Monthly Archives: September 2023

From staff reports

Armed with new security camera images, area police are continuing to ask for the publics help in tracking down a suspect in multiple break-ins the most recent on Tuesday evening in Bland County.

According to the Bland County Sheriffs Office, a man carrying a rifle and backpack broke in to a North Scenic Highway residence near South Gap while the property owners were gone.

On Sunday morning, a woman in Bland said a man, who was also armed with a rifle, had a garden pick near her back door before retreating into the woods.

The Sheriffs Office said this week that the man in Tuesdays break-in appears to be the same suspect sought in Wythe and Pulaski counties for similar crimes.

Anyone with information about the man is asked to call 911.

Bland County man convicted of Wythe truck theft

A Bland County man got jail time on Sept. 6 after pleading to four felonies in Wythe County Circuit Court.

Christopher Jennings Sizemore, 44, of Bastian, was convicted of Feb. 17 charges of automobile larceny, grand larceny, conspiracy to commit automobile larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny.

According to court records, Sizemore took a bucket truck and tools belonging to D.H. Elliot Co.

As part of a plea agreement, Sizemore was sentenced to serve one year and three months in jail with credit for time served while awaiting trial.

After his release, hell be on supervised probation for three years, during which time hell waive his Fourth Amendment protections. He was also ordered to pay D.H. Elliot Co. $12,350 in restitution and must stay away from the companys property and employees.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Continued here:
Police get new images of area break-in suspect - Southwest Virginia Today

In a year, if a friend asks you if the CIA is in your underwear, youd probably not take the question seriously. Youd be wrong. The CIA is spending millions in tax dollars to get into your underwear next year.

Eleven years ago, when this column asked if the CIA was in your kitchen, folks who read only the title of the column mocked it. Yet, then-CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus gave a talk to CIA analysts that he fully expected to be kept secret. In the talk he revealed that CIA vendors had discovered a means to log on to the computer chips in kitchen microwave ovens and dishwashers. From there, they could listen in real time to the conversations in a kitchen if those chatting were nearby the appliances.

Unfortunately for Petraeus, but fortunately for the Constitution, one of his analysts was so critical of the CIAs disdain for constitutional norms that the analyst recorded a major portion of Petraeuss talk and leaked it to the media. Is the CIA in your kitchen? Yes, not physically, but virtually.

The CIA, notwithstanding a clause in its charter that prohibits it from engaging in surveillance in the United States or from engaging in any law enforcement activities, has a long history of domestic spying without search warrants.

That last phrase without search warrants when used in conjunction with CIA spying is redundant. The CIA does not deal with search warrants. It behaves as if the Fourth Amendment and the First (protecting the freedom of speech and of the press) and Fifth (protecting life, liberty and property), for that matter do not exist or somehow do not pertain to its agents.

Not long ago, I was challenged to a public debate at the Conservative Political Action Conference by the general who was then the head of the National Security Agency, the CIAs domestic surveillance cousin. The topic of the debate was whether domestic warrantless spying is constitutional. I accepted the challenge and aggressively pressed the general on the notorious lack of fidelity that the 17 federal spying agencies have for the Constitution in general, and specifically the Fourth Amendment.

The general gave me two answers, both of which would have flunked a bar examination. First, he argued that the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable surveillance, and his 60,000 domestic spies were behaving reasonably. After the laughter died down, I pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that all searches and seizures all surveillance conducted without search warrants are as a matter of law unreasonable, and thus violative of the amendment.

Then he retreated to a post-9/11 argument crafted by the Department of Justice in the George W. Bush administration. That argument offers that the Fourth Amendment only restrains law enforcement; it does not restrain the intelligence community. I pointed out that this view is defied by both language and history.

The plain language of the amendment has no exceptions to it. Rather, it protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

I then reminded him we were friends, mind you; but I could not let him get away with publicly trashing the document he and I had both sworn to preserve, protect and defend that the Fourth Amendment was written in the aftermath of British intelligence agents breaking down the doors of colonists homes ostensibly looking for compliance with the Stamp Act of 1765 but really looking for subversive materials by folks whom today we call the Founding Fathers.

I present this brief background so as to offer a flavor for the mindset of the feds who spy on us and to address the latest craze among senior level intelligence folks in the Biden administration.

Last week, the Director of National Intelligence she is the nominal head of all 17 federal surveillance agencies revealed to Congress that she had spent $22 million in order to develop cotton fibers that she called smart clothing. The fibers will enable the CIA and other federal spies to record audio, video and geolocation data from your shirt, pants, socks and even your underwear. She billed this as the largest single investment ever made to develop Smart ePants.

Smarty pants how appropriate is that name for federal intrusion? Smarty pants is the jerk who cant stop talking and wont change the subject.

The CIA does not directly develop its ability to connect to your kitchen microwave and dishwasher or your socks and underwear. Rather, it hires outside groups to do so. In the case of smarty pants, 28 American tech firms and laboratories have helped to develop this monstrosity. Most are not household names, but some are like the University of Virginia (which is owned by the state of Virginia), Penn State (which is owned by the state of Pennsylvania) and DuPont (which owns most of the state of Delaware).

You cant make this stuff up. The federal governments appetite for surveillance is quite literally insatiable. And its respect for the individual natural right to be left alone is nonexistent. It traffics in evading and avoiding the Constitution, using absurd and puerile arguments that have never been accepted by the courts, even though every single federal employee has sworn an oath of fidelity to the Constitution as it is generally understood and interpreted.

When the DNI told Congress about this while Congress was on its summer break not a peep was heard from anyone in Congress or from the sleepy White House for whom the DNI works.

Does the government work for us, or do we work for the government? What employee gets to spy on his bosses by putting trick textiles into the bosses underwear and then gets away with it? When will Congress protect our liberties? When will enough of this warrantless spying be enough?

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Go here to read the rest:
Napolitano: Is the CIA in your underwear? | News, Sports, Jobs - Standard-Examiner

Top Story

After a summer punctuated by high-profile shootings and other crimes involving young people, officials in Maryland are weighing whether the states juvenile justice system should be reformed. Some argue that the system, which has moved away from carceral punishment in recent years, should be overhauled and better hold young people accountable.

But Department of Juvenile Services head Vincent N. Schiraldi says perceptions of a youth crime wave are overblown, pointing to a new report showing that overall youth violence has been declining for more than a decade. [The Baltimore Banner/The Washington Post]

New Mexicos temporary gun carry ban has, justifiably, gotten a lot of attention since Governor Michelle Lujan Grishams administration ordered it last week. The ban which is applicable only on public and state property in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County is largely unprecedented, and it received immediate pushback from gun rights and gun reform proponents alike.

While there is some limited evidence that such an approach could curtail gun violence, New Mexicos gun carry ban isnt a long-term solution. And the order raises some more pressing questions: Is the ban enforceable? Is it constitutional? And what does the order actually do? The Traces Jennifer Mascia and Chip Brownlee explain.

Read more from The Trace

Public libraries have always sought to build stronger, more resilient communities. These days, theyre playing an important role in gun violence prevention: The library system in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, for example, offers free gun locks at all of its branches. Thats in addition to an array of programs that foster community well-being, like GED classes and computers on loan initiatives that aim to alleviate social conditions associated with gun violence.

Libraries across the country offer services like these, Chip Brownlee reports in the latest edition of The Trajectory. And theres research showing that, even as they face political and financial challenges, libraries are uniquely equipped to help improve public safety.

Read more from The Trace

A federal judge tossed out the National Shooting Sports Foundations challenge to Delawares public nuisance law, which enables the states attorney general or a private citizen to sue gun companies for failing to follow laws governing the industrys sales and marketing practices. The judge said it was too soon to rule on the law because it had not yet been used in litigation when NSSF filed its challenge. [Reuters]

Floridas extreme risk protection order law allows police to confiscate weapons from people deemed a threat, but its not an automatic process. Could it have saved 24-year-old Dayana Hurtado, whose boyfriend allegedly shot and killed her two weeks after she told law enforcement her life might be in danger? [Miami New Times]

As the manhunt for Danelo Cavalcante a convicted murderer who escaped from a Pennsylvania prison on August 31 and was recaptured this morning entered its 11th day, private citizen Ryan Davis sat in a Wawa parking lot in Chester County, carrying a firearm and operating a drone that scanned the surrounding area looking for movement. He was one of a handful of amateur sleuths, many of them armed, who took the search for Cavalcante into their own hands much to the displeasure of police. [The Philadelphia Inquirer]

Crime data can be difficult to parse, not in small part because of poor reporting practices and inexact definitions of what constitutes a crime. A recent story about gun violence in Canada that conflated shootings with the crime of discharging firearm with intent provides a cautionary tale. [Jeff Asher]

Federal judges rarely throw out evidence based on Fourth Amendment challenges. But in Memphis, where police waged an intense campaign to get guns and drugs off the streets in recent years, the number of successful Fourth Amendment challenges appears significantly higher than in the rest of the country an indication that the department has a problem with overzealous policing. [The Marshall Project]

The University of Chicagos Community Violence Intervention Leadership Academy officially kicked off this week, welcoming a cohort of community leaders into a six-month program designed to enhance violence interruption initiatives by providing guidance on program management, staff retention, evaluation, and more. [Chicago Sun-Times]

Violence Interruption Programs Are Receiving Millions. This Initiative Wants to Make Sure Theyre Prepared: Chico Tillmon, the director of the University of Chicago Crime Labs new leadership academy, discusses the challenges facing community-based organizations and the tools they need to succeed. (June 2023)

See original here:
Bulletin: Maryland Juvenile Services Head Says Violence Among ... - The Trace

A man on horseback sufficiently alleged excessive force claims against a Lynchburg police officer who tased a him when he fled the attempted service of a permitted warrant, the Western District of Virginia found.

The officer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. But U.S. District Court Judge Norman K. Moon said the mans allegations were plausible and rejected the officers qualified immunity defense for now.

Taking all the allegations as true Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the judge held. However, Defendant [] may raise qualified immunity again at a later stage in the proceedings.

In March 2021, the Lynchburg Police Department notified all units that a permitted warrant for an alleged protective order violation was outstanding for Steve Rucker Jr. A warrant is permitted if an officer is required to serve an individual and release them with a summons.

The notice to officers said Rucker was entering the city on horseback. Upon finding Rucker, an LPD officer activated his unmarked cruisers lights and siren. Rucker refused the officers request to stop. A chase ensued through downtown Lynchburg.

The chase lasted about seven minutes, and Rucker turned down about a dozen streets. A pursuing officer told Rucker that they just had paperwork for him. Another officer tried to tase Rucker. He missed and caused the horse to speed up to about 25 mph.

A few minutes later, LPD Officer Zachary Miller tased Rucker. The horse again sped up, and Rucker fell off after two blocks. While Rucker lay in the street, LPD Officer Michael Johnson Jr. jumped out of a nearby cruiser, but it began drifting toward a retaining wall.

Johnson hopped back into his cruiser, turned it hard right, and stepped on the accelerator. The cruiser rolled over Rucker, causing him multiple injuries that required hospitalization.

Rucker sued Miller and Johnson in the Western District of Virginia for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as state law claims for gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, and battery.

Arguing that Rucker failed to state a claim and that qualified immunity shielded him from liability, Miller moved to dismiss.

Excessive force

All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendments objective reasonableness standard, Moon explained.

The court must consider the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses a threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is resisting arrest or attempting to flee arrest.

A court must also consider that officers must make split second judgements in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation, the judge added.

Moon said the first factor weighed heavily in Ruckers favor because he was not wanted for any crime when the pursuit began.

The circumstances of the alleged protective order violation were not detailed; nothing established that Rucker committed or was suspected of committing any violent or other serious crime.

The second factor also favored Rucker. Moon noted that the allegations did not indicate Rucker was armed, violent or a threat to officers or the public, nor was there a suggestion that Rucker was riding in a violent or reckless manner.

The officer claimed that riding a horse at night through traffic posed a danger. Moon was not swayed but acknowledged that further facts may support a different conclusion.

The third factor also tipped in Ruckers favor, Moon said.

Plaintiff does not suggest he was resisting arrest, but merely avoiding service of a summons, the judge noted. Plaintiff argues that he was also not fleeing arrest because there was no arrest to begin with. Again, considering the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the factors demonstrate a plausible claim of excessive force against Defendant Miller.

Moon then pointed out that, according to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, using a taser is a serious use of force that should only be deployed in dangerous situations.

The Fourth Circuit further held that [t]asers may only be deployed when a police officer is confronted with an exigency that creates an immediate safety risk and that is reasonably likely to be cured by using the taser, the judge wrote.

Based on its analysis, Moon found that Rucker did not pose a safety risk to the officer or the public to warrant use of a taser.

Qualified immunity

Rucker claimed he sufficiently alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. As such, Miller was not entitled to qualified immunity. Rucker also contended that the court should wait to decide on qualified immunity until the record was more developed.

Moon acknowledged that excessive force by police is a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment and that use of a taser except in exceptional circumstances is excessive force.

Thus, as Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an excessive force violation and Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in litigation, Defendant Millers motion to dismiss will be denied as to the excessive force claim, Moon wrote, adding that the officer may raise qualified immunity at a later stage in the proceedings.

Richmond litigator Mark Dix, who represents Rucker, said his client was hospitalized for almost a month and incurred more than $288,000 in medical bills from his injuries.

We are very confident that qualified immunity would not provide any kind of obstacle to us getting to the jury, he told Virginia Lawyers Weekly. The 4th Circuit has been clear as day since 2016 in Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst that you do not use a taser to enforce compliance.

He pointed out that his brief cites scholarship about qualified immunity being based on factual fiction.

It turns out that this doctrine of qualified immunity was based upon somebody altering the United States Code in the late 1800s or early 1900s, but the 4th Circuit found it was bound to apply stare decisis, Dix explained. At some point, courts are going to have to grapple with the sordid history of how 1983 was altered.

He noted that there are cases about the validity of qualified immunity making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dix said he has not received a settlement offer from the city. The case now proceeds to discovery.

The rest is here:
Tased horseman's excessive force claims clear bar Rhode Island ... - Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly

A couple of years ago, I shared a post on Facebook that mocked misinformation. The photo allegedly showed a 206-year-old Tibetan monk who had just been discovered alive in a mountain cave. The caption said he had been in a meditative state called takatet for years. It continued, Among his things, they found an old scroll that read, Stop believing all the crap you read on Facebook.

Recently, the post popped up as a memory on my Facebook page and I shared it again. This time, though, independent fact-checkers blocked it, writing, Independent fact-checkers say this information has no basis in fact. Well, duh!

Last Friday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Biden administrations suppression of information on social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, regarding posts related to COVID-19 and allegations of election fraud. The ruling specifically applied to the White House, surgeon general, CDC and FBI.

Before the 5th Circuits hearing, a lower-court judge had ruled that U.S. officials illegally coerced social media platforms into censoring those posts. The 5th Circuit agreed, writing that such coercion violated the First Amendments free speech protections. The panel wrote, The government is not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it engages in viewpoint suppression.

Initiated in July 2016, Crossfire Hurricane was likely the most egregious example of information-suppression and manipulation. The FBI operation occurred at the end of the Obama administration to smear Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign for president and inaugurate Hillary Clinton as president.

After four years of continual media and Democrat charges of Russian collusion, Special Counsel John Durham was appointed in October 2020 to investigate the origins of Crossfire Hurricane. Durhams final report was released May 15, 2023. It documented the roles played by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, James Comey and a host of other top administration officials to smear Trump with a Russian Hoax from the summer of 2016 to the end of his term in 2021.

President Biden didnt miss a beat on Jan. 21, 2021, when he began tearing down all that Trump had accomplished during his four years in office. Of course, as we have seen, Biden and his administration worked hand-in-glove with a complicit media to suppress all information that contradicted the establishments mantra about COVID-19, election interference and, the party favorite, climate change.

What can we expect between now and November 2024? Well see national emergencies that will serve as pretense for suspending First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and 10th amendment rights. As weve seen, the courts have ruled the Biden administration has violated Americans right to freedom of speech. The right to bear arms has been under continual attack. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham just decreed a temporary gun ban in parts of her state commenting that the Second Amendment is not absolute.

And what about our protection from illegal government search and seizure (Fourth Amendment)? Or, our Fifth Amendment right to due process? Ask Jan. 6 prisoners about their rights to a speedy trial as well as excess bail or fines and cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment).

The Bill of Rights protects Americans only as long as the government respects and abides by its constitutional limitations. Its absurd to give fact-checkers positions of adjudication.

Daniel L. Gardner is a columnist who lives in Starkville. Cntact him at PJandMe2@gmail.com.

More:
The absurdity of fact-checkers | Columnists | leader-call.com - leader-call.com