Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Vega v. Tekoh. The issue in the case is whether a plaintiff may sue a police officer for an interrogation that violates the rules announced in Miranda v. Arizona and that results in a statement that the prosecution introduces at the plaintiffs trial, a trial ending in an acquittal. In considering the case, the Justices seemed to believe that a crucial question was as follows: Is adherence to Miranda a constitutional requirement or something more akin to a prophylactic sub-constitutional practice? The Justices in what appears to be a majority appeared less taken with Miranda as part of the Fifth Amendment, and those who will likely comprise the dissent viewed the decision in Dickerson v. United States as conferring constitutional status on the warnings and the associated exclusionary rule. In this column, I shall argue that the answer to the constitutional-versus-prophylactic-rule question should have little bearing on the outcome of the case and that a simple consideration of the structure of the right against compelled self-incrimination tells us whether a lawsuit on the basis of its violation makes sense.

In Tekoh, the respondent, while allegedly in custody, faced questioning in the absence of Miranda warnings. Police, under the famous Miranda decision, must give a suspect in custody the warnings before interrogating him. Decisions that followed Miranda required further that the police respect an invocation of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel and cease any ongoing interrogation. Initially, the decision seemed to embrace the idea that Miranda requirements were constitutionally mandatory. Over time, though, the Court treated violations of Miranda as distinct from violations of the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, on which Miranda was based. For instance, if police compelled a self-incriminating statement, the statement would be inadmissible in the prosecutions affirmative case and inadmissible on cross-examination of the defendant, under New Jersey v. Portash. By contrast, if police took a statement in violation of Miranda, the statement would be inadmissible in the governments affirmative case but admissible on cross-examination of the defendant, under Harris v. New York. So far as we know, this and other doctrinal distinctions between Miranda violations and Fifth Amendment violations remain in place. Yet the Supreme Court, in Dickerson v. United States, held that Miranda was a constitutional decision, conferring a sort of hybrid status on the ruling. We call Miranda constitutional and therefore not subject to repeal by Congress, but the violation of it has fewer consequences than unadorned violations of the Fifth Amendment. As described above, different Justicesdepending on their ideological drutherstook different positions on what aspect of the Miranda hybrid applies to the Tekoh case.

In my view, the constitutional/nonconstitutional status of Miranda at this time is irrelevant to the resolution of the case before the Court. To explore this alternative point of view, assume for arguments sake that the Miranda decision is fully constitutional and that the current law treats it no differently from the text of the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and the decisions interpreting the latter. On this assumption, if the police violated Tekohs Miranda rights, then it follows that the resulting statements should not have been admitted at all during Tekohs trial. Again on the assumption that police violated Miranda (since they might not have, if Tekoh was not in custody), the prosecution violated the Fifth Amendment when it introduced the non-Mirandized statements into evidence. Tekoh now believes that he is entitled to bring a civil rights lawsuit against the police for the questioning and the statement, as compensation for the injury Tekoh suffered when his non-Mirandized statements were introduced into evidence.

Now think about what the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause (which we are assuming is doctrinally the same as Miranda) does. It prevents us from being condemned by our own words, forced from our lips. Justice Marshall believed that Miranda was a constitutional decision, and he believed it before the Courts ruling in Dickerson. In a dissent from the Courts decision in New York v. Quarles, Justice Marshall said that if police truly need to ask the suspect a question in order to protect the public, it is unnecessary for the Court to recognize a public safety exception to Miranda. Instead, Justice Marshall explained, police could comply with the Fifth Amendment simply by asking the suspect their question (in an admittedly coercive environment) and then not introducing the suspects response at his trial: The irony of the majoritys decision is that the publics safety can be perfectly well protected without abridging the Fifth Amendment.[N]othing in the Fifth Amendment or our decision inMiranda v. Arizonaproscribes this sort of emergency questioning. All the Fifth Amendment forbids is the introduction of coerced statements at trial. (emphasis added).

This suggestion from Justice Marshalls dissent (which took the most liberal position on Miranda warnings) highlighted the fact that the violation does not lie in the non-Mirandized interrogation (or in a coercive question) but in the use of the answer to prove the suspects guilt at trial. Along similar lines, the Court held in Kastigar v. United States that granting a person use and derivative use immunity from prosecution enables government officials to lawfully and literally compel (on pain of contempt) self-incriminating statements from a witness. With such statements, then, the action is at the criminal trial. You might imagine that if the action is at trial, then Tekoh suffered a violation because his statements were introduced at trial. But not so fast.

If having a self-incriminating statement come into evidence at any trial were the problem, then compelled statements would be inadmissible at a civil proceeding. But if an attorney were able to grant criminal immunity to a witness, then that attorney could compel the witnesss self-incriminating testimony at a civil trial. So the right is all about what makes criminal prosecution uniqueit can end in the incarceration of the defendant. Absent the possibility of incarceration, the Fifth Amendment (and, on our assumption, Miranda) does not apply. Why am I making this point? Because Tekoh was acquitted at the end of his trial by jury. Given his acquittal, his presumptively compelled self-incriminating statements produced no harmful effect. The harmful effect associated with compelled self-incrimination is criminal conviction on the basis of such incrimination. Indeed, the Court held in Arizona v. Fulminante that the admission of a coerced confession into evidence can be harmless error if, in light of all the evidence, it made no difference to the trial. What could more clearly indicate the harmlessness of an error than an acquittal? An acquittal makes it unnecessary to speculate about how the trial would have gone if the forbidden evidence had not come in. Quite plainly, the trial would still have ended in an acquittal.

Some people have expressed concern that if the Court says Tekoh cannot sue the police for violating Miranda, then perhaps it will be impossible to sue police for other constitutional violations. It is worth noting here that, as per Justice Marshalls suggestion in Quarles, taking statements in violation of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment is fine so long as they do not go into evidence. Therefore, if anyone is responsible for violating the law, it would be the prosecutor who introduced the statement (and who has absolute immunity against civil liability), not the officer who took the statement. But to the extent that we have a trial right (like the right to counsel, the right to confrontation, etc.), the proper remedy for a violation is either suppression of resulting evidence or reversal of a conviction based on that evidence. We do not entertain lawsuits by defendants because un-cross-examinable testimonial hearsay came into evidence. We do not entertain lawsuits by defendants whose jurors were selected in violation of Batson v. Kentucky. We handle Confrontation Clause and Batson violations by reversing convictions and granting new trials, not by allowing defendants to seek money damages from prosecutors (or the police whose investigation helped prepare prosecutors for trial). And presumably, the person convicted after sustaining one of these trial-related violations is most interested in reversing the conviction rather than in collecting money. There is no reason whatsoever to treat Miranda/Fifth Amendment violations any differently, other than the fact that police lack absolute immunity, rendering them vulnerable to potential suits despite their not having violated the law, even on the most generous understanding of Miranda.

Many of the harmful things that police do will remain actionable even after the Court (probably for the wrong reasons) decides Tekoh. When police search without probable cause or a warrant, the suspect can sue the police for civil rights violations. When police use deadly force when it is unreasonable to do so, the family of the victim can sue the police for civil rights violations (and the government can even prosecute the perpetrator under 18 U.S.C. 242. In other words, when police themselves violate the Constitution, they remain vulnerable to suit. But when prosecutors violate the Constitution by introducing evidence they should not have introduced at trial, the proper remedy is reversal, not a lawsuit against actors who did not even violate the law.

Read more:
Vega v. Tekoh and the Supreme Courts Conceptual Confusion - Justia Verdict

The New Orleans City Council on Thursday voted to hire an outside investigator to aid in its ongoing probe of Mayor LaToya Cantrells controversial and now-abandoned smart cities project.

Allegations of contract-fixing and self-dealing in the project have ramped up in recent weeks, after it was revealed that two city employees who helped plan the project and develop a bid solicitation for a contractor to build it out were at the same time building a private business in the smart cities industry.

Their business, Cantrell administration officials recently acknowledged, once consulted for one of the partner companies in the business consortium that the city ultimately selected as a contractor. The two officials, Director of the Mayors Office of Utilities Jonathan Rhodes and city IT employee Christopher Wolff, had not previously disclosed the business or the consulting work to the city.

The council on Thursday also approved procedures for investigatory hearings to guide the rest of the process.

Councilwoman Helena Moreno said the votes were moving the process forward in the formal investigation the council launched last month.

The council will now begin a bid process to select an outside investigator. Whoever is selected will have 45 days to complete a written report. The report will be based on documents the council already subpoenaed from the administration, but the investigator will also be allowed to ask the council to issue more subpoenas for documents or additional public hearings.

The public hearing procedures the council approved on Thursday dictate that any witnesses called will have to answer questions under oath, and cannot refuse to answer questions unless they explicitly invoke their Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

The city announced a public bid for the smart cities project in April 2021, with big promises of expanding internet access to those who cant afford it, while installing millions of dollars in new smart cities devices to improve city services and create new revenue. All of that would be cost-neutral, city officials said, requiring no upfront city investment and paid for over time through savings and new revenue.

But those lofty ambitions have since turned into a major city controversy.

Questions grew in November 2021, when The Lens reported on the proposal the city selected for the project, submitted by a consortium of businesses called Smart+Connected NOLA, led by wireless giant Qualcomm and JLC Infrastructure, an investment firm co-founded by NBA legend Magic Johnson.

The Lens reported on the details of that proposal, including the plan to partially fund the program by ramping up and monetizing data collection through the installation of smart cities devices that contain cameras, microphones, internet equipment and other sensors. The Lens also reported on key details that were missing from the plan, like how much it would cost, what data would be collected and whether the plan actually achieved one of its biggest promises getting in-home internet to New Orleans households that dont currently have it.

Two days after that story was published, Moreno publicly raised concerns about the project at a budget hearing.

In December, The Lens first reported on contract-fixing allegations lodged by a losing competitor in the smart cities public bid, Cox Communications. The company accused the city of conspiring with a pro bono consultant Chicago-based Ignite Cities to illegally steer the contract toward a predetermined company Smart+Connected NOLA.

The protest argued that Ignite had a conflict of interest. It noted that although Ignite Cities wasnt listed as an official member of the Smart+Connected NOLA consortium, the company had publicly announced in 2020 that it formed a business partnership with two of the companies leading the consortium Qualcomm and JLC to deliver the exact type of project they were pitching in New Orleans.

Cox provided evidence that Ignite Cities had helped the city for months to develop and even write the public bid documents, called requests for proposals, or RFPs. Documents showed the consultant was given early access to the final RFP weeks before it was released to the public.

The city dismissed the Cox protest, downplaying Ignites role in writing the RFP and arguing that it wasnt aware of any financial interest Ignite had in the project. The city did not fully explain, and has not since, why Ignite, a for-profit business, would be doing so much work and spending money on a project it had no financial interest in.

The councils scrutiny of the project began to rise in earnest in April, when the Cantrell administration began to publicly pressure the council into backing the project. As originally pitched, the project would require a multi-year contract, which would require approval from the City Council.

Cantrell held several WiFi for All events in New Orleans with Johnson, using his star power to help sell the public and council on the project.

We could have taken our check anywhere, because a lot of cities want this, Johnson said during a press conference the same day. Theres no magic without the City Council.

But council members, in particular Moreno and Councilman JP Morrell, were frustrated that the administration was publicly calling for their support, while failing to produce a draft contract or answer the councils basic questions about the program.

The final straw was when the Cantrell administration revealed to The Lens that it decided to pursue a one-year agreement which would not be subject to council approval to jumpstart the project as the administration continued to negotiate and rally support for a long-term contract.

Moreno called that an attempt to circumvent the Council. She and Morrell last month issued a subpoena to Rhodes, the Office of Utilities director, demanding a wide array of documents and ordering him to publicly answer questions under oath at a council hearing.

In response, Rhodes produced hundreds of pages of emails and documents that illustrated how Ignite Cities, rather than acting as a neutral consultant writing a public bid, was actively advocating for and connecting its partners to city officials, especially Rhodes.

Shortly after, it was revealed that Rhodes himself may have had a conflict of interest due to his outside businesses: his law firm, which he has advertised as specializing in smart cities planning, and a business he co-founded with another city employee Christopher Wolff called Verge Internet.

Rhodes and Wolff both worked closely on New Orleans smart cities project. Wolff was part of the purchasing selection committee that chose Smart+Connected NOLA. At the same time, the two were actively trying to raise investment capital for Verge Internet, a company that envisions providing the same type of broadband service thats included in the New Orleans smart cities project.

The two also provided pro-bono consulting services through Verge to Qualcomm for a digital equity proposal with the city of Los Angeles, months before its group was selected for the New Orleans project.

The council opened a formal investigation into the smart cities project on April 21. Four days later, Smart+Connected NOLA announced it was dropping out of the project. Two days after that, the council questioned Rhodes under oath and formally requested the New Orlean Office of Inspector General open an investigation of its own.

Read more from the original source:
Council to hire outside investigator for its probe into smart cities contract-fixing allegations - The Lens

The Badger State just became a better place to live and own a home. A recently passed law bans counties from engaging in an unjust practice known as tax and take or home equity theft.

Home equity theft is only possible in around a dozen states across the United States. In those states, if you fall behind your property taxes, local governments can seize and sell the tax-delinquent properties and keep all the profits from the sale, even when the property sells for much more than the tax debt.

Wisconsin used to be one of these tax and take states. But on March 31, Gov. Tony Evers signed a law requiring counties to return any windfall from tax sales to the former owners. Previously, only homestead owners could claim such tax sale proceeds and only if they did so within 60 days of notice.

According to data obtained through public record requests by my colleagues at Pacific Legal Foundation, at least 900 Wisconsin homeowners across eight Wisconsin counties had lost their homes and all equity they had built in their homes between 2014 and 2021. But that figure significantly understates how widespread the equity theft problem was. The data we examined did not include nonresidential properties and only covered a third of the Wisconsin population.

We found that many Wisconsin homeowners lost up to 99% of all their hard-earned savings built in their homes due to home equity theft. Among the counties that we studied Dane, Waukesha, Brown, Racine, Outagamie, Winnebago, Kenosha, and Rock home equity theft was most highly prevalent in Brown and Kenosha counties.

While tax foreclosures are reasonable means for the government to collect unpaid taxes, the government should not keep any more than what is owed. Taking families hard-earned equity over unpaid or underpaid taxes is theft. This unfairly penalizes Americans who are already struggling with difficult life circumstances that resulted in them falling behind with their taxes in the first place. People affected by home equity theft often suffer from mental or physical illness or financial hardship. Losing their homes and their lifetime of savings only exacerbates their devastation.

Home equity theft is also unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from taking property for public use without just compensation. While the government can impose penalties for late tax payments, the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive fines. A penalty that is 100 times the late tax payment is unconstitutionally excessive.

While Wisconsin eliminated home equity theft, many other states continue to take from their vulnerable residents. Although varying significantly in form, size, and scope, home equity theft is still a reality in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon.

Pacific Legal Foundation is committed to ending home equity theft across the country and has already succeeded in some states. In 2019, Montana passed a bill that curtails home equity theft. In 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that home equity theft violates property rights. In 2021, North Dakota also ended home equity through a legislative fix.

One by one, home equity theft is being struck down or ended. Wisconsins legislative reform that ended its predatory tax laws is a perfect example for the remaining wayward states to follow.

Owning a home is a part of the American dream. For many families, their homes are their only significant asset, and their home equity is their only savings. Home equity theft kills American dreams and must end now. Other states should follow Wisconsins lead and eradicate home equity theft.

This op-ed was originally published byThe Washington Examiner on May 4, 2022.

Excerpt from:
The Washington Examiner: Wisconsin ended home equity theft. Other states should follow. - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)

By Ryan Nobles, Annie Grayer and Zachary Cohen, CNN

Donald Trump Jr., the son of former President Donald Trump, met on Tuesday with the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.

Trump Jr. was a high-profile surrogate for the Trump campaign and was among the most prominent supporters of his father to push a false narrative about the election results in the period between the 2020 election and January 6, 2021. Trump Jr. was with the former President backstage outside the White House before his speech at the Stop the Steal rally at the Ellipse.

A person familiar with the interview said it was conducted remotely, lasted a little more than three hours and was cordial. Trump Jr. answered all the questions and did not assert the Fifth Amendment during the interview, the person said.

CNN exclusively reported that on November 5, 2020, two days after the election and before the race was called, Trump Jr. texted then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows a lengthy message with a long list of steps the Trump campaign could take to prevent Joe Biden from being certified as the next President of the United States.

Trump Jr. joins a growing list of close associates and family members of the former President to cooperate with the committee. His sister Ivanka, her husband and top Trump adviser Jared Kushner and Trump Jr.s fiance Kimberly Guilfoyle have all sat for interviews with the committee.

A spokesperson for the committee declined to comment.

Alan Futerfas, an attorney for Trump Jr, declined to comment.

The-CNN-Wire & 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

CNNs Kara Scannell contributed to this report.

View original post here:
Donald Trump Jr. met with the House January 6 committee on Tuesday - ABC17NEWS - ABC17News.com

The Roberts Court, April 23, 2021 Seated from left to right: Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor Standing from left to right: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. Photograph by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

To the editor:

In 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that a married couple has a right of privacy that cannot be infringed upon by a state law making it a crime to use contraceptives.

The 1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird ruling extended the privacy protection around contraception to unmarried people.

These rulings were based on the Fifth Amendment, which resulted in the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

If the 2024 intentions of the Republican Party are to ban abortions nationwide, what is to stop them from also banning contraceptives?

Women will be forced by the state to have annual pregnancies if this occurs. It could happen that many married women will refuse to have intercourse because they do not want to be pregnant annually until they reach menopause.

Do we want to go back to the 1800s, when women were only for child bearing or prostitution?

Vote for a Democratic Party candidate who will vote to protect womens health and welfare.

Julie StewartWaukee

Here is the original post:
Letter to the editor: Privacy threatened by activist SCOTUS clique - theperrynews.com

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, Va. -- Chesterfield County Police have arrested one man and are still looking for another man in a fatal shooting that happened in the parking lot of a Pilot Travel Center on Sunday.

Just after 6 p.m. on Sunday, police responded to multiple calls about a shooting at the travel center. On their arrival, officers located a victim, identified as Keon Clanton, 35, who was suffering from multiple gunshot wounds.

Clanton, of Dinwiddie County, was brought to a hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Clanton's family is still in shock following his death. They said that he was an amazing father and would do anything for his kids.

ALSO READ: Man recalls last moments with Pilot shooting victim; 'Nobody should have to die like that'

Police learned that a suspect vehicle fled the area after the shooting.

Shortly later, police responded to a car crash near the intersection of West Hundred Road and Route 1 involving the suspect vehicle. One suspect, Darnell S. White, 32, was taken into custody at the scene.

White was arrested and charged with second-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He is currently being held at the Chesterfield County Jail without bond.

"All murders are second degree as a default. If they have evidence of pre-meditation, it goes to first degree. If they don't, it can bump down to manslaughter," CBS6 Political Expert Todd Stone said.

White has faced first-degree murder charges before in August of 2019. Court resources show that White had multiple felonies, including murder nolle prossed. The Sussex County Sheriff's Office confirms that, saying witnesses backed out of testimony, pleading the Fifth Amendment in that case.

"Sometimes, people plea the Fifth because they're afraid to testify in a murder trial. So the fact that he's being held in this other case might give witnesses in the previous case the security they need to come forward. It's certainly a possibility," Stone said.

A second suspect fled the crash scene. Police shared a photo of the second man they're looking to question.

Chesterfield County Police

Police are still looking for this suspect who was seen on surveillance cameras in a mobile home community near the scene of the crash.

Anyone with information about this shooting and/or the location or identity of the second suspect should contact the Chesterfield County Police Department at 804-748-1251 or Crime Solvers at 804-748-0660 or through the P3 app.

This is a developing story, so anyone with more information can email newstips@wtvr.com to send a tip.

See more here:
Suspect arrested, another wanted in fatal shooting at Chesterfield truck stop - CBS 6 News Richmond WTVR

Gov. Phil Murphy is calling on Congress to act on abortion rights as they face their most serious challenge in nearly 50 years, reports POLITICOs Matt Friedman and Daniel Han.

Murphy and Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) blasted a right-wing Supreme Court that appears on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade. POLITICO published a draft opinion indicating that the high court has voted to strike down the decision.

If this Congress wont protect reproductive freedom, America needs to elect a Congress in November, including Tom Malinowski, that will, Murphy said today in Lambertville at an unrelated press conference about flood control which included Malinowski. He faces a tough reelection battle in November, when his Republican opponent could be former state Sen. Tom Kean Jr., who voted against the states recent abortion law while supporting the practice along with certain restrictions. Kean himself is facing several primary opponents for the right to challenge Malinowski in the fall.

New Jersey passed the Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act in January. While Murphy stated he is open-minded to beefing up abortion access, he did not commit to any new legislation and spokespeople for Senate President Nick Scutari did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a written statement released this afternoon, Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin said he remained committed to protecting access.

As a Legislature, we will keep working to maintain confidence in a womans right to safe and accessible reproductive healthcare, Coughlin said.

The draft opinion, the authenticity of which was confirmed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts after he announced an investigation into its release, was written by New Jersey native Justice Samuel Alito.

Alito, who was born in Trenton and once served as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, has raised alarm bells about his view of Roe v. Wade before at least for one U.S. senator, as NJ Advance Medias Ted Sherman notes.

I am unsettled he is not willing to say Roe is settled law, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said after meeting Alito when he was nominated to the high court in 2006.

HAPPY TUESDAY AFTERNOON Hi there, Im Jonathan Custodio, your Playbook PM author. You can send eastern goldfinch photos to [emailprotected] Were here with the latest from Trenton and elsewhere as New Jersey moves ahead in the budget process and the Legislature conducts hearings on Gov. Phil Murphys spending plan.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) is backing Murphys plan to fund 100 percent affordable housing developments throughout the state using Covid-19 federal relief money, reports NJ Spotlight News Colleen ODea. The Senate Budget Committee chair said during a hearing last Thursday that the state needs to revise how and where affordable housing is built. The process, he said, is "outdated. ... We need to do a better job." ODea notes his comments are the first time in years that a Democrat has tried to reshape the allocation process currently handled through the state court system, an issue state Republican lawmakers have been hammering on for years.

COVID NUMBERS New Jersey reported 1,923 confirmed positive Covid-19 tests and 11 deaths from the virus on Tuesday. The states seven-day average is at the highest its been since Feb. 8, up 18 percent from a week ago and 134 percent from a month ago.

HIGHER ED College presidents and representatives from Murphys administration testified in front of the Senate Budget and Appropriations committee today, largely reiterating their calls for more college operating aid and defending their increases in student aid respectively. One interesting exchange between Sen. Declan OScanlon (R-Monmouth) and David Socolow, executive director of the states Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, revealed that legislators may be seriously considering adding additional funding or language in their budget to expand the states Tuition Aid Grant program to cover summer courses. Carly Sitrin

ENVIRONMENT Murphy announced new investments in flood protection today, invoking the memory of the devastation that remnants of Hurricane Ida caused in the state last year. Speaking in Lambertville, Murphy said the Federal Emergency Management Agency has committed an additional $50 million investment in the Blue Acres homeowner buyout program for Ida-impacted communities, and $10 million in community stormwater assistance grants. No New Jerseyan should have to see their lifes work washed away by devastating rain and floodwaters. As New Jersey continues to experience more extreme weather events, we must become proactive in our approach to protect the communities and businesses that continue to bear the brunt of flooding and damage from these storms, Murphy said in a statement. Carly Sitrin

GOP lawmakers aim to increase punishment for car thieves, by New Jersey Monitors Dana Difilippo: Two Monmouth County Republicans plan to introduce legislation this week to toughen penalties against some car thieves, saying liberal, failed policies have tied police hands and led to rising rates of car theft. Assemblywoman Vicky Flynn and Assemblyman Gerard Scharfenberger announced their plans after acting Attorney General Matt Platkin announced Friday the state is reversing a new policy that had barred police from initiating pursuits of suspected car thieves. Flynn and Scharfenberger sent Platkin a letter about two weeks ago objecting to the old pursuit policy and asking for a meeting. In an interview with the New Jersey Monitor, they also complained that bail reform puts criminals out on the street before the ink is dry on the police report.

'We were overlooked': Charity says its meals for homeless threatened by NJ plastic bag ban, by The Records Scott Fallon: Since the COVID-19 pandemic began two years ago, volunteers for the longtime charity Family Promise of Bergen County have been handing out 150 hot meals in plastic bags each day to the hungry who were no longer able to eat at the county homeless shelter. But the charity's organizers say the program is in jeopardy after they were denied an exemption by the state Department of Environmental Protection to a statewide plastic bag ban that begins Wednesday. They instead received a six-month extension and are now scrambling to lobby lawmakers to write a new bill that would exclude charities such as theirs.

Cops cant undermine Miranda rights, court rules, by NJ Spotlight News Colleen ODea: Police and prosecutors who minimize the impact of statements a suspect makes after receiving a Miranda warning run the risk of having those statements suppressed, as the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered Monday in a case involving a man who pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child. Statements made by a defendant regarding allegations he had inappropriately touched a minor over a two-year period must be suppressed because the state could not prove the defendant had voluntarily waived his right to self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the court ruled unanimously.

The ruling, which upheld a lower court decision, reaffirmed that suspects must be told they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say 'can and will be used against them,' part of the warning that all police must give as a result of a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an Arizona case involving a man named Ernesto Miranda. The New Jersey case marks the first time the states highest court has ruled in a matter involving an adult defendant that police cannot undermine the warnings during an interrogation.

Wildlife officials in Sussex County are looking for a bear with a chicken feeder stuck on its head.

A lawsuit charges that police raided the wrong address in Gloucester City.

Schools in Toms River will pay bus drivers $29 an hour in hopes of recruiting more workers.

A third Piscataway police officer has filed a lawsuit against the departments chief.

View original post here:
Murphy calls on Congress to act on abortion rights - POLITICO

Engraving of King John of England signing the Magna Carta in Runnymede in June 1215.

The greatest failure of American education has been the way we teach ourselves about rights. The notion that the rights we enjoy religious freedom, speech, etc. were established by our revolution against a tyrannical king in England is false. Instead, our rights came to us through an extended process of evolution. The lazy pedagogy and propaganda have led to division and bad policy, including policies that impact housing. There is no right to housing. But there is an established right to private property. Lets take a look at that right and a legal challenge of rent control in New York, CHIP, RSA, et al. v. City of New York, et al. (2d Cir.), based on that right and how that challenge is helping change the housing narrative.

The story of rights in America doesnt start in Philadelphia in 1776 but in a place called Runnymede, England in 1215. It was there that various barons and other magnates of the Kingdom of England forced King John to sign a document that came to be known as Magna Carta. The document enshrined for the first time in writing the idea that the executive branch of government (sorry for the anachronism) was forced to yield to what amounted to the first parliament. While not elected, the barons and magnates demanded that before people in the kingdom were deprived of their freedoms, including their property, there had to be some kind of process.

This momentous event didnt resolve the issue. It wasnt until the 17th century and another civil war in England (they had several) that these issues surfaced again, this time violently. King Charles was shaking down people in the country side and cities to pay for wars in Europe. The Parliament, now a stronger institution, had enough. They issued in 1628 called the Petition of Right. There, they call upon Magna Carta, asking the King to stop his aggressive efforts to seize and occupy peoples property.

'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, That no Freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.

That word, disseised, is an example of Anglo-Norman words in our legal terminology. It means to dispossess or more efficiently, to take property. It would be 14 more years of arguing before open war broke out between the Parliament and the King, a war that resulted in his overthrow and execution. This influenced the founders of the United States, since they saw the ultimate settlement and the establishment of the basic rights in Magna Carta as the social contract being broken by the English government, a violation that justified a break with England.

The reason this matters today is that the Petition of Right is acknowledged as one of the foundations of the Fifth Amendment in our Bill of Rights, an amendment that appears to lump together issues of criminal and civil justice (an important reference on the Constitution is the Founders Constitution, an excellent compendium of the documents and ideas supporting the Constitution).

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But the authors of our Constitution didnt see a distinction between criminal disputes which could deprive a person of life and limb and civil disputes which could deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. For them, in an 18th century context, government action to take any of these require due process of law, and in the case of private property, just compensation. The American Constitution hallows the ancient principles of English law, fought over for centuries, as a birthright for Americans. Taking a persons property has the same gravity as taking their life or limb.

The history matters. When Ive mentioned that a housing policy is being challenged based on the Fifth Amendment, I sometimes get asked, What does taking the Fifth have to do with housing? People dont know about the last half of the amendment. And the term, private property rights, has become synonymous in dominant culture with ranchers with guns fighting over acres of empty land with the Federal Government. The truth is that the idea that a persons private property is bound together with other things we consider rights like speech has been lost.

Today, we have people claiming that housing is a human right. But saying that doesnt make it so. At the same time, we know that private property really is an established Constitutional right. Yet legal challenges like the one in New York are struggling to get courts to apply what should be an obvious standard to efforts by local governments to control how people use their private property, specifically when they rent property to others. The case filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) is simple. From their summary of the case:

For fifty years, New York City has declared its rental housing market to be in a perpetual state of emergency in order to justify a legal regime that forces a small set of property owners to subsidize housing for a randomly selected population of individual tenants. Those property owners have been deprived of all meaningful rights with respect to their property, including the right to exclude others from the property; to occupy, possess or use the property; and to freely dispose of the property.

Ive never liked these kinds of challenges because they sound heartless, playing into the sentimentality of the housing is a human right crowds logic; peoples need for housing trumps other peoples established right to their own property. That sounds compassionate, and it often sells, but it truly isnt compassionate at all. Policies like rent control have long been understood to make housing problems worse for people with less money, not better (read my longer take on rent control, How Rent Control Makes Housing Less Affordable).

Im not going to give a blow by blow of CHIP, RSA, et al. v. City of New York, et al. (2d Cir.) but while I am skeptical of the short and intermediate term benefits of these cases (see my post Legal Challenges To Eviction Bans: And Justice For All?), I do think they are important. The edifice of the law in our system is precedential, built on laws passed by legislatures, implemented by executives, and litigated in our courts. For a long time, in spite of the plain language of the Fifth Amendment, courts have given wide and deep deference to local governments when regulating real estate, especially through zoning and tenant landlord laws.

Cases like CHIP are trying to essentially make new law, that is change the precedent. Consider the discussion at page 12 in the transcript of oral arguments in the appeal between the most recent judge in the case and Andrew Pincus who is lead attorney on the case.

MR. PINCUS: On the physical taking claim, which we're talking about now, we're seeking a declaration that the obligation that that when a property owner wishes to remove the property from the residential rental market, for demolishing, for renovation, for use for other purposes, that the obligation that he offer a renewal is unconstitutional and

THE COURT: Mr. Pincus.

MR. PINCUS: (indiscernible)

THE COURT: Mr. Pincus.

THE COURT: Yeah. So

THE COURT: (Indiscernible)

THE COURT: is what you're asking us to do to declare this regime on a takings basis unconstitutional?

MR. PINCUS: Yes.

Pincus had introduced another case, Cedar Point Nursery Et al. v. Hassid Et al., a case in which the Supreme Court decided that it was a violation of property rights that the state of California allowed union organizers to occupy privately owned farms to organize workers. The judge in the CHIP case was skeptical, telling Pincus, I see the taking as quite different in this circumstance and actually as Cedar Point not really controlling at all (page 8).

It isnt until more discussion that the judge seems to finally start making the connection. It is a slow and painful process to watch. The Cedar Point case marks a shift: The Court has held that a physical appropriation is a taking whether it is permanent or temporary; the duration of the appropriation bears only on the amount of compensation due. But Pincus has to connect the dots from that case, one about farms and unions, to the idea of renters being entitled somehow to stay in their apartments forever, whether they are paying or not and whether the owner wants to change use or change tenants.

Im not changing my mind: the best and most important use of resources today is to research public opinion to understand why people think what they do about rental housing and housing in general. Why do people think and believe that rental housing is somehow different than any other private business? How do we change that view so that it is based on the reality that housing is a marginal business just like any other business trying to produce revenue that meets or exceeds costs? I said in the post about legal challenges above that,

The local apartment building whether a giant one of glass or steel or a little brick fourplex is a business serving local people just like the grocery store or the corner bar; and just like those businesses, rental housing is risky and operates on the margins. No lawsuit, even one with a thrilling and satisfying verdict, can do the hard work of changing the story about housing.

Yet, the slow and meticulous work Mr. Pincus and his colleagues are doing across the country even in ill-fated and even ill-conceived legal challenges is a necessary and important drip, drip, drip, of water wearing down the stone of 100 years of legal decisions favoring arbitrary and capricious political moves to limit and control rental property in ways that harm the owners, the residents, and more broadly the whole housing market. But were running out of time. Ive predicted the end of most private rentals by the end of this decade. The slow drip of legal arguments might become more like high pressure water jet if we invested in changing the minds of the public at the same time as changing the legal framework.

Read more from the original source:
1215 And All That: Legal Challenges Can Help Change The Housing Narrative - Forbes

Trump says he took cognitive test because people kept calling him stupid

A member of the Oath Keepers militia group has pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy in relation to the 6 January riot and with the plea deal sealed, it has emerged that he was present when the militias leader tried to contact Donald Trump after the Capitol riot had ended.

According to court documents filed in the case of William Todd Wilson, who is now co-operating with the government, leader Stewart Rhodes called an individual on speaker phone after leaving the Capitol grounds and implored this person to tell President Trump to call upon groups like the Oath Keepers to forcibly oppose the transfer of power. However, the unidentified person on the other end of the line apparently refused to put Mr Trump on the phone.

The news comes after Mr Trumps oldest son, Donald Jr, voluntarily testified to the select committee investigating the insurrection. In a session conducted without a subpoena, the presidents oldest child reportedly answered questions without pleading the Fifth Amendment.

The committee is still considering whether and how to request testimony from the former president himself as it tries to piece together his movements and communications on the day of the riot.

The ex-presidents oldest son compared the arrest of a far-right figure who pleaded guilty to helping people break into the US Capitol to Gestapo tactics.

Brandon Straka stood outside an entrance to the Capitol on 6 January 2021 and urged a crowd of intruders inside, shouting go, go, go, and later encouraged rioters to grab a Capitol Police officers shield.

Alex Woodward6 May 2022 05:00

TV personality and Republican senate candidate Mehmet Oz will be joined by Trump and recently nominated Ohio GOP Senate candidate JD Vance at a rally in Pennsylvania on Friday.

Alex Woodward6 May 2022 04:00

After speaking at a Senate Budget Committee on union-busting efforts and federal contracts for companies like Amazon that allegedly flour federal labor law, Amaon Labor Union president Christian Smalls joined a White House meeting with Kamala Harris and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh as well as Starbucks union workers and other organizers.

Mr Smalls in a red, yellow and black jacket with eat the rich printed on the front also met Joe Biden.

Alex Woodward6 May 2022 03:00

Truth Social Trumps platform to stand up to the tyranny of Big Tech, as he described it is the most high profile among several newer platforms to launch as a direct challenge to mainstream social media platforms, viewed among right-wing figures and users as too constrictive or conspiring to remove their views after they were kicked off for flouting rules about Covid-19 misinformation, violence and harassment.

Despite billing itself as a platform for free expression against the alleged tyranny of companies like Twitter, Truth appears singularly devoted to the Trump universer and right-wing media ecosystem.

Alex Woodward6 May 2022 02:00

The 26-year-old far-right congressman the youngest member of the House has faced a slow-drip leak of embarrassing videos and photos over the last month, after telling a right-wing broadcaster that about alleged orgies among his Washington colleagues.

He claims the leaks are aimed to discredit him, punishment for speaking out about members of Congress. His standing in an upcoming primary election in which polls show him falling behind has one life raft: Donald Trump.

The Independents John Bowden has more:

Alex Woodward6 May 2022 01:00

Karine Jean-Pierre will be stepping into the role of White House press secretary this month.

She will be the first openly LGBT+ and first Black person to serve as a presidents top spokesperson, after serving Ms Psakis top deputy since Joe Biden took office last year. She joined the Biden campaign in 2020 after serving as chief public affairs officer for MoveOn.org and as an NBC News political analyst.

Alex Woodward6 May 2022 00:00

The much-hated Capitol Hill fencing, used last year to secure the area around the Capitol for months after Jan 6, is back and reinstalled around the Supreme Court amid tensions over the Courts assumed plans to overturn Roe V Wade in the coming weeks or months.

Videos of the perimiter showed that an entire city block, including one of the Capitol Hill neighborhoods nicest green spaces, was cordoned off by the black metal barricades as of Thursday.

Read more from The Independents Bevan Hurley:

John Bowden5 May 2022 23:00

More than a dozen members of the so-called Trucker Convoy are suing the District of Columbia after the city allegedly refused them entry when it shut down some exit ramps leading into the District from the beltway on the day of their protest.

According to the suit, on at least four occaisions those participating in the convoy (which included both trucks and smaller vehicles) were stopped from entering the city itself.

Read more from The Independents Greg Graziosi:

John Bowden5 May 2022 22:30

North Carolinas Madison Cawthorn is the youngest member of Congress, and also one of the most controversial.

The embattled 26-year-old Trump loyalist faces a contested primary election in two weeks amid a steady drip-drip campaign of leaked photos and videos of Mr Cawthorn in embarrassing situations.

But the congressman also faces real controversies: He was recently cited for bringing a gun into an airport, as well as for driving under the influence on a revoked license.

Read more in The Independent from John Bowden:

John Bowden5 May 2022 22:00

Amazon Labor Union president Christian Smalls was before the Senate Budget Committee for a hearing on the use of federal dollars in relationships with companies found to be in violation of federal labor law, like Amazon.

The ranking Republican member, Lindsay Graham, challenged Mr Smalls on his unionisation efforts and regarding whether his complaints about the company could be handled by Americas legal system.

Senator Graham, you forgot that the people are the ones who make these companies operate, Mr Smalls lectured the South Carolina senator. If were not protected, the process for holding these companies accountable is not working for us thats the reason why were here today.

Read more from The Independents Alex Woodward:

Alex Woodward5 May 2022 21:30

Read this article:
Trump news live: Oath Keepers leader tried to call ex-president on Jan 6, court hears - The Independent

CASE PREVIEW ByLenese Herbert on Apr 19, 2022 at 1:10 pm

Miranda v. Arizona is one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in American criminal procedure. Mirandaanswered the question, does the Fifth Amendments protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? with a resounding yes and required that an individual held for interrogation must be informed nay, warned that they have the right to remain silent, consult with a lawyer, and have the lawyer with them during governmental interrogation.

Miranda prescribed a specific and protective set of warnings that would ensure that criminally accused suspects were made aware of the Fifth Amendments decree that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Miranda is also one of the courts most culturally famous decisions. Americans know Miranda. More accurately: Americans know their Miranda warnings. Even if they cannot recite the lyrics to the national anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance, they likely can recite Mirandas warnings:

Generally, if the police obtain a suspects statement in violation of Miranda, the government cannot use that statement against the defendant in court. But can the defendant later sue the police for violating the defendants constitutional rights? Wednesdays argument in Vega v. Tekoh presents the court with that question. Specifically, the justices will consider whether a law enforcement officer may be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 the federal civil rights law that allows people to sue state actors for deprivations of their rights for failing to administer Miranda warnings before questioning an in-custody criminal suspect.

Terence Tekoh, a certified nurse assistant at the Los Angeles County USC Medical Center, was accused of sexually assaulting a heavily sedated patient. Tekoh transported the patient to her hospital room after doctors had inserted a large needle in an artery in her groin to inject contrast for a CT scan. The patient later claimed that while she and Tekoh were alone in her room, Tekoh lifted the sheets covering her body and inserted a finger inside her vagina.

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department Deputy Carlos Vega responded to the scene to investigate the patients allegation. After interviewing the patient and on-duty nurses, he approached Tekoh. Vega and Tekoh retreated to a hospital MRI reading room. Approximately an hour later, Vega emerged from the room with the arrested Tekohs handwritten confession of the assault.

At trial, the parties disputed what occurred in that MRI room. Tekoh moved to suppress the governments use of his un-Mirandized statement. The government asserted that Tekohs statement was not the product of custodial interrogation and therefore required no Miranda warnings. According to the government, Tekoh requested a private meeting with Vega and voluntarily confessed to the sexual offense. Tekoh disputed the governments characterization, alleging not only was his statement involuntarily elicited by Vega, but was secured via Vegas use of racist slurs, profanity, lies (about, e.g., video footage of Tekohs assault and deportation of Tekohs family), and a tacit threat of violence (via placing his hand on his gun when Tekoh hesitated to confess).

The trial court denied Tekohs motion and admitted his statement. However, the proceedings ended in a mistrial (as the prosecution had failed to turn over exculpatory DNA evidence). A second trial occurred where the government, again, introduced Tekohs statement. At the close of evidence, the jury acquitted Tekoh.

Vindicated, Tekoh sued Vega, Vegas supervisor, the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, and the County of Los Angeles for damages under Section 1983, claiming that Vegas failure to issue Miranda warnings violated Tekohs Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In the federal district court, Tekoh sought but was denied a jury instruction that if the jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Vega obtained Tekohs confession in violation of Miranda, then the jury should find Vega liable under Section 1983.

The jury ruled against Tekoh and in the defendants favor.

Tekoh appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which vacated the jurys verdict and reversed the district courts ruling on the Miranda jury instruction. The 9th Circuit relied on the Supreme Courts decision in Dickerson v. United States, which held that Miranda is a constitutional rule that cannot be overruled by Congress. [T]he right of a criminal defendant against having an un-Mirandized statement introduced in the prosecutions case in chief is indeed a right secured by the Constitution, the 9th Circuit concluded, making Vegas failure to advise Tekoh actionable under Section 1983.

Vega petitioned the 9th Circuit for en banc rehearing, but was denied, notwithstanding dissenting opinions by 7 of the 29 judges. He next petitioned the Supreme Court for and was granted certiorari, asserting that the 9th Circuits Mirandadecision was incorrect and in conflict with other circuits. Specifically, Vega argues that Miranda governs admissibility of trial evidence only and that failure to give Miranda warnings does not create a Section 1983 claim. Vega also asserts that his violation of Tekohs Fifth Amendment right was not the proximate cause of the un-Mirandized confessions admission at trial because both the prosecutor and the trial judge were intervening, superseding actors who cut off Vegas liability for his original wrongdoing.

Per Miranda, custodial interrogations are inherently coercive; the court created a constitutional presumption that statements compelled during custodial interrogations violate the Fifth Amendment and are inadmissible in a prosecutors case-in-chief.

However, per Vega and supporting amici, a technical violation of Miranda does not a Section 1983 remedy make. Though Miranda has become ingrained in popular culture and Miranda warnings are regarded as constitutional canon by many, Miranda is a constitutional rule, not a constitutional right. In other words? Though Miranda protects the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, Miranda is not part of the Constitution. The court created Miranda warnings when it decided that before police elicit an in-custody suspects statement, they must inform that suspect of their Fifth Amendment right. Failing to administer Miranda warnings prior to taking a suspects statements often means forfeiting use of the statement in the suspects criminal trial. So, officers failure to Mirandize pays an evidentiary price at trial, post-interrogation.

But, in addition to its in-trial effects, Miranda also operates pre-statement and out-of-court. And though Miranda is not constitutionalized, it is a constitutional rule. And Section 1983 provides a cause of action against state officials who deprive any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.

So: Do police violate a constitutional right when they violate its constitutional rule?

Here are some questions to look for at argument:

1) Is a constitutional rule a constitutional right?

How to classify Miranda? Look for Vegas assertion that Miranda and its warnings are not constitutional rights, but merely prophylactic; its warnings may be protective of, but not protected by, the Constitution. In Dickerson, the court defined Miranda as a constitutional rule that it declined to overrule. However, as the court giveth, it may also taketh away, which may be what Vega, his amici, and the 9th Circuits dissenters seek. They seize upon post-Miranda, pre-Dickersonopinions that undermined the landmark decisions precedential power by (mis?)characterizing its precedential import to a mere prophylactic rule.

2) Is Miranda applicable only in the courtroom and not the interrogation room?

Miranda is most often heralded for what it does outside of the courtroom: restrict law enforcements extraction of confessions from in-custody, uncounseled suspects. If a suspect says, I assert my rights, no interrogation should begin, and if it has begun, it should immediately end. Vega and, most notably, the United States as amicus, however, seem to have repurposed Mirandas landmark raison detre, minimizing it to, at most, a trial objection.

But a quick review of Miranda itself makes plain that the court was not focused on prosecutorial or judicial violations of the Fifth Amendment; rather, Miranda and its warnings were created in response to what Chief Justice Earl Warren then characterized as police violence and the third degree [which at that time] flourished in order to extort confessions during custodial interrogations when suspects are incommunicado, cut off from the outside world. Amicus briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute are equally clear: Miranda warnings were created by the court to require affirmative warnings from law enforcement to offset the inherent coercion of a custodial interrogation.

3) Goodbye, Miranda?

Dickerson put the kibosh on an unconstitutional federal statute that, effectively, sought to overrule Miranda. Vega and his amici seem to have the same goal in mind, especially given how they literally proffer the 9th Circuits dissenting judges language as a roadmap to reversing Dickerson and hobbling Miranda.

4) Proximate cause says what?

In his briefs, Vega posits that he was entitled to presume that the prosecutor or trial judge would right his constitutional wrong and either refuse to introduce Tekohs un-Mirandized statement or exclude it. That they did not, per Vega and his amici, renders his conduct a remote, not proximate, legal cause of any Section 1983 injury Tekoh suffered. Vega may have waived this argument, however, as he failed to raise it below.

5) What about the costs?

Vega and two amici the National Association of Police Organizations and the International Municipal Lawyers Association assail the significant costs and burdens associated with Section 1983 litigation and promise doom, gloom, and dystopian streets if the court sides with the 9th Circuit and holds that police officers may be sued for violating Miranda. They argue that the only lawful remedy for a Miranda violation is exclusion of the evidence, not monetary damages. Notwithstanding that officers almost always are indemnified by states, counties, and other municipalities for Section 1983 litigation, listen for arguments that focus not on violating or protecting a suspects rights, but bankrupting state and local governments, many of which annually shell out multimillions to resolve civil lawsuits against law enforcement agencies. On the other side, listen for an argument pressed by the National Police Accountability Project: merely excluding unconstitutionally gained evidence is insufficient when compared to the deterrent effects of Section 1983s significant monetary payouts, which encourage governments to better train officers to avoid future liability and protect citizens constitutional rights.

7) Prophylactic?

You may hear a lot of this word during oral argument. It does not mean what you think. Well, maybe, it does. Think preventative. That should help.

Continue reading here:
Can you sue the police for Miranda violations? Court will wrestle with rules, rights, and remedies for wrongs. - SCOTUSblog