Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

Communities should protect immigrants rather than serve Trumps agenda.

By Brian Tashman and Naureen Shah

Attorney General Bill Barr, speaking at the National Sheriffs Association conference in Washington, D.C., encouraged sheriffs to join the Trump administration as it launches a significant escalation in the federal governments efforts to retaliate against cities and states with policies designed to protect immigrant communities.

For Barrs Department of Justice, that escalation includes new lawsuits against states and municipalities with immigrant-protective policies. He also promised to meticulously review the actions of certain district attorneys who are charging individuals with lesser offenses to avoid triggering their deportation. He said they are systematically violating the rule of law, which is ironic, given his decision this week to overrule career prosecutors and recommend a reduced sentence for President Trumps ally Roger Stone.

This comes just as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suspended Global Entry for all New Yorkers as retribution for allowing undocumented residents to apply for drivers licenses and preventing data-sharing with federal immigration enforcement agencies. The Department is also looking to punish privacy-protecting states that dont give it unfettered access to state-held databases it can use to track immigrants.

Making the speech at a convening of county sheriffs was no accident: Barrs speech is just the latest way the Trump administration has ratcheted up the pressure on sheriffs to collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Already, whenever local law enforcement arrest and book an individual into jail, they submit their name and fingerprints to the FBI, which shares the information with ICE. That evidently isnt enough for Barr, who wants sheriffs to volunteer to perform the federal governments job and do the administrations bidding.

Barr wants sheriffs to help fuel the deportation pipeline by holding people in jail based on ICE requests. But that can violate the Fourth Amendment and local governments have been forced to pay money damages for unlawfully jailing someone under an improper ICE detainer.

There are cases of local law enforcement calling ICE agents after traffic accidents, demanding papers of all passengers in random traffic stops, detaining people for ICE based on suspected immigration status, and providing logistical support for ICE raids. ICE rents bed space in sheriffs jails, and asks sheriffs to let ICE agents interrogate detained people, access reception and processing facilities, computer databases, and documents on release times and dates.

One of the most pernicious forms of ICE-sheriff collaboration is known as 287(g), a voluntary agreement between law enforcement agencies and DHS to deputize some local officers as federal immigration agents. These programs can give deputies the power to screen and interrogate immigrants about their status, access ICE databases, arrest people over suspected immigration violations, and start deportation proceedings.

While Barr praised 287(g) agreements in his speech, they actually harm public safety by creating a chilling effect between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, making people less likely to report crime tips, seek protection or come forward as witnesses.

One study found that fewer Latinx residents reported crimes in Frederick County, Maryland after their county sheriff entered a 287(g) agreement. Another survey of immigrants in San Diego County, California showed a huge uptick in the number of people who said they would be unwilling to report crimes they were the victims of or witnessed when told the sheriffs office worked with ICE.

In 2018, voters in North Carolinas two largest counties voted out their two sheriffs who had 287(g) programs, and the newly elected sheriffs cited concerns about community trust and safety as reasons to terminate the agreements.

Sheriffs participating in 287(g) agreements have been notorious for engaging in racial profiling. The Justice Department in 2011 found that while participating in 287(g), Maricopa County, Arizona sheriffs deputies disproportionately stopped Latinx drivers.

In addition, 287(g) agreements cost local sheriff offices time and money. In 2017, Harris County, Texas Sheriff Ed Gonzalez cited the 287(g) programs $675,000 cost to the sheriffs office as a reason to end the agreement.

While Barr wants to pressure sheriffs to join his administrations detention and deportation machine, people can demand better from their sheriff.

In the majority of states, the sheriff is an elected position. Voters can urge candidates to come out against 287(g) and similar policies of collaboration, and press their sheriff to terminate any existing agreements. Its also vital that voters reach out to their state representatives and local officials and urge them to support measures that protect immigrant communities and keep local resources focused on local needs, not the Trump administrations detention and deportation agenda.

State and local governments have the power to reject Trump and Barrs anti-immigrant pressure campaign and continue efforts to protect both public safety and civil rights.

Brian Tashman is a Police Researcher and Strategist with the ACLU; Naureen Shah is Senior Advocacy and Policy Counsel with the ACLU.

To sign up for our new newsletter Everyday Injustice https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Read the original:
Bill Barr Wants Sheriffs to Join His Attacks on State and Local Governments - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Dear citizens of Tarrant County,

Imagine that your child was sick, and you decided to take them to the hospital for treatment. Now, imagine that very hospitalinstead of treating your childcalled Child Protective Services (CPS). A judge then rubber-stamps a court order allowing CPS to come into your home and go through all your personal belongings and interrogate your family.

Now, imagine the worst-case scenario: CPS rips your child from your arms and takes them to a foster family without any explanation. It is easy to think that this would never happen to your family, but that is exactly what happened to the Pardo Family with their son Drake. This case did NOT take place in Tarrant County because if it had, it would have never happened in this way. Why? We have a constitutionalist Republican judge sitting on the bench that handles the majority of CPS cases, Judge Alex Kim of the 323rd District Court.

This could be changing

On February 20, at 12:15 p.m. at the Tarrant County Family Law Courthouse, there will be an open hearing. Its goal is to try to take CPS cases from Judge Kims court and distribute them downtown.

America just finished watching the Democrats attempt to usurp our choice for president, a concerted and ongoing effort to undermine President Trump.

Tarrant County faces a similar usurpation of our choice for the 323rd District Court. Judge Alex Kim is the duly elected judge of this court with the purpose of hearing criminal juvenile cases and the lions share of Tarrant Countys CPS cases.

It is no secret that CPS and private groups like CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) are not fans of Judge Kim solely based on agenda, not fact. They fought against him through his candidacy, have continued after Kim took the bench, and have had an organized campaign to remove him from office. Sound familiar?

Judge Kim has transformed the 323rd in just one year on the bench. He has taken the length of CPS cases from an average of 500 days in 2017 to just over 275 days in 2019. That is a 45 percent decrease in the time it takes from the filing of a case to its trial date. This is good for the courts efficiency, the childrens safety, and for CPS workloads. These facts are in direct opposition to the claims that Judge Kim cannot handle the burden of CPS cases in his court. The reason for removing these cases from his court simply doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

So, why the ire from CPS and CASA?

It is simple. Judge Alex Kim follows the law. He will not rubber-stamp CPS removals or home invasions. He requires the legal burden of proof from CPSthis little thing called the Fourth Amendment and hundreds of years of the American justice system.

Judge Kim earned this target on his back when he signed a restraining order saving the life of baby Tinslee, set to be killed by the very hospital from which she was receiving care. Cook Childrens then went on to sue Judge Kim and have him recused from the case. Why? Because he was too pro-life.

Under pressure from CPS, CASA, and Cook Childrens, activist judges in Tarrant County are going after a duly elected judge that not only follows the law but does it efficiently, with the safety of all children in mind.

Judge Kim and the children of Tarrant County need your presence on February 20 at 12:15 p.m. at the Tarrant County Family Law Courthouse, located at 200 E. Weatherford St., Fort Worth, for the hearing. We must send a message to the committee overseeing that hearing that we support Judge Kim and the excellent job he has done on the bench.

The committee is made up of the following judges: Judith Wells, Mollee Westfall, and David Evans. All of the district judges in Tarrant County will have a vote.

Right now, these judges are hiding their heads in the sand and buckling under the pressure of CPS, CASA, and Cook Childrens. They need to be reminded that it was the citizens of Tarrant County that voted for them as well as Judge Kim. We need numbers! We are calling all Tarrant County citizens to action to attend this open meeting in support of Judge Kim and voice our objections to activist judges overturning the election of our beloved judge.

Will you stand for what is right?

Blessings in Liberty,

Joel Starnes

This is a commentary submitted and published with the authors permission. If you wish to submit a commentary to Texas Scorecard, please submit your article to[emailprotected].

The rest is here:
Commentary: Stop the Attempt to Overturn the Peoples' Choice of Alex Kim - Texas Scorecard

Theres a sad, unfunny because its too true, New Yorker cartoon by Paul Noth that has circulated steadily since it was published in 2016. In it, two sheep are looking at a campaign-style billboard of a wolf, with the slogan, I am going to eat you. One sheep says to another, He tells it like it is.

The cartoon gets to a weird duality about President Donald Trump. On one hand, hes a liar: News organizations tracking his false claims reached a count of 15,413 by the end of last year. On the other, Trump can be uncomfortably truthful, as when he admitted to NBC Newss Lester Holt that he fired James Comey from the FBI because of the Russia investigation, or when he recently began firing government officials because they testified against him in his impeachment trial.

But the billboard also makes me think of Michael Bloomberg, whose 2020 campaign for president is getting renewed attention.

This week, audio clips surfaced in which the former New York City mayor essentially called minority neighborhoods crime-ridden and the young men who live in them criminals, and lamented the loss of the racist policy of redlining, which prevented African Americans from buying homes and building wealth until a 1968 law banned the practice. As I watched the clips spread and people respond to them, I felt like the rest of America was becoming acquainted with the Bloomberg Ive long known.

Lawyers and officers used to joke that these defendants were arrested for POP, which meantpissing off police.

My first job out of college was as an investigator for the Civilian Complaint Review Board, an independent mayoral agency that investigates complaints of police misconduct. I worked there from 2002 to 2004, the first two years of Bloombergs tenure as mayor. It was the beginning of the heyday of stop-and-frisk, the practice that was found unconstitutional in 2013. In that case, the federal judge found that the New York Police Department used indirect racial profiling to stop black and Latino New Yorkers who wouldnt have been stopped if they were white. Bloomberg defended the practice as late as last year, until he began apologizing for it in November.

The New York Civil Liberties Union has shown that the citys police have stopped and questioned people more than 5 million times since 2002: at the height of stop-and-frisk in 2011, about 685,000 people, overwhelmingly black and Latino, were stopped. The NYCLU survey found that 90 percent of those stopped were completely innocent. Another analysis, by the Center for Constitutional Rights, found that while whites were stopped less often than blacks or Latinos, stops of white suspects were more likely to result in the seizure of a weapon, probably because they were more often based on truly suspicious behaviorthat is, actual probable cause.

In 2012, The New York Times conducted a series of interviews with people about what it felt like to live under stop-and-frisk. These pervasive and abusive stops led to arrests of people even when the frisks turned up nothing. In one interview with the Times, a young man named Tyquan said that, if he demanded to know why hed been stopped, the officers would respond, If youre going to talk back, were going to take you in. If youre going to ask questions, were going to take you in. He said he was stopped four or five times a month because he was often with friends, outside. If youre with a lot of people, youre a suspect automatically, he said. Eventually he felt that the only way he could get away from cops was to stay home. Which sounds a lot like being in prison.

The CCRB cases I remember the most, and still think about, are these stop-and-frisk cases, and similar ones in which police officers stopped someone, overwhelmingly a young black man in a Brooklyn or Queens neighborhood, on the slimmest pretext. Sometimes, these men were chatting with their friends on the sidewalk, and an officer told them to move along because they were blocking pedestrian traffic, even when that traffic didnt exist. At other times, the cops stopped and searched men who were standing and chatting too near a car, on the unfounded assumption they might be stealing it.

The worst involved those with kids. Someone on my investigative team had a case once in which a boy, I believe he was 13, was stopped inside his own apartment building and asked for identification. He was on his way to visit a friend in his own building. The stop was an allowed practice. Police officers had permission to patrol inside apartment buildings owned by the New York City Housing Authority, or any other privately owned building where the landlords invited them in. Which made it hard for this kid to simply visit a friend without a run-in with police. Ive thought about him a lot over the years, and the ways his encounters with abusive authority may have shaped and changed the trajectory of his life.

On other occasions, I visited housing authority buildings and gone to the surveillance rooms that NYPD officers used to monitor residents. There were public spaces in these building complexes, courtyards and dilapidated playgrounds. But if anyone lingered too long, they were shooed away by police. What was the point, then, of the public spaces? What does it mean to have a home where the police can stop you any time?

For thousands of black and Latino New Yorkers, all this led to an oppressive feeling of living in a police state, of being constantly watched. Stop-and-frisk did lead to some arrests. Often, the charges were a constellation of such misdemeanors as disorderly conduct and resisting arrest; lawyers and officers used to joke that these defendants were arrested for POP, which meant

pissing off police. Whether guilty or not, any arrest traps the defendant in the complicated, time-consuming world of court hearings and trials. Often, just the accusation of wrongdoing is enough to lose a job or a home in public housing. Any arrest can lead to a downward spiral thats hard to get out of.

What frustrated me most was that we could never do anything about these cases. The CCRB was tasked with investigating officers who had violated police procedure. But officers who stopped-and-questioned young people of color, and sometimes put them in jail, werent violating procedure. That was the procedure. Thats what Bloomberg admitted in the audio clip of the Aspen Institute question-and-answer session that surfaced this week.

Stop-and-frisk is a policy that led directly to the mass incarceration of black and brown men and women, one that has decimated communities and separated children from their parents. It is family separation by another name, happening on a slow, daily schedule in many American cities instead of in crowded facilities at the border. Bloomberg did not invent this policy, but he was a champion of it; in power he enacted it. The police practices under Bloombergs NYPD harmed people. One of the most heartbreaking stories was that of Kalief Browder, who was held at Rikers Island for three years without a trial, where he was abused and depressed. He committed suicide in 2015.

The Bloomberg administrations violations of the Fourth Amendment rights of New Yorkers are no less serious than Trumps unconstitutional practices. If the images of young Latino immigrants in cages at the border trouble you, there is no reason to vote for Bloomberg. If Trumps dismantling of any sense of justice in this country troubles you, there is no reason to vote for Bloomberg. Bloomberg treated communities of color as inherently criminal, and that broke families apart and traumatized children.

Ultimately, most of Bloombergs shortcomings as mayor stem from his philosophical and governing commitment to policies that perpetuate racial inequities. Stop-and-frisk was the most obvious, but as mayor he also failed to stem the loss of affordable housing in the city, and presided over one of the most segregated school districts in the country.

But unless there have been radical changes in the way Bloomberg thinks about power, Im not sure the practical effect of his administration would be dramatically different from a Trump administration for many minority communities.

Bloomberg has risen in some polls recently, as in my home state of Arkansas, where he leads the Democratic field by 1 percentage point. Hes spent advertising money here and visited, focusing on issues like climate change. This has filled a vacuum: voters know almost nothing else about him, and no other candidates have a similar presence in the state. He touts his technocratic performance as (a Republican, then an independent, and fundamentally conservative) mayor of a large city as a beacon of hope, a mid-way choice for people who dont like Trump but who fear the Democrats are moving too far left. Anyone is better than Trump, the thinking goes, and we shouldnt nitpick little differences between candidates who promise to oust him. I have many Bloomberg-curious friends.

A Bloomberg candidacy would appease people most upset about the obviousness of Trumps racism, the way he wields it with uncomfortable candor, the unseemliness of it. But unless there have been radical changes in the way Bloomberg thinks about power, Im not sure the practical effect of his administration would be dramatically different from a Trump administration for many minority communities.

Electing Bloomberg is simply putting the wolf back in sheeps clothing. Should he become the Democrats nominee, it would show too many people learned the wrong lessons from Trumps years: It would put a veneer of respectability back over the deep, structural problems this country has. Those problems would still be there, destroying families and building pressure on many Americans, waiting to erupt.

Bloomberg has better positions on some issues, like gun control and climate change. As a billionaire philanthropist, he has campaigned for action on these causes; that is the role he should continue playing. On stop-and-frisk, he needs not just to apologize but to atone, and he needs to do that regardless of his campaign. The Democratic field is wide and varied. Bloomberg should stay out of it, where he belongs.

View post:
Bloomberg: The Democrat Who Treated Minorities as Inherently Criminal - The American Prospect

The two charges against New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft stemming from a crackdown on prostitution in Florida remain unresolved nearly a year after his arrest.

While its unusual for misdemeanor prosecutions to remain active for such a long period of time, the case involving Kraft, whose team has won six Super Bowls since 2002, has been complicated by the notoriety of the circumstances and questions with constitutional implications over privacy concerns.

Police in Jupiter, Florida, announced on Feb. 22, 2019, that Robert Kraft was being charged with two misdemeanor counts of soliciting day spa employees to commit prostitution. He was one of numerous customers charged as part of a crackdown on human trafficking.

Investigators suspected that the business operators were forcing employees to perform sex acts on customers. It was revealed that Kraft, who has owned the New England Patriots since 1994, and 24 other defendants had been captured on video by cameras that police placed inside the Orchids of Asia Day Spa.

Less than a month later, the defendants were offered a plea dealthat would expunge their records in return for 100 hours of community service,$5,000 fines for each count, and attendance in a class focused on the dangersof prostitution. The defendants would also have to acknowledge that they wouldhave been found guilty in a trial on the charges.

Instead of taking the deal, Kraft entered a not guilty plea. His legal team sought to suppress the video evidence on the grounds that the cameras were illegally installed by police, who purportedly called to the spa to investigate a bomb threat. They also asked that the court bar the videos from being released to the public.

If Robert Kraft, who has owned the New England Patriots throughout the enormously successful Bill Belichick and Tom Brady era, makes a plea deal or his case is ultimately heard in court and results in a guilty verdict, the New England Patriots owner could be sentenced to a maximum of 120 days in jail.

What the NFL will choose to do is uncertain. Commissioner Roger Goodell announced in May 2019 that the National Football League will take no disciplinary action against Kraft until the court case is resolved.

Robert Krafts lawyers were successful in getting the videos thrown out of court and in preventing their release to the media. Palm Beach County Judge Leonard Hanser ruled that Jupiter police failed to minimize the instances in which videotaped activities were not related to crimes.

Prosecutors filed their appeal on Oct. 1, 2019, to get the videos restored as evidence. The appeal in the Kraft case and three others is now in the hands of 4th District Court of Appealin West Palm Beach. Legal experts say its a classic privacy dispute related to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Theprosecution, which contends Kraft has no legal standing to make a FourthAmendment argument on behalf of spa customers who were videotaped but did notengage in illegal activities, and the defense have filed briefs with theappeals court and have requested the opportunity to make oral arguments.

Ifthe court approves, the oral arguments would be heard no sooner than early thissummer. The appeals court ruling would follow, which could trigger more roundsof appeals before a jury trial could commence in the Kraft case.

Read this article:
Was Robert Kraft Convicted After His Arrest Last Year? - Sportscasting

Photo: Gage Skidmorecourtesy Flickr underCreative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0

Clips from a 2015 speech Michael Bloomberg gave at the Aspen Institute should be playing on mainstream news channels just as often as Bloombergs campaign ads.

95 percent of your murdersmurderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops, Bloomberg said. They are male, minorities, 16to 25. Thats true in New York. Thats true in virtually every city. And the way you get the guns out of the kids hands is to throw them up against the walland frisk them.

Bloomberg also said, And then they start Oh, I dont want to get caught, so they dont bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.

Such is the tough New York talk Bloomberg uses in safe spaces like Aspen.

If you can stop them from getting murdered, I would argue everything else you do is less important, Bloomberg said. And thats a good point, but it comes with a deceptive premise he expects us to buy into. Bloomberg, you see, often argued that the stop-and-frisk policy New York City used while he was mayor was necessary, and there is little doubt it saved lives in New York Citys toughest neighborhoods. But the thing is, when you take away one constitutional rightin this case, our Second Amendment right to keep and bear armsyou end up in a position in which you need to diminish another constitutional rightin this case, the Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizuresin order to keep people safe.

Bloombergs associates knew what he said at the Aspen Institute wasnt politically correct; as a result, after he gave the speech, representatives for Bloombergs team actually asked the Aspen Institute not to let people hear or see the video footage,according to the Aspen Times.

Bloomberg might be the $61 billion man, but buying an election in a free society still means controlling your image. In this case, however, the audio leaked out.

As this just isnt a position todays Democrats favor, just before Bloomberg entered the race for president last November he tried to sidestep his record. I cant change history. Today, I want you to know that I realize back then I was wrong, and I am sorry, said Bloomberg, referring to the stop-and-frisk policy hed bragged about just a few years before.

To put this in context, Bloomberg, when he was mayor of New York City, tried to be one of the common folk by riding the subway to work (in this case, City Hall), but, regardless, its a safe bet that he was never stopped and friskedmayors, especially those with security details, just dont get that treatment.

It is also a safe bet that he never needed a self-defense gun, as security details are paid to handle all that.

Now Bloomberg is running for president. If he somehow wins the presidency, the first thing hed like to do is disarm every average American citizen. He mistrusts the individual American so much that he doesnt even think the everyday hero named Jack Wilson, a concealed-carry permit holder and member of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, who stopped a murderer, should have the right to carry a self-defense gun.

Its the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place, said Bloomberg just after Wilson had saved lives in that church.

Presidential races are filled with hyperbole and pageantry, but its revealing things like these statements from Bloomberg that build or destroy candidacies.

Link:
Bloomberg Said What About Guns and Crime? - America's 1st Freedom

A Mountain View couple that sued the city after their young daughter was forced to undergo an invasive sexual assault exam last year has agreed to a $600,000 settlement, according to recent court filings.

Under the agreement, filed with a federal court judge on Feb. 7, the city of Mountain View has agreed to pay the bulk of the costs -- $350,000 -- while Santa Clara County will pay $200,000. A third defendant, private ambulance company American Medical Response (AMR), has also agreed to pay $50,000 for its involvement in the incident.

The civil suit alleges that Mountain View Police Department officers had conducted an "unlawful and unfounded" sexual assault examination on a 5-year-old child in January last year. Three officers came to the family's house on Jan. 28, 2019, and demanded that the girl be examined by a paramedic to see if she had been the victim of sexual abuse.

The child had injured her pubic area three days prior when she fell at a trampoline park, but had since healed, according to the civil complaint. Earlier that day, a staff member at Landels Elementary overheard the girl saying that her vagina had bled or was bleeding, and reported the information to either Child Protective Services (CPS) or law enforcement.

The suit alleges that officers should have recognized the innocuous nature of the injury, but instead they presented the parents with an ultimatum: have a paramedic come to the house to inspect the girl's genitals or drive her to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center for a formal examination.

The suit states that the parents -- Danielle and Douglas Lother -- tried multiple times to offer alternatives, including a trip to a physician to verify the injury was not serious and was healing. Danielle Lother also offered to put officers in contact with witnesses who could corroborate the story that the girl injured herself at a trampoline park.

The parents were reportedly forced to hold down their daughter during the exam the girl was kicking and screaming while a female paramedic examined the child. After two minutes, the paramedic concluded there was nothing apparently wrong with the child's genitals.

A few weeks after the incident, the family filed a claim stating that Mountain View officers, the Santa Clara County social worker and the paramedic all acted improperly, turning an innocent injury into a traumatic event. The claim sought $1 million for severe emotional distress, past and future medical treatment and punitive damages.

The family's attorney, Robert Powell, later filed a federal lawsuit in September alleging that the city, the county and AMR had acted together to violate the family's privacy and due process rights as well as Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure. It also alleges the defendant's actions amounted to negligence, battery and false imprisonment.

Since demanding the lump sum settlement of $1 million last year, Powell told the Voice that he left it up to the city, the county and AMR to fight among themselves over who had the most culpability. But he said it was pretty clear from the start that the police department was primarily responsible for the way the incident unfolded.

"No one thought for apparently a moment that, 'Hey, this is wrong. This is way overboard,'" he said.

When asked about the settlement amount, Powell said he believes the family could have been awarded more money if it went to a jury trial, but that his clients did not want to go through the stress of reliving the incident in a prolonged court battle.

"It was really, really causing a lot of emotional turmoil for the family and so we settled it, I think, considerably lower than what might have been awarded by a jury," he said. "There's a value to resolution."

Representatives from Santa Clara County did not immediately respond to requests for comment. City spokeswoman Shonda Ranson said the City Council is scheduled for a closed session discussion of the case on Feb. 25, and could not comment further.

After deductions and fees, roughly $438,000 of the settlement will be awarded to the parents, $80,000 will be given to the girl who underwent the exam and $40,000 will go to her sibling, who was interrogated during the incident. The money awarded to the children will be placed in separate secured accounts. Powell will receive $40,000 of the total settlement, plus $1,415 in counsel costs.

Powell, who has been handling CPS-related cases since the 1990s, said the incidents typically involve a child protective services agency and a law enforcement agency. This case was somewhat of an anomaly in that an ambulance company was involved and shared in the settlement agreement, he said. Despite the sizable cost of the incident, Powell said he isn't optimistic it will change the practices of anyone involved going forward.

"I have been handling these kinds of cases for around 23 years and I am back suing the same counties for the second, third and fourth time. In the case of Los Angeles County, I'm back suing them for the fifth, sixth or seventh time," Powell said. "Case after case after case of alarming stupidity, alarming abuse of power."

See the article here:
Mountain View to pay $350K in settlement over forced sexual assault exam of 5-year-old - Mountain View Voice

Photo: Eduardo Munoz Alvarez (Getty Images)

The controversial stop-and-frisk policy of the New York Police Department has spent a great deal time in the news lately as former NYC Mayor Michael Bloombergwho is currently running for presidenthas been repeatedly called to task for the policy he supported up until recently.

Bloomberg did an about-face on the policy back in November, as the New York Times then noted:

Ahead of a potential Democratic presidential run, former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York on Sunday reversed his longstanding support of the aggressive stop-and-frisk policing strategy that he pursued for a decade and that led to the disproportionate stopping of black and Latino people across the city.

I was wrong, Mr. Bloomberg declared. And I am sorry.

The speech, Mr. Bloombergs first since he re-emerged as a possible presidential candidate, was a remarkable concession by a 77-year-old billionaire not known for self-doubt: that a pillar of his 12-year mayoralty was a mistake that he now regrets. It was also, in some ways, a last word on an era of aggressive policing in New York City that began a generation ago under former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani though the fallout on neighborhoods is still felt to this day.

The emphasis in the last part of that quote is my own. Regardless of how Bloomberg is now trying to clean up his image and divorce himself from stop-and-frisk, the controversial policy is still in place within the NYPD, and even worse, the number of stop-and-frisks jumped up by 22 percent in 2019, according to a report released by the department Friday.

There were 13,459 stop-and-frisks reported in 2019, and that is 2,451 more than the 11,008 reported in 2018or a jump of 22 percent.

It is important to note that these are the number of incidents reported and may not be an actual representation of how many times stop-and-frisk has actually happened, because as a means of trying to downplay the rise in numbers, the New York Daily News reports the NYPD said the 2019 increase is unlikely to be a true increase in stops, but rather more accurate and complete reportinginferring that the lower stop numbers in previous years may be inaccurate.

In a statement, the NYPD said: The Department has enhanced its auditing and compliance metrics as well as developed training to address stops and proper reporting. The result is a better understanding of a very complex area of law, correction of common misunderstandings and better reporting.

Isnt that reassuring?

OK, maybe not.

Chris Dunn, legal director for the NYCLU, told the Daily News that underreporting of the number of stop-and-frisks by the NYPD has been an ongoing fear.

While increased stops would be worrisome, our bigger concern is that large numbers of stops simply are not being reported by officers, Dunn told the outlet. In truth, tens of thousands more New Yorkers may be the victims of stop-and-frisk than these figures suggest.

Still, the numbers are much lower than the 694,482 stop-and-frisks that were conducted in 2011, when use of the practice was at its peak, and still lower than the 191,851 stops that happened in 2013the same year federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of New Yorkers, and was racially discriminatorya violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth Amendment.

That the practice still continues is disheartening. That it is negatively impacting black and brown populations is a fact.

That it needs to stop is gospel.

Read this article:
NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Numbers Up 22 Percent in 2019 - The Root

Feb 13th 2020

GENES CAN tell tales about you, from who your ancestors were to how likely you are to develop a range of diseases. And it seems probable that in the future they will tell more: your personality type, perhaps, or your intelligence. For these reasons, many countries have laws limiting what use employers and insurance companies can make of such information. America, for example, has the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which makes it illegal for health insurers and employers to use genetic information to discriminate against customers and employees.

There is much, however, that genes cannot reveal. They are blind to what you eat, how you exercise, how safe the place you live in is, how you unwind at the end of the day and which god you worship. Just as well, you might think, considering how easy it is to obtain samples of DNA from saliva, sweat or hair, and how cheap it is becoming to analyse such samples. But it is not just DNA that people scatter to the wind as they go about their business. They shed a whole range of other chemicals as well, in their breath, their urine, their faeces and their sweat. Collectively, and somewhat inaccurately, these molecules are referred to as metabolites. Some truly are the products of metabolic activity within peoples bodies. Others are substances an individual has come into contact with, or consumed or inhaled. All, though, carry information of one sort or another.

Until recently this did not matter much, for two reasons. One was that, in practice, taking samples for analysis required either voluntary collaboration or legal duress. It could not be done clandestinely. The other was that interpreting the complicated patterns of metabolites is hard. But both of these obstacles are now being overcome.

The most common way of analysing metabolite content is gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. This technique sorts molecules by their weight, producing a pattern of peaks that correspond to different substances. But the same weight can be shared by many molecules, so the results may be ambiguous. Nor, even if a molecule can be identified unambiguously, is its wider significance always obvious to a particular investigator.

There are, however, a lot of information sources out there, in the form of publicly available metabolite databases. And last year a team led by Pieter Dorrestein of University of California, San Diego, invented a way, which they call a metabolite search engine, of linking them up so that a sample can be compared simultaneously with the contents of all of them.

The databases themselves are getting better, too. According to Dr Dorrestein, researchers in the field were able, as recently as four years ago, to identify only 2% of the metabolites found in samples. Today, that has increased to 6% and is climbing quickly. It is reasonable, he says, to assume that in another four years we will be able to annotate 20% of the molecular signatures that we encounter, based on the advances that are being made.

Another area of progress is the type, size and state of preservation of samples that can be interrogated. No longer are blood, urine or breath required. Sweat, tears, saliva and even dental plaque will do. A study just published by Feliciano Priego-Capote at University of Cordoba, in Spain, for example, shows it is possible to extract much meaningful information from even a dried-up drop of sweatindeed, Dr Priego-Capote is able to find in dried sweat substances that are undetectable at the moment in fresh perspiration.

Such information can reveal a lot. Your god? Regular exposure to burning incense, and thus frequent visits to a church that uses it, will be detectable from the chemicals in the smoke. Not a Christian? Kosher and halal diets are detectable by the absence of metabolites from certain foodstuffs those diets forbid. Your out-of-office activities? Habits like drinking, smoking and narcotic use are visible as numerous chemicalsnot merely the active pharmaceuticals which produce the relevant high or low. Your exercise levels? These are flagged up by lower than normal levels of things like leucine, glycerol and phenylalanine. Your local environment? Breathing in polluted air has a marked impact on the profile of your metabolites. Your general health? Illnesses ranging from Parkinsons disease (altered levels of tyrosine and tryptophan) to diabetes (sugars and sphingomyelin) leave abundant metabolic traces. The day is coming soon, observes Cecil Lewis, a molecular anthropologist at University of Oklahoma, who is studying the matter, when it will be possible to swab a persons desk, steering wheel or phone and determine a wide range of incredibly private things about them.

In contrast with DNA, the use to which knowledge of metabolites might be put has little legal restriction. Dr Lewis, and others like him, worry about the consequences of this. At the moment, sampling for alcohol or illegal drug use, say, has to be overt, because it involves a blood, urine or breath test. That is true regardless of who is collecting the sample, whether it be the police or an employer. This also keeps purposes clear. A firm might feel it has the right to test employees for drug use, and the law might support that. But techniques like Dr Priego-Capotes make it easier, as Dr Lewis observes, to sample clandestinely, and bring a temptation to push back the boundaries of what is being searched for. They would, for example, allow companies to detect, if they chose to look, such private matters as whether an employee was taking antidepressants.

Metabolite data, even the sort obtained openly, will also be of interest to medical-insurance companies, who may insist on the provision of samples as a condition of the provision of cover. They, too, might take an interest in matters of diet and exercise, penalising those who do not conform to prescribed healthy regimes.

The police may be tempted to push the boundaries as well. The fourth amendment to Americas constitution protects against unwarranted searches and seizure of evidence. This means it is hard to force someone to give a sample. But if obtaining such merely requires taking a swab of a surface in a public placeperhaps a keyboard someone has just usedthe amendment is unlikely to apply.

That is not necessarily wrong, if it means more criminals are caught and convicted. But it needs to be thought about carefully, because many metabolites are sticky. Cocaine is a case in point. Studies have shown that as many as two-thirds of the dollar bills in circulation in America carry traces of this substance, which might thus end up on the fingertips of the innocent, as well as the guilty.

Perversely, this might even help someone who really had taken the drug. The law in many jurisdictions permits employers to fire employees for unlawful conduct, even if it happens outside the workplace. But as Michelle Terry of WKS Law in Los Angeles, observes, given how sticky research has shown cocaine metabolites to be, it is hard to guess how the courts would rule if someone lost their job for testing positive, yet claimed never knowingly to have touched the stuff.

This article appeared in the Science and technology section of the print edition under the headline "Shed-loads of chemicals"

Go here to read the rest:
People leave molecular wakes that may give away their secrets - The Economist

Frank Thorp V and Kyle Stewart

5d ago / 4:32 AM UTC

If that short break was used to try to reach a deal to move the proceedings along, it appears it didn't work.

McConnell resumed the trial, and then Schumer immediately introduced his fifth amendment, which seeks to subpoena certain Defense Departmentdocuments and records.

They will go into up to two hours of debate on the amendment. Several senators looked tired an hour ago, as Jeffries made the case for why Mulvaney should be called as a witness.

As Jeffries spoke, some senators appeared to be eating snacks. A few chatted quietly. Most watched the screens as the videos were played, although a few looked around the room and up at the galleries.

As the clock approached 9 p.m., a few senators rested their heads against their hands as they sat listening, and Senate pages walked through the room refilling water glasses.

Frank Thorp V and Liz Johnstone

5d ago / 4:38 AM UTC

The fourth Schumer amendment, to call Mulvaney as a witness, was defeated along party lines, 53-47 just like the previous three.

McConnell, after remarking that he had observed a "certain similarity of all of these amendments," asked Schumer whether he would be willing to stack the votes on the remaining Democratic amendments into one to speed the evening along. Schumer did not agree and told him he would be willing to hold amendment votes Wednesday if senators wanted to go home now.

"The bottom line is verysimple," Schumer said. "As has been clear toevery senator in the country: Webelieve witnesses anddocuments are extremelyimportant and a compelling casehas been made for them.We will have votes on all ofthose.We will also the leader, without consulting us made changes, a number of significant changes thatsignificantly deviated from the1999 Clinton resolution.We want to change those.So there will be a good numberof votes."

McConnell put the trial into a quorum call, or a break but moments later, the trial resumed with the reading of Schumer amendment No. 5 into the record.

Rebecca Shabad

5d ago / 2:25 AM UTC

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., one of the seven House managers and the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, argued in favor of the Democratic amendment that calls for a subpoena of acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Mulvaney, who also leads the Office of Management and Budget, played a key role in the president's efforts to freeze nearly $400 million in U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and withhold a White House meeting.

"Based on the extensive evidence that the House did obtain, it is clear that Mulvaney was crucial in planning the scheme, executing its implementation and carrying out the cover-up," said Jeffries.

"Emails and witness testimony show that Mr. Mulvaney was 'in the loop' on the president's decision to explicitly condition a White House meeting on Ukraine's announcement of investigations beneficial to the president's re-election prospects," he added. "He was closely involved in implementing the president's hold on a security assistance, and subsequently admitted that the funds were being withheld to put pressure on Ukraine."

Mulvaney is one of four witnesses that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would like the Senate to subpoena. The House issued a subpoena compelling Mulvaney's testimony during the impeachment inquiry last year but he defied it at the direction of the White House.

Jonathan Allen

5d ago / 2:10 AM UTC

President Donald Trump's defense failed him at the opening of hisSenate impeachment trial Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had one job. He just had to collect 51 votes forthe trial rules he had written, in close consultation with White House officials, to deliver Trump an acquittal quickly, quietly and with as few surprises as possible.

He couldn't do it.

The other half of Trump's squad,his legal team, chose not to defend his actions with a cogent explanation for them. Rather than rebutting hours of evidence presented by House Democratic impeachment managers, White House lawyers opted to repeat Trump's attacks on the process and the disjointed set of rejoinders he's delivered to Democrats in public.

Read more of the analysis here.

Hallie Jackson and Hans Nichols

5d ago / 2:22 AM UTC

SO WHAT DID PRESIDENT TRUMP THINK OF TODAY? He was absolutely engaged in the impeachment proceedings today, getting "minute-by-minute" updates on the process, according to Rep. Mark Meadows, one of the presidents closest allies and an impeachment team member. Legislative Affairs head Eric Ueland backed that up, telling reporters that the president is "very impressed" with whats been happening on the Hill. But take all that with a grain of salt: the president likes to see impressive TV performances, and we have reason to believe that he may have more mixed feelings than what aides are letting on. And the president is also someone who likes to gauge the reviews so his opinion may end up shaped by the tone from his preferred cable news shows. (An early guide: Sean Hannity, in his opener, is adopting a bored affect and introducing the networks Congressional correspondent as someone whos been "suffering through a lot of this tediousness.")

WILL THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE TEAM FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS BY 9AM WEDNESDAY?Its possible, but the chances seem less-than-likely. Ueland didnt shut the door on it tonight, but Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas sounded more definitive, telling reporters he believes a motion to dismiss is unlikely: its "not nearly as good an outcome for the president and for the country as will be a final judgment on the merits." Again, its kind of a moot point regardless since Senate Republicans dont think there are the votes to support such a motion.

IS THE DEFENSE GOING TO PUSH BACK ON THE APPARENT SATURDAY START FOR THEIR OPENING? Seems doubtful. Two sources familiar with the thinking suggest its not likely the White House team will put up much of a fight on the expected Saturday start to opening arguments (thats if House managers take up their allotted three days.) Thats subject to change, as always. But weekend arguments would, in theory, let the presidents defenders get in their first word before the Sunday political talk shows, and then have a weekday audience for the rest of their arguments Monday and, if needed, Tuesday.

Haley Talbot

5d ago / 1:32 AM UTC

As Rep. Adam Schiff spoke on the floor, Sen. Chuck Schumer smiled and laughed while talking to the aides seated next to him a strikingly different demeanor from Majority Leader Mitch McConnells stoic posture across the aisle.

In a brief moment of bipartisanship, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., walked over to the Republican side behind the last row of senators. As he was passing by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., he crouched down and the two chatted and laughed briefly. A packet of gum was being passed around that back row between Sasse, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and others.

While the table on the prosecution side with the managers was full of open binders, notebooks and laptops the Trump defense team's table looked neat. Their binders were not open while Schiff and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., spoke, and their laptops also remained closed.

During the arguments, Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren took notes on occasion, andRepublican Sens. Amy Murkowski and Susan Collins watched Schiff intently for the duration of his remarks. In the final few minutes of Schiff's comments, Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, tapped on his watch to indicate the California Democrat was nearing the end of his time. Schiff seemed to look in his direction but did not pause or stop.

When Crow was speaking, the other House managers watched him intently, turning in their chairs to face him. Rep Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was the one exception; he took notes throughout and referred back to binders and notes.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., read during most of the proceedings, while Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., yawned several times. Cruz slumped back in his chair, scowling, while Schiff and Crow spoke. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., had a similar posture and didnt take notes or read.

Frank Thorp V

5d ago / 12:42 AM UTC

McConnell moved to table the third Democratic amendment, which would have subpoenaed OMB documents related to the charges against the president and regarding the suspension of assistance to Ukraine.

Schumer introduced a fourth amendment to subpoena acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Senators will now take a 30-minute recess to eat dinner. It'll be pizza for both sides, Republicans will eat Ledo's in the Mansfield room, where they usually hold their policy luncheons, and Democrats will eat Ledo's in the cloakroom.

During dinner, they will discuss what happens next. When they return from this recess they will debate, for up to two hours, the Mulvaney amendment. Then there will be another vote to kill the amendment.

On Tuesdaysbonus episode of Article II, host Steve Kornacki explains the last-minute changes that Mitch McConnell made to the impeachment trial rules in response to pressure from moderate Republican senators.

Download the podcast.

Julie Tsirkin

5d ago / 12:26 AM UTC

Some senators appear to be losing steam as the trial headed into the night.

There were many yawns, including from Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala. Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, was most definitely sound asleep for the majority of Rep. Val Demings' presentation. When Jay Sekulow took the stand, speaking audibly louder, Risch was jolted awake.

GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Lee of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa took copious notes throughout Demings presentation. Grassley and Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., were noting each piece of evidence presented on the screens. New Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., also took notes throughout.

When Lev Parnas' interview with Rachel Maddow was shown, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., began laughing and writing something down. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was smiling from ear to ear, sitting up in his chair and looking at Republicans. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., remained still and serious throughout. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., passed a note to Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and the two laughed and nodded.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., passed breath mints from his desk to senators sitting nearby, including Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., sat with a blanket over her lap. Schumer appeared to be quite thirsty, with pages refilling his water glass every 10 minutes. Grassley had a sheet of paper on his desk with photo identifiers.

The rest is here:
Trump impeachment: Live coverage of the trial - NBCNews.com

Newark Advocate Published 12:35 p.m. ET Jan. 25, 2020

A government agency can use eminent domain to take private property for a valid public cause while compensating the property owner. A government agency can through its actions devalue a piece of property by restricting access to or the use of that property.

This is called legallytaking land. This can happenwhen a road is changed or widened. When Thornwood Crossing east of Granville was built, access to Cherry Valley Road from Route 16 was cut off. This restricted access to businesses along Cherry Valley Road.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided, by a 4 to 3 vote, that Wendys was entitled to compensation by ODOT for the business loss. The court stated that losing access constituted taking.Wendys lawyer stated that his client had a constitutional right to theaccess point of Cherry Valley at Route 16, and ODOT closed that access point.

So is a business entitled to be compensated for the loss of profit under the legal taking clause, paid for by a public entity using public money? Should businesses then not pay for profit for access to a publicly-funded road? No business is going to locate in an inaccessible area. That mean it is fully aware of thepotential profit by having access provided by the public. In order to get compensated for the loss of profit, a business should pay into a fund for profiting by getting access paid for by thepublic. The public should not pay for building a road and then again for private business losses. It should be either both or neither.

Jurgen Pape

Granville

During the Novembervoting day Zone 2 & 4 voted at the American Legion Lodge on 6th Street.There were numerous times that you had to look for a place to park.Come March it will be the same and November has the potential of severe over crowding, making many voters not voting or illegally parking.The election boardneeds to take a serious look at separating these twozones to there own area immediately.I see everywhere on social media of bad blood between Democrats and Republicans and I see a problem especially in November.I would hope everyone would act like adults and vote with heart.Thank you for listening there is a problem that needs fixed NOW!

Mike Miner

Newark

On Monday we witnessed a gathering of Virginia citizens protesting gun confiscation by their "Democratic" government. All the proposed laws are unconstitutional because they are an infringement on their constitutional rights. Not just the Second Amendment, but also the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. All of these government officials have taken the oath of office swearing to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. By voting to steal lawfully owned firearms they've violated their oath of office. By sending officers out to steal lawfully owned firearms they are committing the act of treason and forcing the officers also to commit an act of treason.

No one who has ever taken an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution can support any law that violates that oath. If you have ever taken such an oath, you are bound to not support an unconstitutional law. Thank God that most of the sheriff's in Virginia understand that and are standing up in support of the Constitution.

It's understandable the fear that an unarmed citizen has for their safety and the safety of their family. Progressives have used anti-concealed carry stickers to keep law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in posted buildings. These are the buildings madmen come to murder innocent people, because they know they're safe. If you want to keep the people safe, take down the stickers and train all that wish to carry when and how to shoot in defense of their lives and others.

John Bell

Newark

Read or Share this story: https://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/news/local/2020/01/25/letters-newark-readers-speak-out-subsidies-guns-and-polling-places/4555955002/

Continued here:
Letters: Newark Advocate readers speak out on subsidies, guns and polling places - The Newark Advocate