Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

The cities of Kent, Federal Way and Auburn need to drop their legal opposition to inquests of officer-involved deaths, says King County Executive Dow Constantine.

Now is the time for action and accountability, Constantine said in a Monday news release. We want the governments that have filed litigation to block inquests to step aside so we can move forward and get to the truth.

But the mayors of each city responded Monday that they plan to continue the lawsuit and want Constantine to restore an inquest process that is fair, transparent, just and legally acceptable within his authority.

The purpose of an inquest is to provide accountability and answers, Kent Mayor Dana Ralph said in a statement. If we are going to be transparent with all parties, we need fair, impartial, factual investigations to occur. This isnt something to take lightly or play games with. The county executive has pushed the envelope too far in trying to politicize a tragic situation. If a member of our community dies as a result of an interaction with law enforcement, I dont want politics I want answers. The only way to get those answers is from a fair investigation and process.

Six inquests have been on hold in King County for two years, frustrating families and making it harder for witnesses to recall details, Constantine said. The Kent, Federal Way and Auburn police departments each have a inquest case on hold. One of the two Seattle police cases on hold includes the death of a Kent man.

State law authorizes, and the King County Charter mandates, the investigation of any death involving a member of law enforcement in the course of their duties.

Inquests are fact-finding hearings conducted before a six-member jury. Inquests are designed to provide transparency into law enforcement actions so the public may have all the facts established in a court of law. Inquest jurors answer a series of questions to determine the significant factual issues involved in the case, and it is not their purpose to determine whether any person or agency is civilly or criminally liable. State law requires a jury of no more than six, and no less than four.

It is unfortunate that Executive Constantine has chosen to portray the intent of our cities in this light, Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus said. In truth, we believe that his executive overreach jeopardizes a full and transparent process for the public, cities and families involved and as such, we will fight its implementation.

Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell also opposes the changes.

We believe police accountability is more important now than ever, but the inquest process is an imperfect tool for this, and the new rules are unfair, Ferrell said. We believe it is unconstitutional.

The city of Renton also is part of the suit against the new inquest format.

After a spike of such deaths in 2017, residents expressed serious concerns about the inquest process in the county and the seeming lack of transparency and accountability, according to the news release.

Sonia Joseph is among the residents who complained about the process after a inquest jury in December 2017 found a Kent police officer feared for his life when he shot her son Giovonn Joseph-McDade, 20, in June 2017. Joseph-McDade died from multiple gunshot wounds after he reportedly tried to use his vehicle to run over an officer after a short pursuit on the East Hill.

In response to the complaints, Constantine put all inquests on hold in 2018, then convened a community group to examine the process and suggest reforms. Many of those reforms were included in an Executive Order that went into effect in October 2018 but has not yet been used with all inquests still on hold because of the lawsuits.

Executive Order includes the following major changes:

Old system: District Court judge presided over hearing

New system: A pool of retired judges serves Inquest Administrators to oversee the process.

Old system: King County Prosecuting Attorneys Office facilitated the proceedings, presents evidence.

New system: Prosecuting Attorneys Office will not participate in the hearing, but will continue administrative functions.

Old system: Limited only to facts and circumstances surrounding death.

New system: Expands the interpretation of facts and circumstances to include questions about department policy and training.

Old system: Jurors were often asked whether the officer feared for his or her life at the incident.

New system: Jurors may be asked whether officers actions were consistent with department training and policies. Jurors will no longer be asked whether officers feared for their lives.

Old system: County did not provide attorneys for families.

New system: Attorneys are provided by the Department of Public Defense, if wanted.

Old system: Involved officer could voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination).

New system: Lead investigator of incident will testify, and chief law enforcement officer (or designee) will answer questions about training and policy. Involved officer can voluntarily testify, but not be subpoenaed. However, if the subpoenaed officer does not testify, may not be represented by legal counsel.

Revised June 15 order: Involved officer may voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination), and officer may be represented by counsel throughout the proceeding regardless of whether they actually testify.

Constantine said the creation and issuance of the 2018 Executive Order was supported by:

Andre Taylor, founder of Not This Time, a community organization focused on reducing fatal police shootings, changing the laws that govern the use of force and rebuilding trust between our communities and the police who are sworn to protect and serve us. His brother Che Taylor was fatally shot by Seattle Police in 2016

Fae Brooks, co-chair of the King County Inquest Process and Review Committee and retired chief of the criminal investigations division of the King County Sheriffs Office

James Schrimpsher, Lodge 27 President of the Washington Fraternal Order of Police

Diane Narasaki, executive director, Asian Counseling and Referral Services

Almost immediately, several cities including the city of Seattle, King County Sheriff, and individual Seattle police officers filed lawsuits challenging various aspects of the inquest process, Constantine said. Three families of the deceased also filed litigation.

The Obet, Lyle and Butts families lawsuits include several items, such as making inquests include potential criminal charges against officers, and giving attorneys the ability to subpoena officers.

The litigation by the cities of Seattle, Kent, Auburn, Federal Way and King County Sheriffs challenge almost every aspect of the inquest system, including: police policies and training should not be part of inquests, disciplinary history of officers should not be allowed, expert testimony should be limited, and inquests should not be presided over by administrators (retired judges). The King County Sheriff contends that the King County Charter exempts it from inquests.

The city of Kent is utilizing the proper legal channels in order to have an impartial court of law settle a significant dispute regarding the interpretation of law, City communications manager Bailey Stober said in a statement. It is clear to us that the county executive is politicizing and attempting to bully South County cities into dropping a suit which highlights significant legal shortcoming of his new inquest process. The process was so out of line that the city of Seattle first filed the lawsuit and was joined by the King County Sheriff, the executives own county law enforcement agency.

On June 9, the Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes announced his intent to withdraw the city of Seattle from legal challenges to the inquest process.

Seeking to find compromise, Constantine this week issued a revised Executive Order to allow involved officers to be subpoenaed to testify, and to allow the officer to have an attorney present during the inquest.

King County will defer to the courts on whether inquests, after 50 years of case law stating otherwise, should now consider criminal culpability as part of the process.

The inquest process created by my 2018 Executive Order puts new emphasis on law enforcement training and lethal use-of-force policies so that departments can be held accountable for creating better, safer ways of policing, Constantine said.

Today (Monday) I am revising my Executive Order to remove objections that some departments and some families raised, Constantine said. My new order will allow the involved officer or officers to be subpoenaed to testify, and will allow officers to be represented by counsel throughout the proceeding regardless of whether they actually testify, he said.

The changes arent enough for Kent city leaders.

Our county executive has attempted to create a system of police accountability utilizing a statutory structure created in 1854, before police departments even existed in Washington, Stober said in a city statement. The executive has used imagination and a false sense of authority, not granted to him by state law, to try and create oversight authority over city police departments in 38 cities, none of which he has the authority of oversee. We firmly believe in police oversight and accountability, but that should be a conversation with the community here in Kent, not made unilaterally from a politician in downtown Seattle. Kent residents know what is best for Kent. King County is the only county in Washington that systematically uses the inquest process for this purpose. Inquests in other counties are extremely rare if not ever used, and for good reason they are not an effective tool for police oversight.

Stober continued.

It is absurd that the executive complains that cities are delaying the process of inquests, Stober said. Because of his rush to change the rules with minimal input, he has caused significant delays in the resolution of inquests. Because of the lack of thoughtfulness, it took his office almost two years to produce the rules once he decided to convene his community work group.

Residents speak out

Taylor, founder of Not This Time, said the cities need to change their stance.

I worked with very hard with Executive Constantine and other community partners to draft a new inquest process that was vastly superior, and focused appropriate attention on police policies and trainings in a way that was fair to everyone, Taylor said in the statement released by Constantine. The fact that certain cities were cowed by their police departments into filing lawsuits against the inquest shows just how far we have to go in creating a society that values and protects people of color. The political leaders of these cities have heard our protests. Now they need to act.

Katrina Johnson, the cousin of Charleena Lyles who was fatally shot by Seattle Police in June 2017, spoke at the Kent protest march on June 11 and delivered a message to Kent Police Chief Rafael Padilla shortly after he spoke about how he will listen to the protesters and the need for the department to do better.

If Kent Police Department wants to stand in solidarity with families and black lives, I need you guys to drop the lawsuit that you have forbidding the inquest from going forward, Johnson said. If you guys want to stand in solidarity with black lives, I need you guys to apologize to Sonia Joseph for killing Giovann Joseph-McDade, for killing Eugene Nelson and many others lives that you guys have taken.

Six King County victims with inquest hearings on hold

Damarius Butts

Seattle Police Department

Date of Incident: April 20, 2017

Butts, of Kent, died from multiple gunshot wounds after a reported shootout with Seattle Police on April 20 when he fled after allegedly robbing a 7-Eleven store, 627 First Ave., in downtown Seattle.

Isaiah Obet

Auburn Police Department

Date of Incident: June 10, 2017

Police say the officer shot Obet after the 25-year-old man entered a home armed with a knife and later tried to carjack an occupied vehicle.

Charleena Lyles

Seattle Police Department

Date of Incident: June 18, 2017

Lyles, 30, was shot seven times in her Seattle apartment by two Seattle Police officers. Officers fired after they said Lyles threatened them with a knife.

Eugene Nelson

Kent Police Department

Date of Incident: Aug. 9, 2017

Nelson, 20, died from multiple gunshot wounds after he allegedly tried to flee in a vehicle while dragging an officer in the 23600 block of 104th Avenue Southeast.

Robert Lightfeather

Federal Way Police Department

Date of Incident: Oct. 30, 2017

Lightfeather, 33, died of multiple gun shot wounds from a shooting at South 316th Street and Pacific Highway South outside the Elephant Car Wash. Federal Way police responded to a 911 caller who reported seeing a man pointing a gun at two men.

Curtis Elroy Tade

Kirkland Police Department

Date of Incident: Dec. 19, 2017

Federal Way Mirror reporter Olivia Sullivan contributed to this article.

Talk to us

Please share your story tips by emailing editor@kentreporter.com.

To share your opinion for publication, submit a letter through our website https://www.kentreporter.com/submit-letter/. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (Well only publish your name and hometown.) Please keep letters to 300 words or less.

More:
County executive wants cities to drop opposition to revised officer-involved shooting... - Kent Reporter

As we celebrate Pride Month, its worth taking some time to think about some of the prominent members of the LGBTQ+ community who have not only made great strides in technology, but also advocated for recognition and equality. From the mid-20th century to today, LGBTQ+ technologists continue to push the industry forward in new and exciting ways. The following is just a small sampling of these technologists:

An English mathematician helped pioneer computer science and artificial intelligence (A.I.)., Turing is perhaps most famous for his work at Bletchley Park, the center of the U.K.s code-breaking efforts during World War II, where he figured out the statistical techniques that allowed the Allies to break Nazi cryptography.

For his wartime efforts, Turing was appointed an officer of the Order of the British Empire. Following the War, he designed an Automatic Computing Engine, basically a computer with electronic memory (a fully functioning example of the ACE wasnt actually something built in his lifetime, however). He also theorized quite a bit about artificial intelligence (one of his core concepts,the Turing test, is still regarded as a benchmark for testing a machines intelligent behavior).

Turing was prosecuted by the British government for his sexual relationship with another man, Arnold Murray. Found guilty, he was chemically castrated and stripped of his security clearance, which prevented him from working for Britains signals-intelligence efforts. A little over two years later, in 1954, he was found dead of cyanide poisoning, and whether it was suicide or an accident has preoccupied historians for decades.

In 1999,Timelisted Turing among the100 Most Important People of the 20thCentury. Five years later, the British government officially pardoned his conviction.

A technology manager for IBM as well as an LGBTQ+ activist, Edith Edie Windsor was lead plaintiff inUnited States v. Windsor(550 U.S. 744), a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that found that a crucial portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ruling helped legalize same-sex marriage (along with a later case,Obergefell v. Hodges).

At IBM, Windsor worked on projects related to operating systems and natural-language processing. After leaving IBM in 1975, she started a consulting firm. In 2016, Lesbians Who Tech, an organization for lesbian and queer women in tech,set up the Edie Windsor Coding Scholarship, with 40 people selected for its inaugural year of giving.

As a computer scientist at IBM in the 1960s, Lynn Conway helped make pioneering advances in computer architecture. One of her projects, ACS (Advanced Computing Systems), essentially became the foundation of the modern high-performance microprocessor. However, IBM fired her when it discovered that she was undergoing gender transition.

Undeterred, Conway moved on to Xerox PARC, where she worked on still more innovative projects, including the ability to put multiple circuit designs on one chip. She was also key in advancing chip design and fabrication. After her stint at Xerox, she moved to DARPA, and from there to the University of Michigan, where she became a professor of electrical engineering and computer science.

At the turn of the century, Conway began to work more in transgender activism. In addition coming out to friends and colleagues, she also used her webpage to describeher personal history(followed up, much later, by a memoir published in 2012). In 2014, she also successfully pushed for the prominent Institute of Electrical and Electronics (IEEE) Board of Directors toinclude trans-specific protections in its Code of Ethics.

Jon maddog Hall has been the Board Chair of the Linux Professional Institute (the certification body for free and open-source software professionals) since 2015. In addition, hes executive director of the industry group Linux International, as well as an author with Linux Pro Magazine.

In a 2012 column in Linux Magazine, Hall came out as gay, citing Alan Turing as a hero and an inspiration.In fact, computer science was a haven for homosexuals, trans-sexuals and a lot of other sexuals, mostly because the history of the science called for fairly intelligent, modern-thinking people, he wrote. Many computer companies were the first to enact diversity programs, and the USENIX organization had a special interest group that was made up of LGBT people. He also became an advocate of marriage equality.

In 2012, Leanne Pittsford founded Lesbians Who Tech, which claims its the largest LGBTQ community of technologists in the world (with 40+ city chapters and 60,000 members). Lesbians Who Tech hosts an annual San Francisco Summit attended by as many as 5,000 women and non-binary people, and it provides mentoring and leadership programs as well as the aforementioned Edie Windsor Coding Scholarship Fund.

Pittsford is also the founder of include.io, which connects underrepresented technologists with companies and technical mentors. In 2016, she also organizedthe third annual LGBTQ Tech and Innovation Summit at the White House.

The third Chief Technology Officer of the United States (U.S. CTO) under President Barack Obama, Megan Smith also served as a vice president at Google. As U.S. CTO, she spearheaded a number of initiatives, including the recruitment of tech talent for national service. She also recognized the need to build up the governments capabilities in data science, open data, and digital policy.

Smith is currently the CEO and co-founder of shift7, which works collaboratively on systemic social, environmental and economic problems. She is also a life member of the board of MIT, as well as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the National Academy of Engineering.

Widely considered the first chief executive officer of a Fortune 500 company to come out as gay, Apple CEO Tim Cooktold CNNback in 2014 that he went public in order to show gay children that they could be gay and still go on and do some big jobs in life.

Cook, who once said that being gay is Gods greatest gift to me, joined Apple as a senior vice president in 1998, during some of its leanest years. He quickly solidified his reputation as a peerless operations executive, refining the companys supply and manufacturing chains. As Apple rose to new corporate heights on the strength of its iPod, iPhone, and iPad sales, this supply-chain refinement ensured that millions of devices reached users hands.Cook was promoted to chief operating officer, and stepped in to temporarily head the company when CEO Steve Jobs fell sick with cancer.

Following the death of Jobs in 2011, Cook took the CEO reins and restructured the executive team, with a renewed focus on creating a culture of teamwork and collaboration. He oversaw the launch of the Apple Watch and the AirPods, moving Apple in the long-predicted direction of wearables, and began to shift the companys focus from hardware to cloud-based services such as music and gaming.

Membership has its benefits. Sign up for a free Dice profile, add your resume, discover great career insights and set your tech career in motion. Register now

See the rest here:
7 Prominent LGBTQ+ Technologists, Past and Present - Dice Insights

The cities of Renton, Kent, Federal Way and Auburn need to drop their legal opposition to inquests of officer-involved deaths, says King County Executive Dow Constantine.

Now is the time for action and accountability, Constantine said in a Monday news release. We want the governments that have filed litigation to block inquests to step aside so we can move forward and get to the truth.

But the mayors of each city, including Mayor Armondo Pavone, responded Monday that they plan to continue the lawsuit and want Constantine to restore an inquest process that is fair, transparent, just and legally acceptable within his authority.

While we strongly advocate for accountability and transparency, these actions by the King County Executive clearly indicate that he is overreaching his authority, said Pavone.

Six inquests have been on hold in King County for two years, frustrating families and making it harder for witnesses to recall details, Constantine said. The Kent, Federal Way and Auburn police departments each have a inquest case on hold. One of the two Seattle police cases on hold includes the death of a Kent man.

The city of Renton also is part of the suit against the new inquest format, but have no inquest cases on hold.

State law authorizes, and the King County Charter mandates, the investigation of any death involving a member of law enforcement in the course of their duties.

Inquests are fact-finding hearings conducted before a six-member jury. Inquests are designed to provide transparency into law enforcement actions so the public may have all the facts established in a court of law. Inquest jurors answer a series of questions to determine the significant factual issues involved in the case, and it is not their purpose to determine whether any person or agency is civilly or criminally liable. State law requires a jury of no more than six, and no less than four.

It is unfortunate that Executive Constantine has chosen to portray the intent of our cities in this light, Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus said. In truth, we believe that his executive overreach jeopardizes a full and transparent process for the public, cities and families involved and as such, we will fight its implementation.

Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell also opposes the changes.

We believe police accountability is more important now than ever, but the inquest process is an imperfect tool for this, and the new rules are unfair, Ferrell said. We believe it is unconstitutional.

After a spike of such deaths in 2017, residents expressed serious concerns about the inquest process in the county and the seeming lack of transparency and accountability, according to the news release.

Sonia Joseph is among the residents who complained about the process after a inquest jury in December 2017 found a Kent police officer feared for his life when he shot her son Giovonn Joseph-McDade, 20, in June 2017. Joseph-McDade died from multiple gunshot wounds after he reportedly tried to use his vehicle to run over an officer after a short pursuit on the East Hill.

In response to the complaints, Constantine put all inquests on hold in 2018, then convened a community group to examine the process and suggest reforms. Many of those reforms were included in an Executive Order that went into effect in October 2018 but has not yet been used with all inquests still on hold because of the lawsuits.

Executive Order includes the following major changes:

Old system: District Court judge presided over hearing

New system: A pool of retired judges serves Inquest Administrators to oversee the process.

Old system: King County Prosecuting Attorneys Office facilitated the proceedings, presents evidence.

New system: Prosecuting Attorneys Office will not participate in the hearing, but will continue administrative functions.

Old system: Limited only to facts and circumstances surrounding death.

New system: Expands the interpretation of facts and circumstances to include questions about department policy and training.

Old system: Jurors were often asked whether the officer feared for his or her life at the incident.

New system: Jurors may be asked whether officers actions were consistent with department training and policies. Jurors will no longer be asked whether officers feared for their lives.

Old system: County did not provide attorneys for families.

New system: Attorneys are provided by the Department of Public Defense, if wanted.

Old system: Involved officer could voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination).

New system: Lead investigator of incident will testify, and chief law enforcement officer (or designee) will answer questions about training and policy. Involved officer can voluntarily testify, but not be subpoenaed. However, if the subpoenaed officer does not testify, may not be represented by legal counsel.

Revised June 15 order: Involved officer may voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination), and officer may be represented by counsel throughout the proceeding regardless of whether they actually testify.

Constantine said the creation and issuance of the 2018 Executive Order was supported by:

Andre Taylor, founder of Not This Time, a community organization focused on reducing fatal police shootings, changing the laws that govern the use of force and rebuilding trust between our communities and the police who are sworn to protect and serve us. His brother Che Taylor was fatally shot by Seattle Police in 2016

Fae Brooks, co-chair of the King County Inquest Process and Review Committee and retired chief of the criminal investigations division of the King County Sheriffs Office

James Schrimpsher, Lodge 27 President of the Washington Fraternal Order of Police

Diane Narasaki, executive director, Asian Counseling and Referral Services

Almost immediately, several cities including the city of Seattle, King County Sheriff, and individual Seattle police officers filed lawsuits challenging various aspects of the inquest process, Constantine said. Three families of the deceased also filed litigation.

The Obet, Lyle and Butts families lawsuits include several items, such as making inquests include potential criminal charges against officers, and giving attorneys the ability to subpoena officers.

The litigation by the cities of Seattle, Kent, Auburn, Federal Way and King County Sheriffs challenge almost every aspect of the inquest system, including: police policies and training should not be part of inquests, disciplinary history of officers should not be allowed, expert testimony should be limited, and inquests should not be presided over by administrators (retired judges). The King County Sheriff contends that the King County Charter exempts it from inquests.

The city of Kent is utilizing the proper legal channels in order to have an impartial court of law settle a significant dispute regarding the interpretation of law, City communications manager Bailey Stober said in a statement. It is clear to us that the county executive is politicizing and attempting to bully South County cities into dropping a suit which highlights significant legal shortcoming of his new inquest process. The process was so out of line that the city of Seattle first filed the lawsuit and was joined by the King County Sheriff, the executives own county law enforcement agency.

On June 9, the Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes announced his intent to withdraw the city of Seattle from legal challenges to the inquest process.

Seeking to find compromise, Constantine this week issued a revised Executive Order to allow involved officers to be subpoenaed to testify, and to allow the officer to have an attorney present during the inquest.

King County will defer to the courts on whether inquests, after 50 years of case law stating otherwise, should now consider criminal culpability as part of the process.

The inquest process created by my 2018 Executive Order puts new emphasis on law enforcement training and lethal use-of-force policies so that departments can be held accountable for creating better, safer ways of policing, Constantine said.

Today (Monday) I am revising my Executive Order to remove objections that some departments and some families raised, Constantine said. My new order will allow the involved officer or officers to be subpoenaed to testify, and will allow officers to be represented by counsel throughout the proceeding regardless of whether they actually testify, he said.

The changes arent enough for Kent city leaders.

Our county executive has attempted to create a system of police accountability utilizing a statutory structure created in 1854, before police departments even existed in Washington, Stober said in a city statement. The executive has used imagination and a false sense of authority, not granted to him by state law, to try and create oversight authority over city police departments in 38 cities, none of which he has the authority of oversee. We firmly believe in police oversight and accountability, but that should be a conversation with the community here in Kent, not made unilaterally from a politician in downtown Seattle. Kent residents know what is best for Kent. King County is the only county in Washington that systematically uses the inquest process for this purpose. Inquests in other counties are extremely rare if not ever used, and for good reason they are not an effective tool for police oversight.

Stober continued.

It is absurd that the executive complains that cities are delaying the process of inquests, Stober said. Because of his rush to change the rules with minimal input, he has caused significant delays in the resolution of inquests. Because of the lack of thoughtfulness, it took his office almost two years to produce the rules once he decided to convene his community work group.

Residents speak out

Taylor, founder of Not This Time, said the cities need to change their stance.

I worked with very hard with Executive Constantine and other community partners to draft a new inquest process that was vastly superior, and focused appropriate attention on police policies and trainings in a way that was fair to everyone, Taylor said in the statement released by Constantine. The fact that certain cities were cowed by their police departments into filing lawsuits against the inquest shows just how far we have to go in creating a society that values and protects people of color. The political leaders of these cities have heard our protests. Now they need to act.

Katrina Johnson, the cousin of Charleena Lyles who was fatally shot by Seattle Police in June 2017, spoke at the Kent protest march on June 11 and delivered a message to Kent Police Chief Rafael Padilla shortly after he spoke about how he will listen to the protesters and the need for the department to do better.

If Kent Police Department wants to stand in solidarity with families and black lives, I need you guys to drop the lawsuit that you have forbidding the inquest from going forward, Johnson said. If you guys want to stand in solidarity with black lives, I need you guys to apologize to Sonia Joseph for killing Giovann Joseph-McDade, for killing Eugene Nelson and many others lives that you guys have taken.

Six King County victims with inquest hearings on hold

Damarius Butts

Seattle Police Department

Date of Incident: April 20, 2017

Butts, of Kent, died from multiple gunshot wounds after a reported shootout with Seattle Police on April 20 when he fled after allegedly robbing a 7-Eleven store, 627 First Ave., in downtown Seattle.

Isaiah Obet

Auburn Police Department

Date of Incident: June 10, 2017

Police say the officer shot Obet after the 25-year-old man entered a home armed with a knife and later tried to carjack an occupied vehicle.

Charleena Lyles

Seattle Police Department

Date of Incident: June 18, 2017

Lyles, 30, was shot seven times in her Seattle apartment by two Seattle Police officers. Officers fired after they said Lyles threatened them with a knife.

Eugene Nelson

Kent Police Department

Date of Incident: Aug. 9, 2017

Nelson, 20, died from multiple gunshot wounds after he allegedly tried to flee in a vehicle while dragging an officer in the 23600 block of 104th Avenue Southeast.

Robert Lightfeather

Federal Way Police Department

Date of Incident: Oct. 30, 2017

Lightfeather, 33, died of multiple gun shot wounds from a shooting at South 316th Street and Pacific Highway South outside the Elephant Car Wash. Federal Way police responded to a 911 caller who reported seeing a man pointing a gun at two men.

Curtis Elroy Tade

Kirkland Police Department

Date of Incident: Dec. 19, 2017

Federal Way Mirror reporter Olivia Sullivan contributed to this article.

Read this article:
County executive wants cities to drop opposition to revised officer-involved shooting... - Renton Reporter

Evictions are scheduled to begin Monday after being frozen by Governor John Bel Edwards since late March.

Patrick McCarron with Thomas Jefferson Real Estate says hes looking forward to proceeding with evictions as it has been a frustrating few months for landlords whove had tenants whove refused to pay rent.

I am being denied my due process as a landlord, my fifth amendment right to life, liberty, property, and due process without just compensation from the government, says McCarron.

McCarron says during that time landlords have been legally obligated to continue to provide basic services at the properties.

Baton Rouge landlord Steve Myers says the number of people who will be facing eviction varies but it appears that the vast majority of tenants have been making rent since the pandemic began.

It may be as low as ten to fifteen percent compared to where it was in March when we thought it might be thirty percent, says Myers.

Landlords who receive federal assistance or federally backed loans may not proceed with evictions until late August.

Myers says many tenants who have been struggling financially have been offered hardship plans by their landlords to weather the COVID shutdown.

It could be reducing rent, which I have done, it could be taking rent and spreading it over the remaining months, there are a number of things and usually it is on a case by case basis, says Myers.

Housing advocates warn the resumption of evictions during the pandemic constitutes a serious threat to public health. For more information on tenants rights contact the Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center.

See the original post here:
Evictions to resume Today | WWL - WWL News, Talk, Sports Radio Station

Thousands of Americans are protesting police brutality and systemic racism across the nation following the police killing of Minneapolis resident George Floyd.

Of the precautions that protesters should consider to stay safe is how to prepare for your phone being broken or lost. It could also be confiscated by authorities, who could then potentially access information about you and those you communicate with. Scores of data are located in the apps on your phone, and your smartphone can also be used as a tracking device.

All of which is to say safeguarding your phone against external forces might be a good step to take before attending a protest.

Here's how to prep your phone before joining a demonstration.

As Vice reports, perhaps one of the most surefire ways to prevent your phone from falling into the hands of someone you don't want it to is to participate in the protest without it.

You can instead coordinate with others by word of mouth. Establish meeting places and contingency plans for regrouping in case the crowd is dispersed and you lose track of each other. Familiarize yourself with the city grid and streets.

You could also buy a burner phone to use solely for the demonstration,The Verge reports. They expire after a certain number of days and can cost anywhere between $1 and $100 Digital Camera World rounded up some in February.

Losing or breaking your phone could mean thousands of photos, notes, and other data could be lost. Consider backing up your phone's contents to a computer or to the cloud, according to Gizmodo.

Thousands of protesters march over the Brooklyn Bridge to demonstrate against the death of George Floyd in New York, United States on June 4, 2020. Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

As PC Mag notes, you can also temporarily delete apps from your phone and then reinstall them at a later date.

By using an encryption key, or password, to unlock your phone, you're creating a barrier between your phone data and anyone that could potentially take advantage of it.

For iPhone users, if you use a passcode to get into your device, then you're set it's already encrypted.

If law enforcement asks you to punch in your password to unlock your phone, you retain your Fifth Amendment right to refuse, as Gizmodo reports.

But biometric methods, such as unlocking with your fingerprint or face scan, aren't as protected in case you're taken into police custody. Officers could still potentially hold your phone up to your face or press your finger to the device to unlock it.

Consider deactivating Face ID and use a strong password instead.

These functions can track your location, a feat that some companies and brands are able to take advantage of for advertising purposes, according to Consumer Reports.

If you don't need Wifi, GPS, or Bluetooth, you can switch them off to prevent your exact location from being monitored. As CR notes, some smartphones are designed to switch these settings back on by default, so be sure to keep tabs on whether or not they stay disabled.

You can read how to stop your iPhone from tracking your location here.

Police stand by as protesters lay down with hands behind their back on Washington Street in front of the Jamaica Plain Boston Police station on June 4, 2020. John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

You can also put your phone in Airplane Mode to prevent tracking, which shuts off WiFi, Bluetooth, and cell data in one fell swoop. As The Verge notes, doing so prevents cellphone carriers from communicating with cell towers to locate you. It also shields against stingray attacks, which is when a device masquerades as a cell tower to connect and gain access to phone data. In 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union found 75 law enforcement agencies across 27 states in the US that owned these types of tools, as The Markup notes.

But Airplane Mode differs depending on what phone you have, so disabling it isn't always an airtight solution.

You can also simply turn your phone off and only use it when you need it. But that can make it more difficult to quickly take photos, record videos, or be able to quickly make an urgent call.

Phone message encryption has its limits, such as in the case of an iPhone user messaging with an Android user the text automatically converts to SMS, which isn't encrypted. So experts have recommended using secure chat apps such as Signal or WhatsApp, according to The Markup.

Signal has seen a spike in user downloads as protests have been held across the US.

As Consumer Reports notes, the app provides a setting that deletes messages soon after the recipient reads it, which can help protect both parties on either end of the conversation in the event that one of them loses their phone.

If you don't do so, and your phone is lost or confiscated, others may be privy to the messages and alerts that appear on your home screen, as The Markup points out.

You'd be protecting both you and the people sending you messages by preventing their texts from appearing.

Read more here:
Here are 7 steps you can take to secure your phone and data before attending a protest - Business Insider - Business Insider

Have you watched Filthy Rich yet? Its the Netflix docuseries about Jeffrey Epstein. Throughout the series, and right off the top, Epstein is seen in deposition footage repeatedly pleading the fifth. Im not a lawyer and yes, I knowwwwwww that the fifth amendment has its value in legal situations but if youve watched Filthy Rich, it almost becomes a mockery of, like, common decency. Every time hes asked whether or not he repeatedly preyed on underage girls, whether or not he regularly procured the services of underage girls aka RAPED THEM and whether or not he received gifts of underage girls (!!!) for his birthday, he pleaded the fifth.

If you were accused of all that vileness, and instead of being like, F-CK NO, I WOULD NEVER DO THAT, you plead the fifth, what in goddamn is going on in your grossness of a life?!

What the docuseries makes very clear is that Jeffrey Epstein was surrounded, constantly, by minors. And that it wasnt a secret. The minors werent travelling around in a portable trailer and hidden from Epsteins circle. They were visible to airport employees, tech support who visited Epsteins properties to install his satellite equipment, and to his guests. Or maybe the better way of saying that is FOR HIS GUESTS. Bill Clinton was seen so many times on Epsteins private island, dubbed Pedophile Island, as was Prince Andrew, who was observed, according to one witness, rubbing himself up against a topless Virginia Roberts, then 17 years old.

Epsteins f-cksh-t was condoned then, even encouraged, by the people he spent time with. And its a long f-cking list. Like Ghislaine Maxwell? Find that woman and have her answer to her complicity, at the very least, and her crimes at worst. And the people who were in and out of Epsteins orbit, who would have no doubt noticed that, hey, this dude is constantly accompanied by young girlshow can they explain their inaction?

Because its so NORMAL! Its NORMAL to see 40 year old actors with just-turned 18 year old models. Its normal to see 60 year old rock stars with 18 year old models. Its normal, normal, normal, normal, normal. So normal that crimes become condoned. So normal that crimes become scenery. God that was disgusting to write. I just described underage girls as scenery, like a painting, a sculpture, property. But isnt this the truth? Are we guilty of accepting this normalisation as a part of a worldview that we dont challenge?

To go back to Prince Andrew then, who no one believes despite multiple denials from the British royal family that he had no idea what Jeffrey Epstein was doing, even though Virginias claims have been corroborated by multiple people AND A PHOTO (for f-cks sake!), it was reported a few days ago that hes been permanently retired. According to the Sunday Times:

"The monarchs reportedly favourite child is not expected to represent her on the public stage again," writes the publication's royal correspondent Roya Nikkhah.

"The royal family has 'no plans to review' his position and the Queen is believed to be resigned to her second sons permanent removal from public life."

Shes resigned to it? Like, what? Reluctantly? Like its a concession? Thats another problem right there. An entire royal institution has been mobilised, for years, to protect this man from himself. In doing so, they gaslit a girl whose life was permanently altered by sexual abuse and by extension so many other women who had no allies. Because, of course, the Crown comes first.

The Crown, however, even though theres a series by the same name that airs on Netflix, does not control Netflix. And, as expected, Andrews appearance in Netflixs Epstein docuseries has done major damage to the brand. Millions of people have watched it, millions of people have heard about Prince Andrew and his friend Jeffrey Epstein, the dead rapist pedophile. Millions now have seen that photo, have heard from Virginia and the other survivors, have learned about their trauma. This is now irrevocably Andrews association. And also, by relation, the British royal association. Good look!

On a related note, Prince Andrews ex-wife and life partner Sarah Ferguson just launched a charity. Heres her message on Twitter:

The comments below it are welltheyre facts.

See the original post:
Prince Andrew has reportedly been permanently retired as Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich docuseries is released o - LaineyGossip

A Seattle-based District Judge has ruled that law enforcement agencies may not look at a phone's lock screen without a warrant as it violates Fourth Amendment rights.

Law enforcement agencies must get a warrant before they attempt to unlock your phone, obtain data from the manufacturer, or come in possession of any information from the carrier. Now, for the same reasons, they may need to get one before they even look at a suspect's lock screen.

Joseph Sam was arrested in May 2019 and indicted on charges related to robbery and assault. He claims that during the arrest, one of the officers hit the power button to bring up the phone's lock screen though it's unclear whether or not the officer attempted to unlock it.

A year later, the FBI had obtained the phone as a piece of evidence against Sam. They turned on the phone and took a photograph of the lock screen, which displayed "Streezy" on it. Sam's lawyers then filed a motion to argue that the evidence should not be admissible, as it was obtained without a warrant, as pointed out by Ars Technica.

The judge overseeing the case, District Judge John Coughenour, agreed. In his ruling, he determined that the police looking at the phone during the arrest and the FBI later looking at the phone were two separate incidents. While the police looking at his phone may have been okay, the FBI taking a photograph of it was not.

The reason is that police are given more liberties during a lawful arrest turning on the phone may be allowed as part of an effort to inventory the suspect's personal effects. Because there was no way to see how the police handled the phone, there is not enough evidence to rule their actions unlawful.

However, when the FBI took possession of the phone, their intentions were clear. When the police took a picture of the lock screen, it qualified as unlawful search, violating Sam's Fourth Amendment rights.

The government's attorneys argued that lock screens are not private. The counter-argument was that a lock screen is specifically designed to be viewed by everyone who isn't the owner when they try to access the phone, and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Judge Coughenour did not agree.

"When the Government gains evidence by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area as the FBI did here it is 'unnecessary to consider' whether the government also violated the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy," he wrote.

A suspect cannot be compelled to give the passcode to unlock their phone, as it is considered testimonial and is subsequently protected under the Fifth Amendment. Whether or not a suspect can be compelled to use a biometric feature such as TouchID or FaceID is another matter.

View post:
Judge rules that viewing an iPhone lock screen qualifies as a search - AppleInsider

The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, pending a response from the Justice Department.

The court was considering a House Judiciary Committee request for grand jury materials that the DOJ had redacted from the publishedreport. House lawyers argued the materials are relevant to pending impeachment proceedings against President Trump involving obstruction of justice.

Mueller, citing constitutional concerns, did not reach a conclusion "one way or the other" about whether the president committed the crime of obstruction, though his report made multiple pointed references to Congress' ability to do so.

The Supreme Court did not block the House request permanently. Rather, itput a temporary hold on an earlier order from an appeals court to release the full report to Congress, including all grand jury material.

Judge Judy W. Rogers, writing for the majority in that appellate court decision, argued that the congressional request wasstandard, and that it was"only the president's categorical resistance and the department's objection that is unprecedented."

If the DOJ fails to respond which is highly unlikely Congress will get to see the grand jury information. Most likely, Congress and the Justice Department will square off directlybefore the Supreme Court, in what could be a historic constitutional showdown.

Attorney General BillBarr has clung tightly to his redactions since releasing the report to the public last spring. Of all the blacked-out sections, Barr has fought hardest to keep the grand jury information secret.

It is conceivable, according to former federal prosecutors, that some of those redactions refer to what may seema far-fetched scenario:Mueller's grand jury could have considered the evidence on obstruction of justice, including testimony from the president himself.

A redacted passage in the report suggests that the grand jury saw Trump's writtenresponses to Mueller's questions which Mueller ultimately found unsatisfactory and which contained various contradictions and, according to Mueller himself, false statements.

Lying under oath to federal prosecutors is unequivocally a crime.

Almost allthe grand jury information is in Volume I of the report, the conspiracy section. Volume II, however, which considers obstruction of justice, contains a few isolated redactions that tell the story of Mueller's attempts to get Trump to sit for an interview.

Mueller initially requested an in-person interview, but after going back and forth with the president's lawyers for more than a year, the two sides agreed on written responses.

Thisparagraph points out that Trump "did not similarly agree to provide written answers to questions on obstruction topics "

At the end of that paragraph, Mueller sends the reader to Appendix C for more detail. But there, in the middle of the same narrative, that extra detail is also redacted.

Both passages make clear that Mueller's team, after being stonewalled by Trump's lawyers, decided to take some action related to the grand jury.

That action, whatever it was, seems to have informed Mueller's conclusion that he had the "legal justification" tosubpoena Trump, though he decided against it because, he writes, of the likely prospect ofextended court and constitutional battles.

Mueller believed that the "substantial evidence" he had gathered which included Trump's written responses contributed enough to "the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report" that it rendered a drawn-out court fight unnecessary.

Even if Mueller had won that fight, Trump could likely have refused to testify further, either by invoking executive privilege or exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Furthermore, even if Trump had lied to Mueller in a sit-downinterview a blatant criminal act the legal framework Mueller had adopted would not have allowed him to indict the president. The ultimate result, then, would have been unchanged: A report that Congress could use as basis for the impeachment process.

We have seen no reports thatthegrand jury tookup questions about Trump's written responses, so what follows is highly speculative. But one intriguingsentence following one of the redacted grand jury passages reads:"Recognizing that the president would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony."

One explanation for that would be that at some point between receiving Trump's written answers and deciding not to subpoena him, Mueller submitted that testimonyto the grand jury.

When Barr testified beforethe Senate the month after he published the report, Sen.Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., repeatedly asked the attorney generalwhether Trump hadtestified to the grand jury.

Given that the president had clearly not done so, Barr's reluctance to answer directly was puzzling.

Leahy: The president of course declared many times publicly in tweets and at campaign rallies and all that he would testify. He never did testify, correct?

Barr: As far as I know.

Leahy: I think you know whether he testified or not.

Barr: As far as I know, he didn't testify.

Leahy: And Mr. Mueller found the written answers to be inadequate. Is that correct?

Barr: I think he wanted additional, but he never sought it.

Leahy: And the president never testified.

Barr: Well, he never he never pushed it.

A few minutes later, Barr broughtup the grand jury, which ledLeahy to ask him again if it was accurate that Trump never testified.

Barr replied, "I think that's correct."

Given the unusual circumstances, it's conceivable that one lawyercould understandwritten responses submitted to a grand jury as being grand jury testimony, whileanother might not. This could explain Barr's careful answer.

"I think Mueller may have presented the written answers to the grand jury," former U.S. attorney and national security expert Barbara McQuade told Salon in an email. "That could be considered 'testimony' before the grand jury, if they saw it."

Matt Miller, an MSNBC legal analyst and former director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Department of Justice under Barack Obama, understood the redacted material pertaining to the grand jury differently. "I think any discussion or decision whether to subpoena or not might be redacted," Miller said in an interview. "It appeared to be with Donald TrumpJr. That's what Ken Starr did with [former president Bill] Clinton."

But Barr did not in fact redact Mueller'sdiscussion of his decision notto subpoena President Trump.

McQuade suggested that she regretted Mueller's decision to forgo a subpoena. "I think that pushing Trump to testify at a grand jury would have been successful, but would have taken a long time," shesaid. "As we have seen with other matters, Trump is willing to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. It could have taken a year to get it resolved. That said, it still might have been worth the wait."

The Department of Justice has until June 1 to submit its petition to fight the case in the Supreme Court. Barr appears determined to prevent Congress from reading the redacted grand jury material for as long as he can.

Read more:
What's Bill Barr hiding in the Mueller report? It could be Trump's false statements under oath - Salon

Fifth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that articulates procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to secure life, liberty, and property. For the text of the Fifth Amendment, see below.

Similar to the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment is divided into five clauses, representing five distinct, yet related, rights. The first clause specifies that [n]o 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. This grand jury provision requires a body to make a formal presentment or indictment of a person accused of committing a crime against the laws of the federal government. The proceeding is not a trial but rather an ex parte hearing (i.e., one in which only one party, the prosecution, presents evidence) to determine if the government has enough evidence to carry a case to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence that an offense was committed, it issues an indictment, which then permits a trial. The portion of the clause pertaining to exceptions in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia is a corollary to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power [t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. Combined, they justify the use of military courts for the armed forces, thus denying military personnel the same procedural rights afforded civilians.

The second section is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause, and it protects citizens against a second prosecution after an acquittal or a conviction, as well as against multiple punishments for the same offense. Caveats to this provision include permissions to try persons for civil and criminal aspects of an offense, conspiring to commit as well as to commit an offense, and separate trials for acts that violate laws of both the federal and state governments, although federal laws generally suppress prosecution by the national government if a person is convicted of the same crime in a state proceeding.

The third section is commonly referred to as the self-incrimination clause, and it protects persons accused of committing a crime from being forced to testify against themselves. In the U.S. judicial system a person is presumed innocent, and it is the responsibility of the state (or national government) to prove guilt. Like other pieces of evidence, once presented, words can be used powerfully against a person; however, words can be manipulated in a way that many other objects cannot. Consequently, information gained from sobriety tests, police lineups, voice samples, and the like is constitutionally permissible while evidence gained from compelled testimony is not. As such, persons accused of committing crimes are protected against themselves or, more accurately, how their words may be used against them. The clause, therefore, protects a key aspect of the system as well as the rights of the criminally accused.

The fourth section is commonly referred to as the due process clause. It protects life, liberty, and property from impairment by the federal government. (The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, protects the same rights from infringement by the states.) Chiefly concerned with fairness and justice, the due process clause seeks to preserve and protect fundamental rights and ensure that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs in accordance with procedural safeguards. As such, there are both substantive and procedural considerations associated with the due process clause, and this has influenced the development of two separate tracks of due process jurisprudence: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process pertains to the rules, elements, or methods of enforcementthat is, its procedural aspects. Consider the elements of a fair trial and related Sixth Amendment protections. As long as all relevant rights of the accused are adequately protectedas long as the rules of the game, so to speak, are followedthen the government may, in fact, deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property. But what if the rules are not fair? What if the law itselfregardless of how it is enforcedseemingly deprives rights? This raises the controversial spectre of substantive due process rights. It is not inconceivable that the content of the law, regardless of how it is enforced, is itself repugnant to the Constitution because it violates fundamental rights. Over time, the Supreme Court has had an on-again, off-again relationship with liberty-based due process challenges, but it has generally abided by the principle that certain rights are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (Palko v. Connecticut [1937]), and as such they are afforded constitutional protection. This, in turn, has led to the expansion of the meaning of the term liberty. What arguably began as freedom from restraint has transformed into a virtual cornucopia of rights reasonably related to enumerated rights, without which neither liberty nor justice would exist. For example, the right to an abortion, established in Roe v. Wade (1973), grew from privacy rights, which emerged from the penumbras of the constitution.

More here:
Fifth Amendment | Summary, Rights, & Facts | Britannica

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

See more here:
Patent Owners Cannot Sue the Government for Patent Infringement as a Fifth Amendment Taking - JD Supra