Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

Dear Reader(unless youre waiting for a subpoena, like Kevin McCarthy),

So I had a long rant in the Wednesday G-File about Bidens voting rights speech (actually, in fairness to me, only the end of it was ranty). While I could go on for another couple thousand words, the thing is already a dead letter. Kyrsten Sinema announced she wont nuke the filibuster to pass the Democrats election reforms, and Joe Manchin backed her up, so the whole speech was a pointless exercise.

Some think the idea was to pressure Sinema and Manchin into caving on a filibuster carve out. If so, that sounds great as a plot device for The West Wing.

I was going to make thenow clichdpoint that the Biden White House lives in the Veep timeline. But then I stopped myself because the truth is that it actually exists in the real world, the meatspace where things dont unfold according to preconceived storylines.

Remember that old joke about the academic who says, Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory? The problem for the Biden administration is that they come up with theories about what to do that dont actually work unless youre drunk on the Kool-Aid and they work even less in reality. From Afghanistan to Build Back Better to COVID to inflation to this voting rights debacle, its like the White House just says Lets just do it and be legends.

Theres a lot of talk in Washington about how Biden isnt really running the show. That may be true on one issue or another, but on the broad direction of his presidency, I think this is wrong. Biden has a very long history of being unjustifiably confident about how the world works and being proven wrong. If thats the theme of his life in politicsand I think it isit would be kind of weird to exonerate him from the charge when hes actually the president of the United States and his presidency has displayed exactly that: invincible confidence in the rightness of what hes doing even as he walks from one smack in the face to another like Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes.

Dont worry, Im not going to run through all of that here because, frankly, Im exhausted with punditry right now. Instead, Id like to focus on something he was wrong about in his speech that an enormous number of other people are also wrong about.

Democracy versus liberty.

Biden said that the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. This is a common view, and one that Biden has subscribed to for a while. As vice president in 2015, he issued a statement on the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act: Voting is the engine that drives all civil rights, all human rights, and all economic rights in this country. Its the right from which all other rights flow. Robert Kennedy said the same thing a half-century ago.

Now, I think voting is very, very important. What has two thumbs and likes democracy? This guy.

But neither the right to vote, nor democracy itself, are the source of all of our other rights.

This isnt a pedantic point.

Lets start with the subject of Jim Crow. Extending voting rights to blacks in the South was important, morally necessary, and just. But Jim Crow didnt end in the South because blacks got the vote. A full 10 years before the Voting Rights Act 1964 was passed, the Supreme Courtnot exactly a very democratic institutionruled that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education. More to the point, in at least some Southern states, if segregation had been put up for a vote it would have been sustained by a majority of the voterseven if blacks could vote. The process of desegregation began at gunpoint by federal troops enforcing the Supreme Courts rulings.

There is nothing inherent to democratic theory that says the people can be counted upon to vote in favor of sustaining their rights, never mind the rights of other people. Thats why the Constitution protects our rights from democracy. The Bill of Rights explicitly makes it hard for government to infringe on our rights because our rights are considered prior to or above the whims of the voters. In a pure democracy, 50.1 percent of the people can pee in the cornflakes of 49.9 percent of the people.

If voting always breaks in favor of protecting our rights, why are Democrats so upset that elected officials in various states are restricting the right to vote? That should be impossible. Voting is a fundamental right, the fundamental right, they insist. Well, people voted for Republican-controlled legislatures and those legislatures are, Democrats tell us, restricting a fundamental right. Paradoxical! By the way, the fact that this is being done on a party line basis shouldnt be an issue either, given that Democrats at the national level think they should do everything and anything they want on a party line basis. If voting in partisan lockstep to tighten voting procedures is illegitimate, voting for expanding or federalizing them should be too. Ditto Build Back Better and the rest.

One of the central insights of both liberalism and conservatism, rightly understood, is that sometimes the people can be wrong. Thats why the Founders made it hard to change the Constitution. Thats why they envisioned the Senate as a cooling saucer that tempers the passions of the House. And thats why this country has elections all the time. Because the Founders understood that sometimes the people can get riled up, angry, confused, misinformed, petulant, or vengeful. Having lots of elections allows the voters to recognize that maybe they went too far in the previous election. Its part of the process of democratic self-correction and renewal. There have been plenty of times in American history when the people were in a bad enough mood to vote away various rights if they had the power to do it. Making it hard for those temper tantrums to do lasting damage is one of the great things about our system. (I suspect that if you put free speech rights up for a vote today, we would have fewer free speech rights tomorrow.)

Where do our rights come from?

What is the singular right that makes all other rights possible? I think this is a problematic question, but lets take a stab at it. There are a lot of answers to this question. They largely fall into two broad categories Ill call philosophical and anthropological, though theres a lot of overlap between the two.

Ill start with the anthropological. Theres a strong case that securitybasic personal safetyis the fons et origo of all other rights. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke would agree (I told you there was overlap!). In a state of nature, force settles all disputes. Talk all you like about your property rights, but if I hit you over the head with a rock, I can take your stuff. Cry about how your rights were violated, it will do you no good unless youand maybe some friendsget some rocks and take your stuff back. My apologies to all of the anarchists out there, but Hobbes, Locke, Weber, et al., were right that without the state and its monopoly on violence, no other rights are secure. This is why some argue that the right to life is the source of all other rights.

The reason I call this the anthropological argument is that this is almost surely where government comes from. As I discuss at length in Suicide of the West, the first states emerged from what Mancur Olsen called the stationary bandit. In a state of nature, roving banditsthink Viking pillagerscome riding into town a whoopin and a stompin and take whatever they can carry. At some point, one of these wandering warlords realizes that if he stays put and agrees to protect the villagers from other roving bandits he can extract more wealth or rents from the villagers. Importantly, over time he realizes that its in his interest to invest in this community so his slice of the pie can grow. Protecting their property rights from all theftsave taxationyields greater prosperity. Eventually, the stationary bandit becomes a chieftain or king and a whole political theology becomes invested into perpetuating his rule and the rule of his progeny. This is where the anarchists have a point about how the state was created as a glorified criminal enterprise.

Then theres the philosophical argument. This is a bit of a misnomer because it can rightly be called a theological argument as well. Its pretty straightforward. We are created by God. Our rights derive from this fact, and it is the job of the state to protect those rights. I can spend the next 10,000 words expanding and elucidating this idea, but I dont see the point.

Some atheists and humanists dont like this formulation for some obvious reasons (and some exhaustingly obscure ones). But the simple fact is that without the essentially Judeo-Christian view of humans as being equal in the eyes of God, we wouldnt have the idea of inalienable rights today. This isnt to say you cant make an atheistic case for human rightspeople do it all the frickn time. Its simply to note that the atheists are standing on the shoulders of the people who made the case for rights as God-given. And if you think Im being too much of a Western chauvinist, thats fine. All I ask is that you point out to me where in the history of the non-Western world the idea of universal human rights not only emerged (it must have somewhere) but actually took hold.

While you get that blistering email together for me, lets talk about the overlap. Most of the rights we think of as our rightsincluding the right to votetook hold during the Enlightenment. Of course, as a matter of intellectual history, most of them are conceptually much older. Democracy, free speech, property rights, etc. have antecedents in the ancient world, and not just in the West. And some started as pre-Enlightenment cultural norms in England or elsewhere (the Fourth Amendment starts with the quirky custom of a mans home being his castle). Freedom of conscience begins not as some grand theological or philosophical principle, but as a kind of Westphalian truce in the wake of the wars of religion. As Herbert Butterfield put it, religious tolerance was the last policy that remained when it had proved impossible to go on fighting any longer.

But it was the rise of the middle class in England and France that forced recognition of rights as indispensable to political legitimacy. No taxation without representation is where democracy in the modern world begins. From it flows the idea that we are citizens, not subjects: We dont work for the government, the government works for us.

And that brings me back to where I began. The government works for us, but part of its job is to protect our rights for posterity, even when a temporary majority wants to abandon them. This is where the anthropological and the philosophical visions merge into a cultural synthesis. Contrary to a lot of prattle from post-liberals, progressive technocrats, and populist grifters of the right and left, we live in a liberal culture. Thats why I think the question of What right makes other rights possible? is so problematic. It works on the assumption that Americans love and enjoy their rights based on some commitment to abstract liberal theory alone. Liberal theory is important. But far more important is liberal culture. Americans like our freedoms because were Americans, damn it. So sure, sometimes voting is the great protector of our rights, and sometimes its not. In other words, its complicated because culture is complicated.

I am open to the idea that our rights dont come from God, but I thank God every day I live in a culture that operationally believes they do. Because that is the best bulwark against the machinations of populists and politicians who set out to inflame passions for short-term gain at the long-term expense of our rights.

And such leaders are all around us. For example, Joe Biden said this week that all of our rights come from voting and that people who disagree are on the side of racists and segregationists. He did this, I believe, solely so he could push through a political agenda and placate the passions of his partisan base. If you think thats not the case, fine. But maybe you can explain how, just eight months ago, Biden had a completely different philosophical explanation for where our rights come from?

On May 28, he told American service members: None of you get your rights from your government; you get your rights merely because youre a child of God. The government is there to protect those God-given rights. No other government has been based on that notion. No one can defeat us except us.

He was right then. And his abandonment of that view for political expediency this week was worse than a defeat, it was a surrender to the sorts of petty political corruptions our system was created to protect us against.

Various & Sundry

Canine update: This always happens when the Fair Jessica leaves town: The girls are getting super needy. They lie to me every day about how starving they are and how I forgot to feed them. They pretend that I never took them for a walk and they follow me around the house like Im planning some escape. In the morning Zo aroos at me if I take too long getting dressed for the morning walk and she aroos at me at the end of the day when I come back from abandoning them for several lifetimes (Zos words). Pippa especially has become obsessed with jumping up next to me and throwing her head back onto my lap to say, Love me. If my lap is unavailable, shell use Zo.

ICYMI

Last Fridays G-File

The new years first Ruminant

Economics in one virus

Dont cave to Russia

Wednesdays newsletter on Bidens Georgia speech, released to the masses

The Dispatch Podcast on Bidens voting rights pivot

The weeks second Remnant with Ross Douthat

And now, the weird stuff

All work and no play

Nordic socialism

Sharp dressed men

Devils advocate

Doctor who

See original here:
Rites About Rights - The Dispatch

This story was published in partnership with Sahan Journal, a nonprofit news organization covering immigrants and communities of color in Minnesota.

When leaders in Ramsey County, Minnesota, considered building a new youth jail in 2016, residents responded with outrage.

The community showed up in a very angry way, said Ramsey County Attorney John Choi, recounting a public hearing about the project. All the people that were there shut it down.

In 2011, Choi became the first Korean American chief prosecutor in the U.S. Since then, Choi, whose jurisdiction includes St. Paul and nearby communities, has quietly developed a reputation as one of the nations most reform-minded prosecutors.

Choi spent the years leading up to the 2016 fight over the child jail by collaborating with county officials and community leaders. The goal was to decrease youth incarceration rates by offering diversion programs to kids who ended up in court. And it was working: At Boys Totem Town, a jail in St. Pauls Battle Creek neighborhood, a facility built for 36 boys held just six in its final year.

Community members in 2019 successfully pushed the county to close Boys Totem Town for good. Choi says the fight over Boys Totem Town sparked a local movement to transform the countys criminal legal system, which polices and incarcerates Black and Native people at disproportionately higher rates than white people. Neighboring Minneapolis in Hennepin County may have garnered significantly more headlines since Minneapolis police killed George Floyd, but St. Paul may be the municipality that has made more strides toward transforming its criminal legal system.

I believe that the solutions are embedded in our community, especially the aspect of our community that has been the most impacted by violence, the most impacted by mass incarceration, Choi said. [We need] to engage those communities to be a part of the solution. And thats the conversation that weve been having for the past three years.

Since the killing of George Floyd in 2020 and the subsequent uprising, the coalition that formed to close Boys Totem Town has succeeded in its push for significant legal reforms in Minnesotas second most populous county after Hennepin. Choi has embraced reforms including an effort to reduce the use of cash bail and a policy to not prosecute most felonies that arise from pretextual traffic stops when a cop pulls someone over for a small driving infraction and uses that stop as an excuse to search or detain them. Studies have found that pretextual traffic-stops are disproportionately deployed against people of color, and civil rights groups maintain that such stops violate Fourth Amendment bans on unreasonable searches. And the Ramsey County Commission agrees with these changes: Commissioners recently approved a plan for unarmed, community-based responders to address some situations that would normally be handled by police, a move that could make a difference for thousands of people who might otherwise face arrest.

But not all of those reforms have sailed through without opposition.

At first, nobody complained about any of this, Choi told Sahan Journal and The Appeal. In fact, it was celebrated. But thats starting to change. Now its being blamed for a whole bunch of things.

Despite the countys reputation as a progressive stronghold, Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher and other major state law-enforcement groups have fought Chois attempts to change policing in St. Paul and its surrounding communities. Fletcher has argued that more children should be jailed and has ordered his deputies not to comply with Chois ban on pretextual stops.

This is a crisis and you can say the juvenile justice system failure is a crisis, Fletcher told KSTP, the local ABC affiliate, in September. If we dont restore those 40 to 50 beds for these juveniles, then we are going to continue on the cycle that were at.

Now the county is taking an even bigger step toward reshaping policing, and its unclear how Fletcher and the states powerful police unions will react.

In November, the county approved $13.2 million to fund alternative ways of handling some 911 calls that would typically be dealt with by police. Dubbed the Appropriate Responses Initiative, the plan could put Ramsey County on the leading edge of new approaches to public safety. While many jurisdictions in the U.S. send mental health professionals or social workers to 911 calls alongside police, this plan would remove police from certain situations entirely. Officials hope to revamp how the county responds to mental health crises, homelessness, and a range of non-emergency calls, for example.

We know there is a disproportionate number of Black and American Indian individuals that are engaged with the criminal justice system, Nancie Pass, the Ramsey County Emergency Communication Center director, said in a presentation to commissioners on Nov. 9. Our goal with this initiative is to connect people with community services before the need to engage with traditional responders, and to connect them with the most appropriate resource to meet their need.

Black residents in Ramsey County are almost 13 times as likely to be admitted to prison compared to white people; Native residents are about 12 times as likely.

The initiative includes three models of alternative responses. The first is co-response, in which both police and professionals from other government agencies, such as mental health care providers, respond to emergencies. The county is already using this approach during limited hours in some areas.

Currently, police request a co-responder when they think they need it. Under the new initiative, a 911 dispatcher will make the choice based on information from the callers themselves. Passs presentation to the board included hypothetical scenarios that could be handled by co-responders, including domestic violence and suicide attempts.

But the plan also enables responses that dont involve police at all.

For 911 calls where theres no threat of violence like panhandling, someone living in a car, or a welfare check (a visit to a persons home to make sure theyre OK) dispatchers could send public health or social workers without police. And in other cases, such as noise complaints, someone from a community-based organization could respond, avoiding government intervention altogether. A study that Ramsey County completed in October found other comparable programs with non-law enforcement dispatchable resources that respond to more than just mental health related calls in just four U.S. cities: Denver, Houston, Eugene, Oregon, and Olympia, Washington.

This could make a difference for thousands of people in Ramsey County who would otherwise interact with police each year. In November alone, police made nearly 800 welfare checks and responded to about 500 noise complaints. And out of about 79,000 911 calls, more than half were non-emergencies, according to county data.

We cant be a rubber stamp to what the police want. We have to be an independent actor willing to hold police accountable, Choi said. We have to work towards a more just way of responding to incidents and finding justice, safety, and wellness for everybody.

Raj Sethuraju, a criminal justice professor at Metropolitan State University in Brooklyn Park, works closely with Choi and is involved in developing the Appropriate Responses Initiative.

We practice mass punishment, mass incarceration and mass surveillanceversus trusting humanity, right, breaking the barriers, so that human beings can flourish in our community.

Sethuraju conducts restorative justice circles, which bring together victims and the people who committed crimes against them for a discussion on healing. The meetings serve as an alternative to criminal charges in some cases. Sethuraju says the county also uses feedback from restorative justice circles when developing new policies.

Weve been talking about all of the challenges, all of the barriers, all of the ways our work can be impactful, Sethuraju said.

Efforts like this have led officials to embrace bold measures like the Appropriate Responses Initiative. At a time when the role of police is up for debate across the country, a decade of changes in Ramsey County have laid the groundwork for this transformation.

Under Chois leadership, the number of people sent to prison between 2013 and 2019 in Ramsey County decreased by 47 percent, to 652 from 1,226. For youth, there was an even steeper decline: The number of people ages 16 to 25 sent to prison between 2010 and 2019 decreased by two-thirds to 112 from 317. At the same time, the county attorneys office brought down the number of people on probation by nearly a quarter to 12,787 from 16,711 while eliminating $1 million in fines against defendants. Choi told Sahan Journal and The Appeal he attributes that change in part to creating an office culture in which prosecutors arent judged by the number of convictions they land.

The racial disparities are still way too high, Choi said. But all the numbers went down. It wasnt like one group benefited more during this reduction period.

More recent reforms could change policing and drive down incarceration even further. In September, Choi announced he wont prosecute most felonies that result from pretextual traffic stops.

And in September 2020, Choi partnered with the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a nonprofit bail fund, to work toward eliminating the cash bail system, which disproportionately subjects Black and brown people to pretrial incarceration.

Oftentimes people who are under detention have not been adjudicated guilty, said Elizer Darris, co-executive director of the Minnesota Freedom Fund. The harm is that each day that goes by, youre not able to go to work, youre not able to contribute to the family.

Darris, Choi, and other county officials and stakeholders have been examining alternatives to cash bail, including a pretrial risk assessment tool to determine whether someone can be safely released without bail before trial. Critics of pretrial risk assessments have alleged that such tools are racially biased and poor predictors of pretrial misconduct. Darris described the reform process as slow moving. But he noted that this is necessary in order to include people like him who have experienced incarceration and other aspects of the criminal legal system.

Part of the shift thats happening is a lot of those of us who are directly impacted who have gone through a lot of these systems are now becoming involved with helping to shape and craft the outcomes, he said.

But these efforts could be derailed if opposition from Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher gains traction. Fletcher, who has drawn the ire of local officials for live-streaming his patrols, has begun to vocally critique the Boys Totem Town closure and other reforms. In September, Fletcher called for a return to jailing Ramsey Countys children, and said he plans to propose an initiative concerning youth crime to state lawmakers.

I have talked with dozens of parents who have made it clear: the status quo is not working; there are no consequences, no resources and no support, Fletcher said in a statement. Youth are frequently released from custody only to repeat the same dangerous and criminal behavior.

Fletcher did not respond to a request for comment from The Appeal and Sahan Journal.

Choi, however, disagrees. Whats driving a lot of the crime and the repetitive nature of youth who are coming back in the system is a much more complicated thing that relates really specifically to the pandemic, it relates to other things that are happening in a community, he said. He added that incarcerating youth only perpetuates the cycle. Young people end up going deep deep into the system, and they can never get out.

Fletcher and other law enforcement officials testified before the Minnesota Senate in October at what politicians described as an informational hearing on violent crime in the Twin Cities. I know a lot about juvenile crime, Fletcher said. Shooters start out as juvenile delinquents and they evolve through the system. He added: We need some type of location that we can stop the evolution of these children before they become shooters. Studies have shown that incarcerating youth doesnt decrease their risk of committing future crimes and may actually increase it in some cases.

Fletcher has also been a vocal opponent of Chois policy not to prosecute cases that stemmed from pretextual traffic stops. He has said his office will still conduct low-level traffic stops despite the county attorneys policy.

Other major law-enforcement leaders and groups, such as the statewide Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA), said Chois pretextual-stop ban endangered Ramsey County residents.

Basically the county attorney just announced his office wont uphold the law and wont prosecute those who break it, MPPOA President Brian Peters told state lawmakers. Thats absurd and a slap in the face to victims of crime. In other cities where prosecutors have attempted to make the criminal system more humane such as Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Los Angeles local police departments, sheriffs, and police unions have fought bitterly against proposed police reforms.

But despite roadblocks from the Ramsey County sheriffs office and others, reformers told Sahan Journal and The Appeal that they are still optimistic about getting the Appropriate Responders Initiative off the ground. Those involved with the plan said it could take at least another year before community-based responders actually hit the streets.

It becomes more difficult, especially now, because were facing immense skepticism and criticism around some of the new justice reform efforts, Choi said. But we have to keep pushing forward in this space, because the alternative is to go back to the status quo.

Link:
How St. Paul Became The Twin Cities' Leader On Justice Reform - The Appeal

Fourth Amendment protections have been chipped away at for around a century, violating the civil rights of American citizens.

Robert Frommer and Daryl James| Guest columnists

Nobody roams onto Terry Rainwaters land by accident. A locked gate blocks cars, and no trespassing signs warn uninvited guests to stay off the 136-acre parcel along the Big Sandy River in Camden west of Nashville.

So Rainwaters was surprised in December 2017 when he discovered two spy cameras mounted on trees within the boundaries of where he lives, farms and hunts. Whoever installed the devices even lopped off a branch on one of Rainwaters trees to get an unobstructed view of all his comings and goings.

Needless to say, Rainwaters was creeped out. He soon learned that the cameras belonged to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, which routinely sends officers onto private fields without search warrants to snoop for evidence of game and fish violations.

Rather than accept the abuse, Rainwaters fought back with a lawsuit against the trespassing agency. Our public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, represents him.

Although the case is proceeding in state court under the authority of the Tennessee Constitution, the central claims point to a nationwide problem. Starting about 100 years ago, federal courts began chipping away at the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Many local courts have followed along, gutting similar provisions in their state constitutions. Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved rather than checked these violations, leaving landowners like Rainwaters along with just about everyone else vulnerable.

One of the first setbacks came in 1924 during Prohibition, when the Supreme Court held that government agents could hide on private land to see if someone was brewing or selling alcohol. In one fell swoop, all constitutional protections for most private land in America vanished. The focus shifted to narcotics during the War on Drugs, but the Open Fields Doctrine has remained in effect.

Hear more Tennessee voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought-provoking columns.

The so-called Third-Party Doctrine represents another setback. This judge-made law, which the Supreme Court invented in 1976, strips away Fourth Amendment protections for any information that a person voluntarily turns over to third parties.

Examples include bank deposits, debit card transactions, telephone numbers and website addresses. Essentially, anyone who lives in the modern world must waive Fourth Amendment rights.

Many business owners also lose protections at work. Code enforcers typically need a warrant to inspect warehouses and backroom areas closed to the public, but the Supreme Court created an exception to the warrant requirement in 1970 for what it called closely regulated industries.

The high court has applied the exception to just four industries with long histories of rigorous government oversight: liquor, firearms, mining and junkyards. But lower courts have expanded the narrow exception to the breaking point.

Local and state regulators now use the Closely Regulated Industry excuse to look for civil code violations at all manner of ordinary businesses, including restaurants, daycares, construction sites, credit unions, pawnshops, banks, health care facilities, nursing homes, insurance offices, grain silos, truckyards, taxidermy shops and even rabbit breeding facilities.

Sign up for our newsletter: Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee.

The intrusions are bad, but the government goes further when people rent their homes. Inspectors in many cities and towns can show up at any time and demand warrantless access to bedrooms, bathrooms and other private living quarters.

If tenants or landlords refuse, then inspectors can fill out a court application and receive a rubber-stamp administrative warrant. Officials dont need to show that anything is wrong with the property, just that they want to go inside.

Much of the problem traces back to the Supreme Court, which blessed administrative warrants for residences in a 1967 California case. Although the Fourth Amendment explicitly says that no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause,municipalities now regularly use these watered-down search warrants to violate civil rights.

Other abuses occur during traffic stops and police encounters at airports, border checkpoints, train stations and bus terminals. Anywhere members of the public interact with law enforcement, they face a rigged system that gives the government more power than the Fourth Amendment allows.

Rainwaters found out the hard way. Now the country needs a reset, so people in Tennessee and elsewhere can live like citizens, not subjects.

Robert Frommer is a senior attorney and Daryl James is a writer at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va.

Read the rest here:
When the government hides spy cameras on your land, fight back in court | Opinion - Tennessean

On a rainy January evening in 2018, 14-year-old Weston Young and his 12-year-old brother, Haden, were walking home from their grandparents' house in Springdale, Arkansas, after a family dinner. A police officer ordered them to stop, pointed a gun at them, forced them to lie on the ground, handcuffed them, and, together with a colleague, searched them. Their mother and stepfather tried to intervene, explaining who the boys were, where they had been, and where they were going. But the officer, Lamont Marzolf, rebuffed both of them, seemingly uninterested in information suggesting that he was treating two innocent boys like criminals.

"Neither [Weston] nor [Haden] did anything wrong" that night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit later observed. "The boys simply happened onto the stage of a dangerous live drama being played out in their neighborhood because of criminals fleeing police nearby. [Weston] and [Haden] acted bravely, respectfully, and responsibly throughout the encounter, and their family would rightly be proud of them. Likewise, their family acted responsibly and respectfully during what would have undoubtedly been a frightening experience. In this situation, though, Officer Marzolf was doing his job protecting the people of Springdale from fleeing criminal suspects under challenging conditions."

Whether Marzolf was "doing his job" within the parameters dictated by the Fourth Amendment is at the center of a case that the Institute for Justice is asking the Supreme Court to consider. The organization's petition, which it filed this week on behalf of Casondra Pollreis, Weston and Haden's mother, argues that the 8th Circuit erred when it concluded last August that Marzolf's actions were constitutional. Pollreis' lawyers say the appeals court's decision exemplifies a troubling tendency to expand an exception that the Supreme Court carved out of the Fourth Amendment in 1968, when it allowed "investigatory stops" based on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity. According to the 8th Circuit, the line between such a stop and an arrestwhich requires probable cause, a standard that Marzolf clearly did not meet"can be hazy."

If so, Institute for Justice attorney Robert McNamara says, that is only because the Supreme Court has stood by as lower courts have approved increasingly severe and invasive treatment based on reasonable suspicion. "Through silence and inaction, the Supreme Court has allowed the doctrine of 'stop and frisk' to morph into 'stop, drop, handcuff, and hold at gunpoint,'" McNamara says. "As the number of involuntary encounters between citizens and government officials has soared in recent decades, the rules protecting citizens from abuse in those encounters have withered. The Fourth Amendment is not 'hazy' when it comes to our basic right to go about our business without being assaulted by government agents who've lost their cool."

'Fleeing Criminal Suspects' Who Walk Toward a Police Car

As U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks explained in a 2020 decision addressing Pollreis' constitutional claims against Marzolf, the "dangerous live drama" to which the 8th Circuit referred began when police received a tip. Jennifer Price, who was wanted on drug charges, reportedly was staying at 2100 Lynn Street in Springdale with Tomas Silva, "a gang member and a prior suspect in cases involving guns and drugs." Silva and Price ended up fleeing police, along with "two males, one shorter and skinnier than the other," in a Chevrolet Cobalt that crashed after police tried to pull it over. The four occupants "fled the disabled car," two running north and two running south.

Marzolf responded to a call asking officers to help catch the suspects. Per instructions, he drove to the intersection of Luvene Avenue and Lynn Street. As he did that, he heard over his radio that Silva "had a gun" the last time police encountered him. "Shit," Marzolf responded. "Almost immediately after that," Marzolf saw Weston and Haden slowly walking abreast on the sidewalk along Lynn Street. His sole basis for suspecting that they might be two of the runners, aside from their general proximity to the scene of the chase, was that one of them (Weston) was taller than the other (Haden).

Other details did not support that suspicion. Weston and Haden were walking, not running, and Marzolf later conceded in a deposition that they did not seem out of breath, as you would expect fleeing suspects to be. The boys were walking toward Marzolf's vehicle, which was clearly a police car because its blue lights were flashing. As the 8th Circuit noted, the two brothers were completely cooperative throughout the encounter, which likewise did not jibe with the idea that they were running from the police.

Although Marzolf later claimed he was worried that one or both of the boys might be armed, he had been told that the one suspect known to carry a gun, Silva, was Hispanic, while Weston and Haden are white. Silva was "wearing a blu[e] jacket with maybe a gr[a]y hoodie under," along with black jeans. Marzolf described the boys as wearing "black hoodies and khaki pants and jeans." Haden was carrying "a white backpack." In any case, Marzolf admitted in his deposition that he "was going to stop any individuals along that area that I was working because that's what your job is on the perimeter."

A dashcam video shows what happened next. When Marzolf sees Weston and Haden, he turns on his high beams and aims them at the boys. Stopping the car, he calls out, "Hey, what are you guys doing?" Weston responds and points to his home, but his words are not audible on the recording. "Hey, stop, stop," Marzolf commands. "Turn away from me." The boys follow his instructions as he points his gun at them. He asks for their names, which they give him.

Marzolf's attitude is clear from the way he responds when Pollreis, who has seen this shocking scene unfold from her front yard, politely approaches him. "Officer, officer, may I have a word with you?" Pollreis says. Although her next words are hard to make out in the recording, Marzolf says, "Yeah, I can hear you." He can hear her, but he is in no mood to listen.

"What happened?" Pollreis asks. "They're my boys."

Marzolf repeatedly orders Pollreis to "step back." She is dismayed. "Are you serious?" she asks. "I am serious," Marzolf says, drawing a Taser and pointing it at her.

"Where do you want me to go?" Pollreis asks. "I want you to go back to your house," Marzolf says.

"Are you serious?" Pollreis asks again. "They're 12 and 14 years old." Marzolf's reply is both inaccurate and telling. "I'm looking for two kids about this age right now," he says, "so get back in your house."

'Is One Taller Than the Other?'

Contrary to Marzolf's claim, the suspects were not described as "two kids about this age." The two named suspects, Price and Silva, were both in their twenties. The others, according to the 8th Circuit, were "two men." Furthermore, it is clear from this exchange between Marzolf and Pollreis that he understood Weston and Haden lived nearby with their mother, which was inconsistent with his purported belief that they might be the "fleeing criminal suspects."

While Pollreis is trying to find out what is happening to her sons and why, Marzolf reports over his radio that "I've got two juvenile individuals, dark hoodies and pants." The officer who initially tried to arrest Price asks Marzolf to "detain both of them," then adds, "Is one taller than the other? The short one should be short and skinny." When Marzolf confirms that one of the "juvenile individuals" is indeed shorter than the other, the other officer replies, "Yeah, hold onto them please."

Marzolf tells the boys to lie face down on the ground with their arms out, which they do. "Oh, my God," Pollreis responds when Marzolf tells her to go home. "You're OK, guys," she tells the boys. "I promise."

After Marzolf calls for backup, the boys' stepfather tries to intercede. "Officercan I have a word with you?" he says. "Not right now," Marzolf responds.

Pollreis' husband explains that "those are my kids" and that "we just left her parents' [house] right there." He offers to connect Marzolf with "witnesses" who can confirm that the boys were doing nothing wrong. "That's fine," Marzolf says. "I just need to find out who these kids are right now." But he already knows who they are. The stepfather repeats their names, just in case.

After Officer Adrian Ruiz arrives, Marzolf handcuffs both boys. When a sergeant shows up, Marzolf tells him, "Sarge, you've got a parent back there," which again suggests that Marzolf refused to let the boys go even though he accepted their account of what they were doing: walking home.

The sergeant asks the handcuffed boys if they were running from the police. They say no. He asks, "What are you doing down here?" One of the boys replies, "We were at our grandparents'and started walking home." The sergeant asks for their names, which they give yet again.

At this point, Marzolf starts frisking Weston and searching the pockets of his pants. "Were they running?" the sergeant asks. "No, they were just walking, sir," Marzolf replies. "OK, so these guys probably aren't them?" the sergeant suggests. "Probably not," Marzolf concedes. "I mean, we had both parents come out"

The boys' grandparents approach the police and once again confirm the account that Marzolf already seems to have accepted. During that conversation, Ruiz frisks Haden and searches his backpack, because why not? Finally, the sergeant orders the officers to uncuff the boys and let them go.

When Marzolf gets back into his car, he can be heard saying, "Dumb." Then he sighs. "That sigh," Institute for Justice attorney Keith Neely archly observes in a video about the case, "is the sound of a police officer realizing he's just violated someone's constitutional rights."

He Didn't 'Threaten to Blow Their Brains Out,' So What's the Big Deal?

The entire encounter lasted about seven minutes, which was about seven minutes longer than it should have. Judge Brooks agreed with Marzolf that the initial stop was based on "reasonable supicion," which gives you a sense of how weak that standard is in practice.

In Terry v. Ohio, the 1968 case in which the Supreme Court first allowed investigatory stops without probable cause, an officer had observed two men repeatedly walk back and forth in front of a Cleveland store, peering into the display window each time and conferring in between with each other and a third man. Suspecting that they were casing the store and planned to rob it, the officer stopped the men and received a mumbled reply when he asked what they were up to. He frisked one of the men and discovered a pistol in his overcoat.

The Court held that the stop and the search were constitutional because they were based on "specific and articulable facts" that justified the officer's suspicions. It said police may stop someone when they reasonably suspect he is engaged in criminal activity and may pat him down when they reasonably suspect he is armed. But as the Court later emphasized, that weaker standard applies to such investigatory stops only because they are "so substantially less intrusive than arrests that the general rule requiring probable cause to make Fourth Amendment 'seizures' reasonable could be replaced by a balancing test."

Although Weston and Haden's completely innocent behavior bore little resemblance to the suspicious conduct described in Terry, Judge Brooks thought stopping them was reasonable in the circumstances. But he said Marzolf subsequently may have crossed the line between an investigatory stop and an arrest. "At the point the boys were handcuffed," he wrote, "there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to whether a de facto arrest occurred and whether such ade facto arrest was supported by probable cause."

Brooks also thought Pollreis should be allowed to pursue her claims that Marzolf violated the Fourth Amendment by prolonging the seizure past the point where any reasonable suspicion had dissipated, by frisking Weston, and by using excessive force against both boys. The judge noted that the 8th Circuit "has held that the right not to have a gun pointed at a compliant subject was clearly established at least by February 2016," two years before Marzolf's encounter with Weston and Haden.

Two members of a three-judge 8th Circuit panel disagreed, saying Marzolf was entitled to qualified immunity because all of his actions were consistent with the Fourth Amendment. To give you a flavor of the reasoning underlying that conclusion, the majority thought holding the boys at gunpoint did not amount to excessive force because, unlike officers in earlier cases, Marzolf "did not point his gun behind either boy's ear" and did not "threaten to blow their brains out." Dissenting Judge Jane Kelly, by contrast, thought that "the stop escalated to an arrest without probable cause," that Marzolf "unlawfully searched" Weston, and that he "used excessive force by continuing to point his gun at [Weston and Haden] as they lay on the ground."

'I Was Terrified for Them'

Even if you think the initial stop was justified by reasonable suspicion, Marzolf's decision to prolong and intensify the boys' detention even as it became increasingly clear that they were innocent of any wrongdoing is hard to fathom. As Brooks pointed out, "the objective facts that came to light after the initial stop did not support a reasonable suspicion that [Weston and Haden] were the fleeing suspects."

Marzolf forced the boys to the ground after they and Pollreis told him who they were. He kept pointing a gun at them even after they were lying on the ground. He handcuffed them after Pollreis' husband confirmed that the boys were walking home following dinner at their grandparents' house, which "provided a very logical alibi," as Brooks noted. And Marzolf frisked Weston, who was still handcuffed, even as two more people, the boys' grandparents, gave the same account. Marzolf supposedly was worried because the 14-year-old had tried to "adjust his shirt or belt" (as the 8th Circuit described it) while he was lying on the ground.

"I'll never forget the feeling of watching my boys being held at gunpoint," Pollreis says. "I was terrified for them. No mother should have to witness that. We're asking the Supreme Court to fix this so that no one has to go through what my boys and I went through."

The Institute for Justice argues that the case is a "good vehicle" for the Court to clarify what Terry allows. "The fact that a police officer has gotten away with handcuffing two clearly innocent children and holding them at gunpoint makes it high time for the Supreme Court to revisitTerry," Institute for Justice attorney Marie Miller says. "The Supreme Court must make clear that police cannot flagrantly violate someone's Fourth Amendment rights without being held accountable. If the courts refuse to enforce the Fourth Amendment, we cannot expect the rest of the government to follow it."

See the article here:
Cops Held Two Innocent Boys at Gunpoint, Forced Them to Lie on the Ground, Handcuffed Them, and Searched Them. That's Fine, the 8th Circuit Said. -...

How well do you know the Bill of Rights? Do you maybe remember only a few of the 10 First Amendment, speech and religion; Second Amendment, right to bear arms; Fifth Amendment, dont have to incriminate yourself but youre a little fuzzy remembering the other seven?

Farmington homeschooled student Grace Troup, fifth grade, came up with an idea to artistically depict the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, just in time for Bill of Rights Day today.

Her excellent concept even won a poster contest hosted by the U.S. Courts of the Western District of Missouri.

Grace Troup, a fifth grader homeschooled in Farmington, said it took about two months to research each of the Constitution's first 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791.

Federal Courts around the Seventh and Eighth Judicial Circuits hosted a live webinar for more than 100 participants on the evening of Dec 1. During the webinar, U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes of the Western District of Missouri gave a chat and Q&A session about the Bill of Rights, which was followed by the announcement of the grand prize winners of the second annual student essay and poster contest.

Students in grades 3-12 from Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin were encouraged to submit art and essays on the importance of the Bill of Rights, and 300 entries were received from around the two circuits.

People are also reading

Grace, who is almost 11, won the 3rd-5th grade category for art with her poster that pictorially explains each of the Constitutions first 10 Amendments.

The 7 for the Seventh Amendment guaranteeing a trial by jury is decorated with a judge at the top of the numbers shape, and six rows of a diverse jury partitioning off the base of the number, the word freedom highlighted for emphasis next to it.

The 4 for the Fourth Amendment preventing unreasonable search and seizure is decorated with a judge, a detective with a magnifying glass, binoculars and a search warrant.

Grace said she and her mother, Kristen, researched each amendment in the Bill of Rights so she could figure out how to depict them in each hollowed-out number.

It was complicated, she said. But I think its interesting, these are how laws are made.

I learned a lot too while we were doing it, Kristen said. Especially with the 9th and 10th (Amendments) because I didn't know certain rights are protected that you probably dont even realize were protected, we take them for granted, like travel. You know, you think about countries like North Korea and China, and theyre not traveling anywhere if theyre not allowed to travel.

We just pick up and go when we want.

Kristen said she homeschools Grace and two of her younger siblings as part of the south St. Louis County group SHARE -- St. Louis Homeschooling Activities, Resources and Encouragement. Graces youngest two siblings arent homeschooled yet, they are 1 and 3.

SHARES sends out weekly emails if there's any kind of competitions or events or anything to try to get homeschool kids together, she said. They sent out the Judicial Learning Education Center email that they were having this contest. We've competed at a few others and done pretty well, so I decided to do a unit study on the Bill of Rights, and there we have it.

Grace worked for weeks on the poster, researching the amendments, choosing how to depict each right, watching art videos on the Art for Kids Hub channel on YouTube to help her execute the drawings just right.

But the channel only went so far in helping her figure out how to draw, well certain things.

This one, she said, pointing to the noose, electric chair, guillotine and stockade depicted inside the number shape for the Eighth Amendment the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Like, Art Hub for Kids didn't have most of this stuff. So I had to go on different websites with my mom. I'm like, Oh, wow. They use a lot of different stuff on here!

Kristen chuckled, grimacing. Yeah, we had to research a lot because we didn't quite know what cruel and unusual punishment was, as we were learning about it, she said. We didn't realize some of the, like, ways that people could be punished

Disturbing stuff! marveled Grace.

Yeah, but thats why the amendments important.

When asked which amendment might have been her favorite to draw, Grace pointed to the Fifth Amendment trial by a jury, no self-incrimination, no double jeopardy.

She had a great time drawing the prisoner, Kristen said, referring to the orange-striped-pajamas-clad prisoner with clenched teeth and balled-up fists.

As for her favorite amendment, Grace said it was the First Amendment.

Freedom of religion, assembly and press, because people can believe in what they want, she said. But I think it's more important to know what you believe in, instead of being told what you can believe in.

Sarah Haas is the assistant editor for the Daily Journal. She can be reached at 573-518-3617 or at shaas@dailyjournalonline.com.

Subscribe to our Daily Headlines newsletter.

Read the original post:
Local student wins contest recognizing Bill of Rights Day - Daily Journal Online

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On December 15, 2021, Equitable Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") entered into theFourth Amendment (the "Fourth Amendment") to the Reimbursement Agreement withLandesbank Hessen-Thringen Girozentrale, acting through its New York Branch("Helaba"). The Fourth Amendment further amends the Reimbursement Agreemententered into by the Company and Helaba on February 16, 2018. Capitalized termsused herein and not otherwise defined have the meanings ascribed to them in theFourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prolongs the one-year extensions of theCommitment Termination Date to ten years from the Effective Date. The foregoingdescription of the Fourth Amendment is qualified in its entirety by the terms ofsuch agreement, which is filed hereto as Exhibit 10.1 and incorporated herein byreference.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The information required by this item is included in Item 1.01 and incorporatedherein by reference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

View original post here:
EQUITABLE HOLDINGS, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance...

The Oklahoma Supreme Court took up a case dealing with Oklahomas at-will employment law, voting to allow a nurse to sue her employer for firing her when she refused to come in to work during the COVID-19 state of emergency. (Photo by Janice Francis-Smith)

OKLAHOMA CITY Oklahoma Supreme Court justices on the losing side of a recent 5-4 split decision contend the ruling could weaken Oklahomas at-will employment law and the right of employers to manage their businesses.

The majority voted to allow a nurse her day in court, suing her employer for firing her when she refused to come in to work during the COVID-19 state of emergency, under unsafe conditions and in violation of the governors executive order in place at the time, the nurse contends.

In April 2020, much of the world was shut down under stay-at-home orders. Gov. Kevin Stitt had just issued the fourth amendment to his executive order, directing medical providers to postpone all elective surgeries until the end of the month.

The Tulsa Spine & Specialty Hospital LLC furloughed all the employees in the outpatient pre-operative unit with the exception of Kristie Ho, a nurse who had worked for the hospital for nearly eight years. Just two months prior before the pandemic struck Oklahoma Ho had received a glowing excellent performance review that characterized her as accountable, dependable, a great mentor and teacher, with a strong work ethic.

Ho claims that on April 10, the hospital continued to perform elective surgeries despite the governors order and required her to render her services without adequate personal protective equipment. On April 12, Ho contacted her manager to report that a fellow employee who had tested positive for COVID-19 had been hospitalized, and informed her manager that she would not come to work the following day due to her concerns over unsafe working conditions and the governors executive order.

After a number of communications with the manager and the human resources director, Ho was fired on April 27, 2020.

The district court granted summary judgement to the hospital, finding that Oklahomas at-will employment law allows an employer to discharge an employee for good cause, for no cause or even for cause morally wrong, without being guilty of a legal wrong. However, a termination found to be based on a reason that violates a clearly established public policy such as based on race or sex would be exempt from legal protection.

Ho appealed.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed to take up the appeal in order to address the legal question of whether the governors temporary emergency COVID-19 orders qualify as public policy, which could provide an exception to at-will employment.

We hold that because the Legislature expressly granted the Governor authority to issue temporary emergency orders, and the orders expressed the established public policy of curtailing an infectious disease, the exception to at-will employment as articulated by Burk v. K-Mart Corp, ruled the majority of Oklahoma Supreme Court justices.

The Burk case cited established that an employer may not use at-will employment as an excuse to fire an employee in violation of an Oklahoma public policy goal that is clear and compelling and is articulated in existing Oklahoma constitutional, statutory or jurisprudential law.

Reducing the spread of infectious, contagious, and potentially deadly diseases has always been a priority and concern of the State of Oklahoma, and Federal government regardless of the novelty of the disease, the court found. The Oklahoma Legislature expressly authorized the Governor to issue temporary health orders during a catastrophic outbreak. He did so, and the orders which were only effective from March 24, 2020, to April 30, 2020.

The court noted that the ruling does not express an opinion as to whether or not Ho will be successful in her court challenge; the ruling merely allows her to take her case to a court that can review the facts of the case.

Justices Yvonne Kauger, James E. Edmondson, Douglas L. Combs, Noma Gurich and Dana Kuehn voted in the majority. Chief Justice Richard Darby, M. John Kane IV, James R. Winchester and Dustin P. Rowe dissented.

My complaint with the majority is that it cannot tell a hospital, doctor, or patient which surgeries or procedures were elective during the time that the executive order was in place, Winchester wrote in his dissent. Common sense tells us that the hospital, doctor, and patient balanced the risks and benefits to determine whether to delay a surgery.

The majoritys holding shifts the authority to the nurse the employee to decide whether she went to work thereby impacting the ability of the hospital and doctor to give necessary care to the patient; the decision to receive care during this time should have been between the doctor and patient, Winchester wrote. Consequently, the majoritys decision further erodes Oklahomas employment-at-will doctrine.

Winchester asserted that the authority bestowed on the governor does not alone make an executive order clear and compelling public policy for the purpose of applying an exception to at-will employment.

Even more, the purpose behind postponing elective surgeries was not necessarily to protect Nurse from an infectious disease while she worked, as the majority contends, Winchester wrote. Nurse was not even working in a hospital caring for COVID-19 patients. Instead, the postponement was mostly to guarantee there were adequate staffing, beds, and equipment at the hospitals that cared for COVID-19 patients

To refuse to attend work as an essential employee (who is healthy) due to the possibility of contracting COVID-19 (or any other communicable disease) and then be terminated does not rise to the level of this public policy exception, Winchester wrote.

Read more here:
Fired nurse to get her day in court - Journal Record

The following is taken from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office media report for the Santa Ynez Valley patrol.

Those appearing as "arrested" have only been arrested on suspicion of the crime indicated and are presumed innocent.

ARREST After deputies saw what appeared to be a rock of methamphetamine and a meth pipe in plain view inside a vehicle parked at the Chumash Casino Resort around 12:22 a.m., they contacted the driver and passenger on the casino floor.

The driver allegedly told deputies the methamphetamine and pipe belonged to his cousin, Alejandro Sanchez, who allegedly admitted they were his and that he was under the influence of the drug.

After an evaluation allegedly determined he was under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant, Sanchez was arrested and booked into County Jail on suspicion of being under the influence of a controlled substance, possessing a controlled substance and possessing paraphernalia for smoking a controlled substance.

ARREST A vehicle was stopped in the 2900 block of Mission Drive about 2:10 p.m. after deputies noticed the license plate had a green 2022 registration tab but a records check had shown it only was registered through September 2021.

Deputies believed passenger Jubal Leftenant had been driving when initially spotted but switched seats with his girlfriend.

Leftenant was allegedly found to have a drivers license suspended for driving under the influence of alcohol, was driving without a court-ordered interlock device and was in possession of a fraudulent magnetic 2022 registration tab.

He was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possessing a fraudulent registration tab, driving with a license suspended for DUI and driving a vehicle without an interlock device and was booked into County Jail.

INCIDENT A resident in the 5000 block of Highway 246 who reported that sometime between Nov. 23 and 27 someone had stolen the catalytic converter from his 2006 Toyota Prius contacted deputies about 6:30 p.m. after the local news reported several catalytic converters had been recovered in a recent arrest.

He thought his catalytic converter might have been among them, but a review of digital images of the recovered parts found none that matched the converter from a 1006 Prius.

ARREST When deputies contacted Christopher Foreman, the passenger in a vehicle parked at the Chumash Casino Resort, he told them he was on parole, and a search allegedly turned up a small black bag containing suspected methamphetamine in his left pants pocket.

A records check also determined a no-bail felony warrant had been issued for his arrest, so he was taken into custody on the warrant and suspicion of possessing a controlled substance and was booked into County Jail.

Breaking News | Local Sports | Daily Headlines | Local Obituaries | Weather | Local Offers

ARREST Deputies received a report from a mans girlfriend that she had seen him driving while intoxicated, and he was contacted around 12:20 a.m. in the 1600 block of Eucalyptus Drive in Solvang.

The man, who was not identified, admitted he was driving while intoxicated, and a breath analysis allegedly found he had a blood alcohol content of 0.15%.

A records check also revealed a misdemeanor warrant had been issued for his arrest, so he was taken into custody and booked at County Jail on the warrant and suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol content in excess of 0.08%.

INCIDENT A man sitting with a woman in a car parked at the Chumash Casino Resort about 10:35 p.m. told deputies he was on post-release supervision with a Fourth Amendment waiver from Ventura.

A search of the vehicle allegedly turned up a rock of suspected methamphetamine wrapped in a brown napkin on the drivers side, where the woman was seated.

She allegedly admitted the methamphetamine was hers and was cited for suspicion of possessing a controlled substance and was released.

INCIDENT A man in the 400 block of First Street in Solvang told deputies just before 3 a.m. that someone had entered his unlocked vehicle and stolen about $160 worth of personal property.

INCIDENT Investigators are awaiting surveillance video of someone who entered a vehicle parked at the Chumash Casino Resort around 5 p.m. and stole approximately $200 worth of personal property.

ARREST After stopping a vehicle for having expired registration about 10:35 a.m. in the 900 block of Edison Street, deputies found driver Benjamin Gabino Lira was on post-release community supervision for mail theft.

A search of the vehicle allegedly turned up a woodennunchaku and a manila envelope within Liras reach that contained mail from 18 different individuals throughout the Santa Ynez Valley.

Lira was arrested on suspicion of mail theft and possessing anunchaku and was booked at County Jail. Deputies couldnt contact the registered or legal owner of his vehicle, so it was towed away.

INCIDENT A resident in the 400 block of Freear Drive in Buellton told deputies around 2:30 p.m. that someone had removed the screen from a window in the master bedroom, entered the house and stole a box containing his medication from under the television.

No other property was taken.

Read more from the original source:
Lights and Sirens in the Santa Ynez Valley - Santa Maria Times

Dogs are not always mans best friend, especially if youre engaged in illegal drug activity. Then a dog might take you down a path to prison.

Police and other law enforcement agencies have been using dogs trained to detect illegal drugs (and explosives) for many years. However, Colorados passage of Amendment 64 in 2012, which made possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use legal, greatly complicated the life of a drug-sniffing dog.

Dogs cant tell the difference between a small, and therefore legal, amount of marijuana and a larger, and therefore illegal, amount. Also, a drug-sniffing dog will decline, when asked, to tell its handler whether what is being sniffed is marijuana or some other illegal drug.

So, if youre a police officer and you make a traffic stop and your drug-sniffing companion tells you there is something in the vehicle the dog has been trained to detect, can you search the vehicle? The answer, at least in Colorado, is no unless you have probable cause coming from something other than the dog to believe the vehicle contains illegal drugs.

If you do a search based on nothing more than the dogs response and you find contraband, it cant be used as evidence in a criminal trial. The search was illegal in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the defendant is entitled to have the evidence suppressed. (Under the Fourth Amendment, a search is illegal if it intrudes on a persons reasonable expectation of privacy in lawful activity.)

The latest case to reach a Colorado appellate court addressing this issue is People v. Restrepo, decided by the Court of Appeals last month. In this case, Colorado Springs police followed Anthony Restrepos vehicle for some two hours because they suspected, without firm evidence, that he might be involved with methamphetamines.

Finally Restrepo, up to this point a model driver, rolled through a stop sign and the police pulled him over. A drug-sniffing dog was on the scene and indicated it had detected something it was trained to look for. The police then searched the vehicle and found methamphetamines and drug paraphernalia in a backpack. Restrepo was charged with various drug-related crimes and convicted by an El Paso County jury.

During the trial, Restrepo asked the judge to suppress the evidence coming from the vehicle search. However, that request was denied because, at the time of the request, the law had a less restrictive standard concerning vehicle searches resulting from dog sniffs.

But then along came a Colorado Supreme Court decision tightening the standard and, based on that decision, Restrepo asked the trial court judge to set aside his conviction. The judge denied the request. Restrepo thereupon took his argument to the Court of Appeals, and that court agreed with him that the evidence leading to his conviction should not have been admitted and his conviction was overturned.

Prosecutors could ask the Colorado Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision, but until dogs go back to school and learn how to distinguish a legal quantity of marijuana from illegal contraband, it seems likely the court will conclude it has had enough of dog-sniff law and decline to hear the case.

Jim Flynn is with the Colorado Springs firm of Flynn & Wright LLC. You can contact him at moneylaw@jtflynn.com.

Read the rest here:
Money & the Law: Dogs, drugs and the right to privacy - Colorado Springs Gazette

Editors note: The Daily Signals audience sounds like its had enough with parents being marginalized or criminalized as the left seeks to transform public schools. Heres a sampling from the mailbag at [emailprotected]Ken McIntyre

Dear Daily Signal: It was appropriate for conservative congressmen such as Rep. Jim Jordan to grill Attorney General Merrick Garland during a House hearing, as reported by Mary Margaret Olohan (3 Takeaways From AG Garlands House Panel Testimony on Virginia School Rape Case, Conflict of Interest).

But now that conservatives have shown the attorney general to be so irresponsible as to encourage his agencies of law enforcement to go after parents over school board disputes, based solely on a partisan National School Boards Association letter, among other serious issues (such as his willful ignorance about the school rape case in Loudon County, Virginia), wheres the follow-up?

The GOP caucus should be filing forand loudly and unceasingly demandingGarlands impeachment. Of course, the effort would likely fail. But what better tool to focus national attention on the Justice Departments weaponizing of legitimate protest?Joel Brind, Ph.D., Wappingers Falls, N.Y.

Dear Daily Signal: Where to start with Fred Lucas report on the attorney generals testimony to a Senate committee (6 Takeaways From Merrick Garlands Senate Testimony on Activist Parents and Other Issues)?

First, why is a threat, if any, against a local school board member a federal offense that requires involvement of Attorney General Merrick Garlands Justice Department and FBI? That seems to me to be a matter that can and should be investigated by state or local law enforcement.

I would argue that Garland is badly abusing his authority by getting involved in this issue. There is a disturbing trend, to elevate every dispute at local levels to a federal issue. Its not the responsibility of the federal government.

Riots, looting, and other violence in various areas of the country were ignored by the feds last year, and federal involvement was condemned for those serious crimes. Yet this is a federal issue? I think not.

Second, I understand from Lucas report that Garland and his Justice Department approved a settlement with former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe because it was less expensive. The attorney general excuses rewarding a lawbreaker at taxpayer expense for expedience?

I would think the Justice Department attorneys involved in such a case are on the government payroll whether litigating against McCabe or working on some other issue. So the taxpayer expense for those lawyers is exactly the same regardless of the case at hand.

McCabe successfully got away with the serious crime of repeatedly lying under oath. That seems to me to be a precedent that future criminals might employ; it is a dereliction of duty on Garlands watch and perhaps by Garland himself.

I could go on, but Garland is a disgrace to our nation as a partisan attorney general. I echo Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.: that Thank God that Garland is not on the Supreme Court.Wayne Peterkin, Evangeline, La.

***

The Justice Department can move at glacial speed on most things, but interestingly, as your Problematic Women podcast points out, the agency hopped on this issue like a scalded jackrabbit (National School Boards Association Issues Weak Apology for Letter Likening Parents Actions to Domestic Terrorism).

The damage done by this hasty overreaction was immediate. The National School Boards Association never will recover the trust of parents in the institution of education. They dug their own grave.

Unfortunately, its future generations of young people who will suffer the most in this.Emily Smith, Mississippi

Dear Daily Signal: Thank you for Mary Clare Amselems well-written commentary article (Virginia Parents Standing Up to Loudoun County School Board Should Inspire Parents Everywhere). She touched on many of the key points that concerned parents are standing up to discuss regarding their childrens education.

Amselem does an excellent job of reminding us that the concern is not limited to critical race theory or woke ideology in schools, but also the push to accept any and all forms of transgender opinions, pornographic materials, and so on.

She correctly uses examples in a noninflammatory manner to remind us all that our children, their education, upbringing, and welfare belong to us and not the state.In a frightening but true observation, she writes that the left has come to embrace the troubling perspective that children are partially owned by the state.

It is important for parents (and school boards) to remember the key point in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court case she cites from 1925: The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize him and prepare him for additional obligations.Chuck Williams, Littleton, Colo.

***

Name one company in which the executive who authorizes employees paychecks is not allowed to tell employees what he/she expects from them. Yet school boards are telling parents they have no right to say what they want from their childrens education.

School boards do not pay teachers salaries. That money comes from citizen taxpayers.

Im one of those taxpayers. Im retired, but Ive taught in public schools. I have a masters degree in education. In the first parents night visit, I always outlined my teaching goals and I invited parents to be involved in what they wanted their children to learn.

At the time, I was a member of the National Education Association. That was back when the NEA was concerned about improving the quality of education, a goal that no longer exists for that teachers union.

I grieve over what has become of our nation, especially the government. I applaud parents who insist on being involved in their childrens schools and education.D. Michael Douglas, Mesa, Ariz.

Dear Daily Signal: I have never responded to one of your articles, but read them diligently.I am appalled by Mary Margaret Olohans report on the behavior of the school board in Wellesley, Massachusetts, and its inclusion director, Charmie Curry (Lawsuit Targets Massachusetts Public School System for Racial Segregation, Censoring Students).

Honestly, that officials title seems to apply only to certain groups.I was also surprised that the language associated with being white was so demeaning. If I were to use this type of language to describe another group, I would be characterized as bigoted, racist, and insensitive. I would agree with that assessment.

However, it seems that these educators and inclusion personnel are not held to the same standard.I do not feel particularly angry, fearful, or guilty.So far today, I have managed to not cry once.

What I am, however, is distrusting.If an individual such as Curry behaves in such an egregious manner, I find that I avoid them. In all aspects of my life.

It is disappointing that during the last decade, the racial divide in our country has continued to expand.I am unsure of the solution, as it is a complicated issue. However, negative labeling and insulting terms are not going to provide any opportunity for compromise and healing.Mac Irwin, Bedford, Texas

Dear Daily Signal: About Mary Margaret Olohans report on the rape in a girls restroom at a high school in Loudoun County, Virginia: I was very naive to believe that the #MeToo movement truly cared about victims of sexual abuse and assault (#MeToo Groups Silent Over Boy Allegedly Raping Girl in Loudoun School Girls Bathroom).

If these organizers truly cared, they would be outraged that transgender individuals or those who claimed to be transgender to gain access to vulnerable women and girls were attacking girls and women.Nancy Mclellan

***

The #MeToo movement has done much damage to many men, who have lost jobs with even a hint of some infraction.

Then to hear of the lack of outrage when two young girls are sexually assaulted by a gender-fluid male is unbelievable. Add insult to injury that the Virginia father of one of the girls is arrested and charged when the Loudoun County Board of Educationwould not listen to him.

What father would not be distraught that his daughter had been raped?

Biological males have no place in female bathrooms, locker rooms, or prisons. Furthermore, they do not belong in womens sports. When is common sense and real science going to reassert itself?Victor Watson

Dear Daily Signal: Amy Swearers article on the Supreme Courts New York state gun case was excellent (Supreme Court Arguments in New York Gun Case Signal Uphill Battle to Defend Overly Restrictive Laws).

One thing I always wondered about is why, in analyses,the Second Amendment isnt also tied to and further strengthened bythe Fourth Amendment (on being secure in ones person), the Ninth (on rightsretained by the people), and the 10th (on rights retained by the people).

Isnt self-defense, with or without a militia, a fundamental right retained by each person? Why, even animals have it.

The Second Amendment also is supported by documents such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1777), also incorporated in the Virginia Constitution, including: That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

In Samuel Johnsons Dictionary, first published in 1755, his first definition for man includes both men and women. Its as if at that time they knew the truth even though society practiced male-led government.

Keep up the good work. Hopefully, the Supreme Courtincluding some or all liberal justiceswill join on this to defeat New Yorks taking of constitutional rights.Mark Doehnert, Falls Church, Va.

***

When the Second Amendment is challenged, the defense always advances the argument that the police are all that is necessary to protect the population.

Why is it so hard to get people to understand that the mission of the police is not to keep crimes from happening, but to bring criminals to justice after the crime has been committed? Only potential victims have the ability to stop a crime from being committed.Ronald Everett, Erlanger, Ky.

Dear Daily Signal: Melanie Israels commentary article on the abortion case before the Supreme Court pointed out that the most important aspect is that the Constitution provides for the people to deal with issues such as abortion through their elected representatives (A Major Abortion Case Goes Before the Supreme Court. Heres What You Need to Know.)

Americans do so in their own state legislatures, and it isnt constitutional for the Supreme Court to usurp their authority under states rights to do so.

I think the American public needs to be reminded of that often. Then the public could keep reminding the Supreme Court justices, and perhaps others in government, who either are ignorant of that fact or intent on ignoring it.Barry Click, California

Douglas Blair contributed to this edition of We Hear You. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Read more:
We Hear You: Parents Must Fight to Save Public Schools - Daily Signal