Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

When the Supreme Court struck down the use of race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina last term, the conservative justices behind the decision robustly claimed to seek the end of racial discrimination, espousing a view that eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted a major irony: Despite claiming that consideration of race violates the guarantee of the 14th Amendments equal protection clause, the court has repeatedly condoned racial profiling as a law enforcement tool that does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court tolerates pretextual traffic stops and has sanctioned police reliance on an individuals apparent Mexican ancestry at the border and its functional equivalents to be a relevant factor justifying a traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion.

The federal landscape for addressing racialized policing is thus deeply baffling. Although racial profiling is permitted, the mechanism for challenging racially discriminatory policingselective enforcement in violation of the 14th Amendmentrequires showing an officers discriminatory intent. Finding evidence of an officers racist intent is increasingly improbable, given that police are unlikely to state (or write) their racial biases. Like most of us, they possess implicit racial biases that are inaccessible even to themselves.

Within this incredibly difficult legal context, one New Jersey appellate court earlier this year boldly addressed implicit racial bias in the decisions of ordinary policing. The facts of State v. Scott presented a unique instance in which racial bias could be proved, and this New Jersey court provides a road map for other state courts to offer similar protections.

On Dec. 9, 2019, a woman was robbed in Jersey City. She quickly reported it to a 911 dispatcher and provided a description. When the dispatcher asked whether the suspect was Black, white or Hispanic, she responded that she did not know. But when relaying the description to police officers, the dispatcher improperly added to the womans account that the suspect was a Black male. It appears this error was inadvertent, a mistake reflecting a pernicious implicit bias linking Blackness with criminality.

William L. Scott subsequently challenged the constitutionality of the police stop leading to his arrest, maintaining that the improper injection of race into the be-on-the-lookout description violated the states constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. The appellate court agreed. Emphasizing the importance of deterring discriminatory policing in all of its permutations, the court suppressed all evidence obtained from the subsequent unlawful stop. Scott is the first example of a state appellate court holding that evidence ofimplicit racial biasin policing establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination justifying the exclusion of evidence. Other state courts across the nation should take note and adopt similar determinations.

Scott makes a few significant doctrinal moves. First, the court decided that the dispatchers actions were attributable to police for the purposes of Scotts constitutional claim. Second, analyzing the problematic assumption that the suspect was a Black male, the court reasoned that the dispatcher either intentionally injected race based on a belief about Black men and criminality or accidentally included race because she unconsciously associates Black men with criminality. In either case, the panel held that Scott did not need to show that the state had acted with conscious racial animus to prove the violation of his right to equal protection.

Claims of selective police enforcement based on racial discrimination normally require proof of an officers intent. Remarkably, Scott held that evidence of implicit, unconscious racial bias influencing the dispatchers erroneous injection of race into the be-on-the-lookout description sufficed. The long history of racialized oppression in the United States, and especially in the criminal legal system, has resulted in widespread racist stereotypes associating Blackness with criminality. Here, implicit racial bias led to a documented error in the BOLO description and to race becoming an explicit factor in the police search. Recognizing that federal cases on racial discrimination, such as in jury selection, involve intentional discrimination, Scott relied on the New Jersey Supreme Courts recent statement that implicit bias is no less real and no less problematic than intentional bias.

Finally, after finding that police violated the state constitution, Scott considered whether two well-known exceptions to the exclusionary rule, independent source and inevitable discovery, should apply to save the evidence recovered against Scott. Each of these exceptions to the exclusionary rule contains a flagrancy factor, in which the reviewing court measures the gravity and culpability of the police constitutional violation against the practical consequence of excluding evidence in a criminal case. Here, Scott boldly concluded, discriminatory policing does not just taint specific bits of information; rather, it infects an entire police-citizen encounter in a way that cannot be cured with surgical redaction. In other words, once a court has found that police violated New Jerseys guarantee of equal protection under the law, this finding cannot be set aside to permit evidence obtained as a result of that violation into criminal proceedings.

Expressly motivated by a desire to deter racialized policing in all of its permutations, Scott suppressed all evidence obtained from the illegal stop. The state downgraded its charge to second-degree robbery, to which Scott pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to three years in state prison, which he had already served, and therefore this resolution resulted in his immediate release.

This unique case surfaces an underexamined question of how intent figures into the context of racialized policing. Scott highlights the glaring doctrinal contradiction: the Fourth Amendment permits race to be considered in policing, while the equal protection clause prevents proving racial discrimination without evidence of intent. In fact, the unique way that implicit racial bias was proved in the BOLO description here shows why its difficult to legally challenge racially motivated police actions. However, it presents an alternative avenue for state courts depending on the language in state constitutions.

To truly address implicit racial bias in policing, we must challenge a Fourth Amendment that empowers police with wide discretion to employ a racialized selection process. Because present constitutional doctrine permits discretionary police decisions yielding systemically racist outcomes, courts should review these police interventions without requiring evidence of an officers conscious intent to discriminate.

More:
New Jersey provides a road map for fighting racially biased traffic ... - Slate

HOUSTON, Sept. 21, 2023 The City of Houston cant pick and choose who can speak freely in its public parks.

Today, the Law & Religion Clinic at the University of Texas and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston, several Houston police officers, and Discovery Green Conservancy after police officers arrested an animal rights advocate for refusing to give up his First Amendment right to free speech in Discovery Green, a public park described as the crown jewel of public spaces in downtown Houston.

The management of Houstons public Discovery Green Park was concerned that passers-by might be offended by the advocates message. The officers actions were a clear violation of the advocates First Amendment right to speak freely in a public park a park where peaceful protests happen regularly.

Its highly hypocritical and discriminatory to allow certain groups to exercise free speech but not us, said Daraius Dubash, the animal rights advocate who was arrested. Were seeking a ruling affirming that no one whether the police or park management can ban people from peaceful expression in a public park like Discovery Green.

Dubash and his fellow advocate Dr. Faraz Harsini are both immigrants who are passionate about animal rights. Harsini escaped to the United States from Iran after protesting against the Iranian government and was granted a green card for his research on cancer and infectious diseases. Dubash, who is from India, is a former marketing manager who now devotes most of his time to animal rights advocacy.

Daraius and Faraz each fled countries where they couldnt speak like they do here, said Law & Religion Clinic attorney John Greil. They cherish their rights, and were proud to fight for them.

COURTESY PHOTOS FOR MEDIA

Several times during summer 2022, Dubash and Harsini went to Discovery Green to host a series of educational events. They held a television screen playing excerpts from a documentary about the mistreatment of animals, and they only spoke to people who engaged with them.

However, almost every time they demonstrated, park management and security asked them to leave, claiming that passers-by could be offended by their message. And so they complied. But the last time, Daraius stood his ground, calmly explaining to park management and security, You still have to abide by the First Amendment because [the park] is publicly owned.

The park managements response? Right. But we also choose, [and] we dont feel the content is appropriate.

When two Houston police officers arrived, Daraius again calmly explained his First Amendment rights. Yet the officers still arrested Daraius and handcuffed him in a chair in the park security office for more than two hours until he was taken to the county jail and charged with criminal trespass. The district attorney dismissed the charge.

No one should be handcuffed and detained for exercising his First Amendment rights, said FIRE attorney JT Morris. Were suing because public parks belong to all Americans and their expressive rights, not the personal views of a few.

The lawsuit seeks to vindicate Harsini and Dubashs constitutional right to share their beliefs freely in a public space. It asks the court to prohibit the city and Discovery Green Conservancy from interfering with Harsini and Dubashs peaceful advocacy at the park, and it seeks damages for First Amendment and Fourth Amendment violations.

Nothing is more powerful than being honest and open with people, and were standing up for our First Amendment rights that give us that voice, said Harsini.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

Part of The Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, the Law & Religion Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law advocates for clients who face challenges to their religious liberty and who are otherwise unlikely to find representation. Its clients include individuals and organizations across the nation and ideological spectrum. Religious liberty seeks to ensure that people of diverse religious beliefs and nonbeliefs can thrive alongside one another peacefully. In that spirit, students and faculty in the Law and Religion Clinic work to protect their clients from discrimination on the basis of their religious commitments, from unlawful burdens on religious exercise, and from unlawful coercion of religious exercise.

CONTACT Katie Kortepeter, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

PRONUNCIATION GUIDE:

Daraius Dubash (Dah-RYE-us DU-bash)

Faraz Harsini (Far-AHZ Har-SEE-ni)

Originally posted here:
Animal rights advocates sue after facing ongoing censorship and ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

GERALD WAYNE JAKO

WHEELING Gerald Jako pleaded guilty to two counts of murder Monday ahead of his trial, which had been set to begin today.

The Wheeling man initially was charged with three counts of murder and two counts of concealing a deceased human body in the 2018 murder of Trevor Vossen and his pregnant girlfriend, Lauren Lulu Cree-Jenkins.

Jako reportedly lured Vossen and Cree-Jenkins to a Wheeling house, killing and dismembering them before burying their remains in Raleigh County, W.Va., with help from his girlfriend, Dana Marie Bowman. Cree-Jenkinss death resulted in the involuntary termination of her pregnancy.

Circuit Judge David Sims ruled in July that Jakos defense was not able to provide any legal authority supporting that the defendants rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States had been violated, denying a motion the defense had made to suppress evidence from Jakos phone calls made while in custody.

At the pre-trial hearing on July 15, Jakos lawyers argued that Jako had not been given sufficient warning that his phone calls were being monitored while at the Southern Regional Jail, where Jako stayed from August to September 2018. However, Sims found that Jako was provided a written notice that he signed, verbal warning at the beginning of his calls and written notices posted at the locations of phones used by inmates.

Because of these three different warnings provided, Sims found the defendants argument that Jako was not provided with proper notice that phone calls may be monitored, intercepted, recorded, and disclosed and correspondence read without merit.

Denial of the motion to suppress was expected to bear significant weight in the trial, as Assistant Ohio County Prosecutor Shawn Turak used calls Jako made to his girlfriend from jail to convict him of a 2018 robbery.

In the calls, Jako intimidated his girlfriend into refusing to plead guilty.

Prosecutors have scheduled a press conference for Thursday to provide more informationregarding Jakos guilty plea.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post:
Gerald Jako Pleads Guilty to Two Counts of Murder in Ohio County - Wheeling Intelligencer

This sign welcomed attendees to Court on Campus.

Providing students with a firsthand glimpse of the judicial process, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia came to campus last week to hear oral argument sessions in several cases.

Education has been a central theme to the current court. In 2020, Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker helped initiate a podcast called Women of the Court in collaboration with other female members of a state supreme court. You can listen to this podcast on their website, http://www.ladyjusticepod.com.

Three court cases were presented on Wednesday, Sept. 13: Jayson Nicewarner, et al. v. City of Morgantown; Roland F. Chalifoux, Jr. D.O., v. West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine, et al., and State ex rel. West Virginia Attorney-General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and Nathan R. Lyle v. Hisel Bailey.

The first case revolved around a dispute between Morgantown-area firefighters (the petitioners) and the city of Morgantown (the respondent) regarding the calculation of holiday benefits for firefighters.

Story continues below advertisement

The firefighters contended that since their workdays span a 24-hour period, including sick leave, the entire shift should be considered a legal holiday, entitling them to holiday benefits for the full 24-hours.

However, the circuit court disagreed, asserting that the city hadnt failed to pay wages or fringe benefits to the firefighters and that the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act wasnt applicable to the case.

The subsequent case on the oral argument docket concerned an individual doctor seeking damages resulting from the suspension of his medical license. The West Virginia Bureau for Public Health conducted an investigation following a patients hospitalization with bacterial meningitis after a medical procedure.

The investigation attributed fault to the clinic, citing unsafe injection practices, including the physicians failure to observe hand hygiene before or after the procedure.

Following non-cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Resources, the doctors medical license was suspended.

Dr. Roland Chalifoux filed a complaint, alleging that the suspension of his medical license without a hearing breached his duty and resulted in monetary damages.

The circuit court dismissed the petitioners claims, citing the doctrine of res judicata, as these claims were not raised in the initial action.

The final case addressed in the oral argument involved registered nurse Hisel Bailey, who sued after being terminated for alleged patient abuse at Mildred Mitchell-Bateman Hospital.

Bailey swiftly filed a grievance with the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board, contending that the report contained factual errors and false opinions. Consequently, she was

reinstated as a registered nurse.

Later, Bailey sued the Department of Health and

Human Resources, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Lyle, Legal Aid of West Virginia and two of their employees, alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and malicious prosecution.

The petitioners sought dismissal, asserting qualified and prosecutorial immunity, shielding specific government entities from lawsuits. In August 2022, the circuit court denied the petitioners motion.

Decisions for these three cases are anticipated to be reached this November.

Read the original here:
Supreme Court of Appeals Visits Campus The Parthenon - MU The Parthenon

..... be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023. 2. They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 3. In the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 , after regulation 62 , the following shall be inserted, namely, Listing of subsequent issuances of non-convertible debt securities 62A . (1) A listed entity, whose non-convertible debt securities are listed shall list all non-convertible debt securities, proposed to be issued on or after January 1, 2024, on the stock exchange(s). (2) A listed entity, whose subsequent issues of unlisted non-convertibl .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

..... es on which its non-convertible debt securities are listed, all the key terms of such securities, including embedded options, security offered, interest rates, charges, commissions, premium (by any name called), period of maturity and such other details as may be required to be disclosed by the Board from time to time. BABITHA RAYUDU, Executive Director [ADVT.-III/4/Exty./428/2023-24] Footnotes: 1. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 were published in the Gazette of India on 2nd September 2015 vide No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2015-16/013. 2. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, were subsequently amend .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

..... tion no. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2018/10. h) May 30, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2018 vide notification no. SEBI/LADNRO/GN/2018/13. i) June 1, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018 vide notification No. SEBI/LADNRO/GN/2018/21. j) June 8, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2018 vide notification no. SEBI/LADNRO/GN/2018/24. k) September 6, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fifth Amendmen .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

..... of India (Regulatory Sandbox) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020 vide no. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2020/10. t) August 5, 2020 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2020, vide notification no. SEBI/ LADNRO/GN/2020/25. u) October 8, 2020 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2020, vide notification no. SEBI/ LADNRO/GN/2020/33. v) January 8, 2021 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, vide notification no. SEBI/ LAD-NRO/GN/2021/02. w) May 5, 2021 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Li .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

..... April 11, 2022 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2022, vide notification No. SEBI/LADNRO/GN/2022/79. ff) April 25, 2022 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 vide notification No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2022/80. gg) July 25, 2022 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 vide notification No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2022/88. hh) November 14, 2022 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 vide .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Original post:
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and ... - Tax Management India. Com

Accusations of bribery can have severe consequences for individuals and organizations alike. From criminal charges to hefty fines, such allegations can tarnish reputations and lead to prolonged legal battles. To defend against bribery accusations effectively, it is crucial to understand lawyers tactics. This article will explore a few strategies that attorneys can use when navigating bribery allegations.

If you are accused of bribery, one of the first steps in mounting a defense against accusations of bribery involves gaining a comprehensive understanding of the relevant laws and regulations. The lawyer representing the accused must possess in-depth knowledge of state bribery statutes, and all pertinent attorneys can start constructing a defense by analyzing precedents and grasping the elements required during a defense.

Once hired by an accused party, lawyers will investigate bribery allegations. These investigations may involve scrutinizing documents, interviewing witnesses, and gathering evidence supporting their clients innocence or highlighting weaknesses in the prosecutions case. By carrying out this investigation, attorneys are better equipped to build a strong defense.

Defending against bribery allegations involves questioning and examining the evidence presented by prosecutors. Attorneys will meticulously analyze all types of evidence, such as witness statements, financial records, and any other documents provided by opposing counsel or government agencies involved in the case. They will search for inconsistencies or weaknesses that may undermine credibility or raise doubts about guilt.

Another strategy when dealing with accusations of bribery is to prepare witnesses who may testify on behalf of the accused party. Lawyers work closely with these witnesses to ensure they are ready for questioning during depositions and trial testimony. This preparation may include practicing techniques for examination while also anticipating cross-examination approaches used by prosecutors.

When defending against bribery allegations, it is crucial for attorneys to understand the industry or sector in which the accused party operates. Lawyers can employ effective strategies during legal proceedings by acquiring industry knowledge and expertise. This might involve seeking advice from witnesses who can provide testimony on issues related to the bribery allegations.

In certain circumstances, negotiating a plea agreement with prosecutors may be the strategic course of action when faced with accusations of bribery. Experienced defense lawyers carefully assess the strength of the evidence against their clients and evaluate sentencing outcomes to provide informed advice on whether pursuing a plea agreement is in their clients best interest. Defense attorneys work diligently to secure terms that minimize penalties if negotiations are pursued.

If prosecutors obtain evidence through a search or seizure, skilled defense lawyers will raise objections based on Fourth Amendment protections. By analyzing search warrants and other relevant documents, attorneys can identify any violations law enforcement officials commit. Successfully challenging this evidence can have a huge impact on the prosecutions case.

In proceedings involving bribery allegations, defense attorneys must maintain documentation of all interactions with opposing counsel, government agencies, witnesses, and clients themselves. These meticulous notes ensure the recording of discussions and safeguard against errors or misinterpretations that could affect strategies or jeopardize clients interests.

Bribery accusations often carry consequences for individuals or organizations involved. Skilled defense attorneys recognize the importance of incorporating public relations strategies into their defense plans. By working with the public relations teams of their clients, lawyers can effectively manage media coverage and safeguard their clients rights within the framework of established ethical standards.

To effectively counter bribery allegations, it is crucial to understand the law, conduct investigations, analyze evidence meticulously, prepare witnesses to demonstrate expertise in relevant industries or sectors, negotiate adequately, skillfully challenge unlawfully obtained evidence, maintain meticulous documentation practices, and collaborate with public relations teams. By employing these strategies, in conjunction with defense tactics tailored to the circumstances of each case, accused parties enhance their chances of mounting a successful defense against bribery accusations. These legal strategies play a key role in ensuring treatment and protecting the legal rights of both individuals and organizations.

Visit link:
Legal Strategies For A Strong Defense Against Bribery Accusations - American Judicature Society

From staff reports

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

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

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

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

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

Bland County man convicted of Wythe truck theft

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

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

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

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

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

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

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

Top Story

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

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

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

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

Read more from The Trace

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

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

Read more from The Trace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualified immunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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