre for Missing & Exploited Children was established through an act of Congress in 1983, but it is not part of the American government. NCMEC (pronounced nic-mic) is a charity, one funded almost entirely by the Department of Justice, and which operates as a clearing house for information about abducted children. For the first few decades of its existence NCMECs focus was on abductions in America, helping investigations run across state lines. But as the use of the internet grew it started to turn its attention to the harm caused through online activity, specifically the trade of imagery depicting the sexual abuse of children.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

NCMECs role as an information clearing house has become far more technical as a result. In 1998 it started building a database of imagery known to depict sexual abuse of children based on the tips it had received. The technical term for this kind of data is CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material), mostly images or videos. Only NCMEC is shielded from liability to the extent that it can store CSAM and share it with law enforcement, but in 2006 the organisation began to think of ways that it might use the database to catch other CSAM trafficking. It came up with the idea of generating a long, unique string of letters and numbers known as a hash for each image in its database, then sharing those hashes with companies that wanted to scan their services for CSAM. By reversing the hashing process, companies could scan images on their services just for known CSAM, and report anything they found back to NCMEC.

This has led to an expansion of the number of tips that are sent to NCMEC, as technology companies scan automatically and voluntarily for CSAM. In 2010 NCMEC received 220,000 tips. By 2020 that number had grown to 21.7 million. And it is set to get bigger. On August 5th Apple announced that the next generation of its phone and laptop software would come with NCMECs hash database pre-installed, and would scan its users devices for CSAM automatically. Apples plans have stimulated fierce debate about whether the new system will provide an avenue for governments to expand their capacity to scan private devices for other illicit content. Many technology companies already used NCMECs hashes to scan their own cloud servers for CSAM, but Apple is taking this further with an encrypted system that runs scans on users own phones and laptops.

Yet the government could not easily force NCMEC or Apple to tweak this phone-scanning capability to look for other things. That is because any evidence thrown up by those compelled searches would be inadmissible in court for violating the Fourth Amendment. Crucially, none of the technology companies scanning for CSAM, nor NCMECs storage of it, does so, because the scans are done on a voluntary basis. The Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches by the governmentones that are carried out without a warrant. Arrests can be made only because of the voluntary nature of the CSAM scanning.

Most of the attention has focused on the technical details of Apples new CSAM scanning system. It will be released along with iOS15, the next update to its iPhone operating system, in September. Those technical details are important. Experts are poring over every available detail of the new software to determine whether it has introduced a security weakness to iPhones. But Apples ability to make this change also rests on the social norms that have underpinned the fight against child abuse in America for decades. The willing co-operation of third parties has long been all that makes it possible for law enforcement to track down child abusers in private spaces. Apple is now testing whether this willingness extends into the phones in Americans pockets.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Hashing ambiguous"

Read the rest here:
A 38-year-old charity will be integrated into Apple's newest operating system - The Economist

Apples new program for scanning images sent on iMessage steps back from the companys prior support for the privacy and security of encrypted messages. The program, initially limited to the United States, narrows the understanding of end-to-end encryption to allow for client-side scanning. While Apple aims at the scourge of child exploitation and abuse, the company has created an infrastructure that is all too easy to redirect to greater surveillance and censorship. The program will undermine Apples defense that it cant comply with the broader demands.

For years, countries around the world have asked for access to and control over encrypted messages, asking technology companies to nerd harder when faced with the pushback that access to messages in the clear was incompatible with strong encryption. The Apple child safety message scanning program is currently being rolled out only in the United States.

The United States has not been shy about seeking access to encrypted communications, pressuring the companies to make it easier to obtain data with warrants and to voluntarily turn over data. However, the U.S. faces serious constitutional issues if it wanted to pass a law that required warrantless screening and reporting of content. Even if conducted by a private party, a search ordered by the government is subject to the Fourth Amendments protections. Any warrant issued for suspicionless mass surveillance would be an unconstitutional general warrant. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, "Search warrants . . . are fundamentally offensive to the underlying principles of the Fourth Amendment when they are so bountiful and expansive in their language that they constitute a virtual, all-encompassing dragnet[.]" With this new program, Apple has failed to hold a strong policy line against U.S. laws undermining encryption, but there remains a constitutional backstop to some of the worst excesses. But U.S constitutional protection may not necessarily be replicated in every country.

Apple is a global company, with phones and computers in use all over the world, and many governments pressure that comes along with that. Apple has promised it will refuse government demands to build and deploy government-mandated changes that degrade the privacy of users. It is good that Apple says it will not, but this is not nearly as strong a protection as saying it cannot, which could not honestly be said about any system of this type. Moreover, if it implements this change, Apple will need to not just fight for privacy, but win in legislatures and courts around the world. To keep its promise, Apple will have to resist the pressure to expand the iMessage scanning program to new countries, to scan for new types of content and to report outside parent-child relationships.

It is no surprise that authoritarian countries demand companies provide access and control to encrypted messages, often the last best hope for dissidents to organize and communicate. For example, Citizen Labs research shows thatright nowChinas unencrypted WeChat service already surveils images and files shared by users, and uses them to train censorship algorithms. When a message is sent from one WeChat user to another, it passes through a server managed by Tencent (WeChats parent company) that detects if the message includes blacklisted keywords before a message is sent to the recipient. As the Stanford Internet Observatorys Riana Pfefferkorn explains, this type of technology is a roadmap showing how a client-side scanning system originally built only for CSAM [Child Sexual Abuse Material] could and would be suborned for censorship and political persecution. As Apple has found, China, with the worlds biggest market, can be hard to refuse. Other countries are not shy about applying extreme pressure on companies, including arresting local employees of the tech companies.

But many times potent pressure to access encrypted data also comes from democratic countries that strive to uphold the rule of law, at least at first. If companies fail to hold the line in such countries, the changes made to undermine encryption can easily be replicated by countries with weaker democratic institutions and poor human rights recordsoften using similar legal language, but with different ideas about public order and state security, as well as what constitutes impermissible content, from obscenity to indecency to political speech. This is very dangerous. These countries, with poor human rights records, will nevertheless contend that they are no different. They are sovereign nations, and will see their public-order needs as equally urgent. They will contend that if Apple is providing access to any nation-state under that states local laws, Apple must also provide access to other countries, at least, under the same terms.

For example, the Five Eyesan alliance of the intelligence services of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United Stateswarned in 2018 that they will pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions if the companies didnt voluntarily provide access to encrypted messages. More recently, the Five Eyes have pivoted from terrorism to the prevention of CSAM as the justification, but the demand for unencrypted access remains the same, and the Five Eyes are unlikely to be satisfied without changes to assist terrorism and criminal investigations too.

The United Kingdoms Investigatory Powers Act, following through on the Five Eyes threat, allows their Secretary of State to issue technical capacity notices, which oblige telecommunications operators to make the technical ability of providing assistance in giving effect to an interception warrant, equipment interference warrant, or a warrant or authorisation for obtaining communications data. As the UK Parliament considered the IPA, we warned that a company could be compelled to distribute an update in order to facilitate the execution of an equipment interference warrant, and ordered to refrain from notifying their customers.

Under the IPA, the Secretary of State must consider the technical feasibility of complying with the notice. But the infrastructure needed to roll out Apples proposed changes makes it harder to say that additional surveillance is not technically feasible. With Apples new program, we worry that the UK might try to compel an update that would expand the current functionality of the iMessage scanning program, with different algorithmic targets and wider reporting. As the iMessage communication safety feature is entirely Apples own invention, Apple can all too easily change its own criteria for what will be flagged for reporting. Apple may receive an order to adopt its hash matching program for iPhoto into the message pre-screening. Likewise, the criteria for which accounts will apply this scanning, and where positive hits get reported, are wholly within Apples control.

Australia followed suit with its Assistance and Access Act, which likewise allows for requirements to provide technical assistance and capabilities, with the disturbing potential to undermine encryption. While the Act contains some safeguards, a coalition of civil society organizations, tech companies, and trade associations, including EFF andwait for itApple, explained that they were insufficient.

Indeed, in Apples own submission to the Australian government, Apple warned the government may seek to compel providers to install or test software or equipment, facilitate access to customer equipment, turn over source code, remove forms of electronic protection, modify characteristics of a service, or substitute a service, among other things. If only Apple would remember that these very techniques could also be used in an attempt to mandate or change the scope of Apples scanning program.

While Canada has yet to adopt an explicit requirement for plain text access, the Canadian government is actively pursuing filtering obligations for various online platforms, which raise the spectre of a more aggressive set of obligations targeting private messaging applications.

For the Five Eyes, the ask is mostly for surveillance capabilities, but India and Indonesia are already down the slippery slope to content censorship. The Indian governments new Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code (2021 Rules), in effect earlier this year, directly imposes dangerous requirements for platforms to pre-screen content. Rule 4(4) compels content filtering, requiring that providers endeavor to deploy technology-based measures, including automated tools or other mechanisms, to proactively identify information that has been forbidden under the Rules.

Indias defense of the 2021 rules, written in response to the criticism from three UN Special Rapporteurs, was to highlight the very real dangers to children, and skips over the much broader mandate of the scanning and censorship rules. The 2021 Rules impose proactive and automatic enforcement of its content takedown provisions, requiring the proactive blocking of material previously held to be forbidden under Indian law. These laws broadly include those protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality. This is no hypothetical slippery slopeits not hard to see how this language could be dangerous to freedom of expression and political dissent. Indeed, Indias track record on its Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which has reportedly been used to arrest academics, writers and poets for leading rallies and posting political messages on social media, highlight this danger.

It would be no surprise if India claimed that Apples scanning program was a great start towards compliance, with a few more tweaks needed to address the 2021 Rules wider mandate. Apple has promised to protest any expansion, and could argue in court, as WhatsApp and others have, that the 2021 Rules should be struck down, or that Apple does not fit the definition of a social media intermediary regulated under these 2021 Rules. But the Indian rules illustrate both the governmental desire and the legal backing for pre-screening encrypted content, and Apples changes makes it all the easier to slip into this dystopia.

This is, unfortunately, an ever-growing trend. Indonesia, too, has adopted Ministerial Regulation MR5 to require service providers (including instant messaging providers) to ensure that their system does not contain any prohibited [information]; and [...] does not facilitate the dissemination of prohibited [information]. MR5 defines prohibited information as anything that violates any provision of Indonesias laws and regulations, or creates community anxiety or disturbance in public order. MR5 also imposes disproportionate sanctions, including a general blocking of systems for those who fail to ensure there is no prohibited content and information in their systems. Indonesia may also see the iMessage scanning functionality as a tool for compliance with Regulation MR5, and pressure Apple to adopt a broader and more invasive version in their country.

The pressure to expand Apples program to more countries and more types of content will only continue. In fall of 2020, in the European Union, a series of leaked documents from the European Commission foreshadowed an anti-encryption law to the European Parliament, perhaps this year. Fortunately, there is a backstop in the EU. Under the e-commerce directive, EU Member States are not allowed to impose a general obligation to monitor the information that users transmit or store, as stated in the Article 15 of the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). Indeed, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has stated explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their services in a general manner in order to detect and prevent illegal activity of their users. Such an obligation will be incompatible with fairness and proportionality. Despite this, in a leaked internal document published by Politico, the European Commission committed itself to an action plan for mandatory detection of CSAM by relevant online service providers (expected in December 2021) that pointed to client-side scanning as the solution, which can potentially apply to secure private messaging apps, and seizing upon the notion that it preserves the protection of end-to-end encryption.

For governmental policymakers who have been urging companies to nerd harder, wordsmithing harder is just as good. The end result of access to unencrypted communication is the goal, and if that can be achieved in a way that arguably leaves a more narrowly defined end-to-end encryption in place, all the better for them.

All it would take to widen the narrow backdoor that Apple is building is an expansion of the machine learning parameters to look for additional types of content, the adoption of the iPhoto hash matching to iMessage, or a tweak of the configuration flags to scan, not just childrens, but anyones accounts. Apple has a fully built system just waiting for external pressure to make the necessary changes. China and doubtless other countries already have hashes and content classifiers to identify messages impermissible under their laws, even if they are protected by international human rights law. The abuse cases are easy to imagine: governments that outlaw homosexuality might require a classifier to be trained to restrict apparent LGBTQ+ content, or an authoritarian regime might demand a classifier able to spot popular satirical images or protest flyers.

Now that Apple has built it, they will come. With good intentions, Apple has paved the road to mandated security weakness around the world, enabling and reinforcing the arguments that, should the intentions be good enough, scanning through your personal life and private communications is acceptable. We urge Apple to reconsider and return to the mantra Apple so memorably emblazoned on a billboard at 2019s CES conference in Las Vegas: What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone.

Read the original here:
If You Build It, They Will Come: Apple Has Opened the Backdoor to Increased Surveillance and Censorship Around the World - EFF

For years, St. Paul police officer Heather Weyker was swamped. She gathered evidence, cultivated witnesses, filled out the police reports, testified under oathall in connection with an interstate sex trafficking ring run by Somali refugees. But perhaps most impressive is that she did all that while fabricating the same ring she was investigating, which resulted in 30 indictments, 9 trials, and 0 convictions.

Hamdi Mohamud, then a 16-year-old refugee from Somalia, found herself caught up in that scheme in 2011, when one of Weyker's witnesses, Muna Abdulkadir, tried to attack her and her friends at knifepoint. Mohamud called the police, and Weyker intervenedon behalf of Abdulkadir. She arrested Mohamud and her friends for allegedly tampering with a federal witness, and Mohamud subsequently spent two years in jail before the trumped-up charges were dismissed.

While Mohamud lost those two years of her life, Weyker has not paid any pricenot in spite of her position, but because of it. Since the officer conducted her investigation as part of a federal task force, she is entitled to absolute immunity and cannot be sued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled last year.

It's not because the "sex trafficking" investigationwhich consisted of Weyker conjuring fake information, editing police reports, fabricating evidence, and lying under oath, among other thingswas legitimate. On the contrary, the court says it was "plagued with problems from the start" and notes that Weyker employed "lies and manipulation" to put people behind bars. Legally speaking, none of that matters.

What does matter is a line of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has made suing a rights-violating federal officer almost out of the question. Had Weyker acted in her capacity as a state or local cop, Mohamud would have been permitted to bring her claim before a jury of her peers. Yet the most powerful officers are held to the lowest standard of accountability.

Mohamud hopes to change that standard by asking the Supreme Court to hear her case, which she made official last week.

The problem here isn't qualified immunity, the doctrine that shields police officers and other state actors from federal civil suits unless the way the government violated your rights has been litigated almost exactly in a prior court precedent. That's an onerous standard to meet. It has, for example, protected two police officers who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant, because no prior court ruling had said stealing in those circumstances is unconstitutional. The legal principle has been at the center of criminal justice reform efforts over the last year.

But Mohamud cleared that hurdle. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that Weyker's actions so clearly made a mockery of the Constitution that she could not skirt the suit. The 8th Circuit then overturned that decision on appeal, citing Weyker's temporary federal badge, while in the same breath acknowledging the depravity of her actions.

"Qualified immunity makes it very, very difficult to sue government officials," says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest law firm representing Mohamud. "This makes it impossible."

There's a Supreme Court decision that should, in theory, give Mohamud the avenue to redress she needs. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics(1971), the high court allowed a victim to go before a jury after federal cops conducted a drug raid on his apartment without a warrant and later strip-searched him at the courthouse.

But since then the Court has undermined its own decision in almost comical ways. In 2017, the justices ruled in Ziglar v. Abbasi that lower courts should pinpoint "special factors counseling hesitation" when considering suits against federal cops. In practice, that has meant just about whatever a judge can cook up.

Yet even Abbasi notes that Bivens should be applied robustly for Fourth Amendment claims, and Mohamud's suit rests on the Fourth Amendment. That has been lost on the 8th Circuit.

"Bivens is actually a great decision," says Anya Bidwell, another attorney for Mohamud. "It does provide a cause of action for a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. We want Bivens to be interpreted robustly and allow individuals to seek damages for violations of constitutional rights."

Whether or not the Supreme Court will clarify its oscillating guidance remains to be seen. But last year the justices may have given a hint about where they're leaning when they unanimously ruled that a group of Muslim men should have the right to sue a group of federal cops who violated their religious freedom rights. Jaicomo distills Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in that case down to its core: "He [essentially] says the availability of damages against federal officers is as old as the Republic itself."

A decade after wrongly losing the end of her teenage years in jail, Mohamud has not yet been able to make use of that lever against the perpetrator, who is still employed by the St. Paul Police Department. "It simply makes no sense that the Fourth Amendment applies with less rigor for someone who happens to work for the federal government," says Bidwell. "This is unsustainable. It just makes no sense."

Read more from the original source:
A Federal Cop Devised a Bogus Sex Trafficking Ring and Jailed This Teen for 2 Years. The Cop Can't Be Sued. - Reason

Five career employees of the government of Puerto Rico sued Gov. Pedro Pierluisi at the federal court in San Juan for violating their constitutional rights by demanding they get vaccinated against COVID-19.

"The government of Puerto Rico is being arbitrary and capricious by coercing and tricking its public employees into getting vaccinated without regard to their fundamental right to personally refuse the vaccine," reads the lawsuit, presented by Jos Dvila Acevedo, the lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Zulay Rodrguez Vlez, Yohama Gonzlez, Leila Liborio Carrasquillo, and Julissa Piero denounce violations against the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, they request a declaratory sentence order and a preliminary injunction. They argue that legal action is not capricious, nor arbitrary.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs contest that the COVID-19 statistics suggest that the local government is "exaggerating the severity of the pandemic." Furthermore, they state that in Puerto Rico, the pandemic has not hindered health operations and that there are fewer cases than in other U.S. jurisdictions.

The government has not responded to THE WEEKLY JOURNAL's request for comment.

See the article here:
Puerto Rico Gov Sued in Federal Court Over Vaccine Mandates - The Weekly Journal

Philadelphias new rule mandating masks in all indoor businesses unless everyone inside is required to prove they are fully vaccinated will go into effect Thursday.

Heres what you need to know.

READ MORE: Philadelphias new mask mandate begins at midnight

The city announced new mask and vaccine requirements for all indoor businesses on Wednesday.

Masks are once again required at all indoor businesses and institutions, whether or not youre vaccinated, unless the business is requiring staff to get vaccinated and is requiring proof-of-vaccination from patrons.

This means all indoor businesses, not just restaurants. Its also indoor offices and any indoor gathering space.

Masks are also required at non-seated outdoor events with more than 1,000 people.

The move comes as more employers, cities, and states are requiring proof of vaccination. As of Sept. 1, the city will also require all new hires to be vaccinated, and current city employees to be vaccinated or wear two masks while at work.

Philadelphias new mask mandate and proof-of-vaccination rule will take effect at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday, Aug. 12.

At cooling centers, which the city opens during heat emergencies and are open during this weeks heat emergency, the mask mandate went into place at noon Wednesday.

No. If businesses require staff to get vaccinated and require proof of vaccination from patrons, they do not have to require masks.

In other words, masks are only required in the indoor spaces that are not checking guests vaccination status and are not requiring staff to get vaccinated.

The new requirements are in place to slow the spread of the highly transmissible delta variant of COVID-19. Nationwide, daily case counts have doubled within the last two weeks. In Philadelphia, the rate of new cases has doubled three times in the last month. And though hospitals here are far from overrun by coronavirus cases like some other parts of the country, for the first time since June more than 100 people are hospitalized due to the coronavirus.

Experts have said vaccine requirements could encourage more people to get inoculated. Currently, 63% of city residents have been vaccinated.

The citys previous honor system, where officials strongly recommended everyone wear masks indoors, hasnt worked, acting Health Commissioner Cheryl Bettigole said, and its difficult for businesses to enforce masking rules based on individuals vaccination status.

I think all-or-nothing is really whats going to work for them at this point, she said.

The reinstated mask requirement is a first step, Bettigole said, adding that the city will reassess based on future case numbers, hospitalizations, and vaccination rates.

READ MORE: Should you laminate your vaccination card? What if you lose it? Here are the dos and donts.

The city is asking that all businesses require people to wear masks indoors, or, if establishments do not want to require masks, have a reasonable system for enforcing proof of vaccination, Bettigole said. That means businesses that do require proof of vaccination should ask to see patrons cards or a photo of the card on their phone.

Meanwhile, all other establishments must require individuals to wear masks regardless of their vaccine status indoors. Businesses enforcing a mask mandate should have signs making it obvious at the entrance, Bettigole said.

Enforcement of coronavirus rules is typically complaint-driven, Bettigole said, with inspectors visiting establishments under scrutiny. If issues are not corrected on site, inspectors can close a business and charge $315 to reinspect and reopen operations. In rare cases, the health department can take a business to court and charge fines of up to $2,000 per day.

If issues arise for a particular business enforcing the new rules, the city is happy to give them guidance, Mayor Jim Kenney said.

In many cases, you may be able to show a photo of your vaccine card on your phone instead of the actual card. Be sure to take pictures of both sides of your vaccine card and keep those pictures stored on your phone.

If youre traveling and need to show your vaccine card to cross a border, however, you should have the original document with you.

According to the city, valid proof of vaccination includes a CDC card, a vaccine record from the health department, vaccine passport apps, or cards from other countries.

In general, having your card on your person for instance, in your wallet or handbag isnt a bad idea, unless you are prone to losing things.

If you cant find your vaccine card and were vaccinated in Philadelphia, you can contact the citys COVID Call Center at 215-685-5488 or covid@phila.gov to get a record of your COVID vaccination status. The staff at the center will determine the fastest way to get you your immunization record. This record is not a copy of the card you received when you were vaccinated, but it will still show proof of vaccination.

READ MORE: How do I get a replacement vaccine card in Pennsylvania?

To be fully vaccinated, you have to have received your final vaccine dose at least two weeks ago.

For those who arent yet vaccinated, its easy to get a shot. There are many places throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey pharmacies, neighborhood rec centers, and more where you can get your free COVID-19 shot. Visit phila.gov to find a vaccination place near you.

If you have already had the coronavirus, you still need proof of vaccination to enter businesses requiring it.

To eat indoors at a space that requires proof of vaccination, you must show your vaccination card. In most cases, outdoor dining, unless explicitly noted by the restaurant, is still open to unvaccinated individuals.

In spaces that dont require proof of vaccination, indoor dining will still remain an option. The difference is masks will be required for patrons and staff (whether unvaccinated or vaccinated) when you arent eating or drinking.

READ MORE: These are the Philadelphia restaurants that require proof of vaccination

Yes and no. If you are in a standing crowd of more than 1,000 people, like a concert with a mosh pit, you must wear a mask regardless of vaccination status, Bettigole said. Additionally, at the Mann Center in Fairmount Park, masks are required at all times, unless youre eating or drinking.

If you are sitting down at a large outdoor event, like a Phillies or Eagles game, you do not currently need to wear a mask, she said, but will need a mask handy for visiting indoor spaces in the stadiums.

READ MORE: Eagles update COVID protocols at the Linc, will require fans and staff to wear masks in indoor spaces

And if you are attending a smaller outdoor gathering with fewer than 1,000 people say, a wedding or party you are not required by the city to wear a mask. However, if you feel more comfortable in your mask at a smaller outdoor gathering, there is nothing wrong with wearing one.

No. A defining feature of last years virus restrictions, the city is shying away from putting capacity limits on businesses for now, Bettigole said, hoping that the mask-or-vaccination rules will be effective without taking a toll on the economy.

We have a weapon now we didnt have last year: We have very effective vaccines and they are readily available and they are free, she said. Were going to have to watch the numbers and see if this works, but we are trying not to hurt our city economically at a time that its just starting to recover.

Unvaccinated people including children under 12 who are too young to receive the shot are not allowed inside businesses requiring proof of vaccination to enter, Bettigole said. In an Aug. 13 press conference, Bettigole clarified that children dining outdoors at restaurants that require proof of vaccination can still enter to use the bathroom.

Quick, masked bathroom trips dont violate the citys regulations, she said.

Also on Aug. 13, Bettigole noted that grocery stores, doctors offices, pharmacies, and urgent care centers must require masks and do not have the option to accept proof of vaccination instead. This allows children under 12 to still enter these spaces.

Philadelphia schools are expected to welcome students back for full-time in-person learning starting Aug. 31, and will require all students and staff to wear masks, regardless of vaccination status. Families not yet comfortable with the return to classrooms can enroll in virtual schooling.

READ MORE: Philly tweaks mask mandate to help parents of young children

Yes. Much like a dress code or a friendly no shirt, no shoes, no service reminder, businesses can require proof of vaccination and masks.

According to Eric Feldman, professor of law and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, requiring proof of vaccination does not violate HIPAA or the Fourth Amendment.

Its quite clear that restaurants, airlines, cruise ships, your local caf, your local university, [or] the school that you may choose to send your child to are all within their legal bounds in asking you to demonstrate that you or your child has been vaccinated, he says.

Staff writer Sean Collins Walsh contributed to this article.

READ MORE: Live your best life in Philly: Read our most useful stories here

Go here to see the original:
Everything you need to know about Phillys new COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements - The Philadelphia Inquirer