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

Robert Frommer and Daryl James| Guest columnists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued here:

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

Drug patent linkage originated as an innovation from the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act in the US. It refers to (1) procedurally linking the approval of the sale of a generic drug and its patent validity review; and (2) functionally linking the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The system effectively provided legal solutions to potential patent infringements before the generic drug launches into the market.

Jumping ahead to 1 October 2017, Chinas general offices of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council called for exploring drug patent linkage and lowering the patent infringement risks of generic drugs with their Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Evaluation and Approval Systems and Encouraging Innovation on Drugs and Medical Devices, aiming to incentivise generic drug development.

In October 2020, the linkage system was formally introduced into the fourth amendment to Patent Law, an upper-tier law in Chinas legislative hierarchy. On such basis, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and China National Intellectual Property Administration issued the Measures for Implementation of the Mechanism for Early Settlement of Drug Patent Disputes (interim) on 4 July 2021. The following day, the Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases involving Patent Disputes Related to Drugs of which Applications for Registration are Filed and the Administrative Adjudication of the Mechanism for Early Settlement of Drug Patent Disputes were released by the Supreme Peoples Court and CNIPA, respectively. Thus, drug patent linkage was implemented throughout administration, lawsuit and administrative adjudication.

By comparing the drug patent linkage systems in China and the US, this article will hopefully prove insightful to our colleagues in the industry.

Patent classifications

Registered drug patents in the US can be classified into drug substance (active ingredient) patents, drug product (formulation and composition) patents, and method-of-use patents.

In China, a drug can be patented as a chemical drug, traditional Chinese medicine or a biological product. Chemical drugs may be further registered as pharmaceutical active ingredient compound patents, pharmaceutical composition patents containing active ingredients, or patents for medical use. As the matter of stay period and exclusivity period below does not apply to traditional Chinese medicine or biological products, this article will focus on drug linkage differences between China and the US in terms of chemical drugs.

Patent declaration

Paragraph II certification in the US means that a patent has expired in spite of its inclusion in the Orange Book, FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations.

Class two declaration, Chinas equivalent of the above, means that the patent relating to the drug which is imitated included in the registration platform has been terminated or declared invalid, or that the generic drug applier has obtained the relevant implementation license from the patentee.

Duty of notification and limitation of action

Paragraph IV certification in the US requires that the generic drug applier must notify the patentee and the marketing authorisation holder within 20 days from the acceptance of application. The patentee and holder may file a lawsuit at the court within 45 days of receiving the notification.

Under class four declaration, Chinas equivalent of the above, the NMPA should make a public announcement within 10 working days after accepting a generic drug application, and the applier should submit the declaration and its basis to the marketing authorisation holder, who is entitled to file a lawsuit at a court or apply for administrative adjudication by the CNIPA within 45 days from the announcement date.

Dispute resolution

Generic drug patent infringement is determined via judicial proceedings in the US, while application for patent invalidation may be submitted to a court or the USPTO.

In China, generic drug patent infringement can be determined by court via judicial proceedings or by the CNIPA via administrative adjudication. Patent invalidation, on the other hand, must be submitted to the CNIPA.

Stay period

In the US, a stay period of 30 months will be imposed by the FDA if the patentee or the marketing authorisation holder files a lawsuit within the limitation of action. Stay period can only be ordered once and may be shortened or prolonged by the court.

In China, after receiving a notification of case initiation from the court or a copy of CNIPAs notice of acceptance, the NMPA will impose a nine-month stay period.

Exclusivity period

In the US, the first generic drug that successfully challenges the patent and launches into the market is entitled to a 180-day exclusivity period, which will be invalidated if the first applicant:

Exclusivity period in China is 12 months, but cannot exceed the patent term of the challenged drug. The conditions for losing exclusivity remains a vacant spot in Chinas regulations pending future complementation.

Our thoughts

Chinas drug patent linkage system mirrors the US framework, but also deviates from it where the national situation calls for such a change. For instance, given that China is currently short in new drugs, first generic drugs are given preferential treatment, such as shorter stay period and longer exclusivity, to encourage their earlier launch.

It should be mentioned that Chinas drug patent linkage system is still in a nascent stage, with more refined and detailed provisions on the way. We look forward to seeing the new system evolve in future practices.

Read more:

Comparing drug patent linkage in China and the US - Lexology

CHICAGO Oral arguments were heard Tuesday in the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding eight Black Lives Matter protestersarrested and jailed beyond 48 hours aftera 2020 demonstration in Rockford.

The plaintiffs were arrested on a Friday evening and held for three days without bond hearings, a common practice in Winnebago County because there is no weekend bond count.

The defendants' attorneys said the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to a bond hearing within 48 hours.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Adele Nicholas, a Chicago-based civil rights advocate, argued that the lack of weekend and holiday bond hearings in Winnebago County results in unreviewed, extended detentions and violates the Fourth Amendment.Reached after the hearing Tuesday, she called Winnebago County an "outlier."

Nicholas noted Cook County has court 365 days a year.

"If you get arrested on Christmas Eve, you get a hearing to determine whether you should be released on bail the next day," she said. "It's not really controversial that that's the appropriate process in almost all jurisdictions."

She added, "Winnebago County's procedures put people at very serious risk of losing their jobs, their income and not being able to take care of their families for no reason other thanWinnebago has deemed it more convenient to only have court on regular business days."

The plaintiffs are:Dylan Mitchell,26;Dayna Schultz, 23;Ivan Holland,25; AndrewEhrhardt,23; and Jaylen Butler, 20, all of Rockford; Ross Wagner,35, of Madison, Wisconsin;Larissa Walston,23, of Loves Park; and Michael Riggs,20, of South Beloit.

Previously: Protesters have spent 100 days outside Rockford City Hall, and they have no plans to leave

Many of the protesters, if not all, participated in one of several civil rights protests held in Rockford and around the country after the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd, a manwho died after a Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

Once the plaintiffs appeared appeared the following Monday before a judge, they were released on their own recognizance.

The plaintiffs' initial filing was dismissed by the district court, which noteda judge signs a probable cause statement within 48 hours.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs arguethe judge does so without the accusedor their attorneys present makingtheprobable cause hearings"constitutionally inadequate" because they deny people who could be released on bail the opportunity to request release within 48 hours.

Photos:Images from four months of protests in Rockford

The defendants are 17th Judicial Circuit Court Chief Judge Eugene Doherty,Sheriff Gary Caruana and Winnebago County.

Doherty is being represented by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. The county is being represented by the law firm of Hinshaw &Culbertson.

Michael Iasparro, a Hinshaw & Culbertson attorney, notedthe district court judgedetermined there is no constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to abail hearingwithin 48 hours. He is hopeful the U.S. Court of Appeals will rule likewise.

"There'sa presumption of constitutionality if there is a finding of probable causefor somebody arrested without a warrant made by a judge within 48 hours," he said, "but that's never been extended to the right to a bail hearing under the Fourth Amendment."

There is no date by which the court must rule on the case.

Chris Green: cgreen@rrstar.com; @chrisfgreen

Excerpt from:

Rockford Black Lives Matter case over bond hearings is now in hands of US Court of Appeals - Rockford Register Star

The man charged with raping two lifeguards at deserted pools in Northern Virginia is challenging the method by which police identified him as a suspect, in an appeal to Virginia's Supreme Court.

A Virginia man whos serving 65 years in prison for brutally raping two lifeguards in Alexandria and Fairfax County will ask Virginias Supreme Court to overturn his convictions, based on the way he was caught.

On Tuesday, attorneys for Jesse Bjerke will ask the commonwealths highest court to throw out his 2020 conviction and sentence for attacking lifeguards at deserted pools in Fairfax in 2014 and Alexandria in 2016.

The focus of the appeal, filed by Bjerkes attorney Christopher Leibig, challenges the constitutionality of the way detectives used familial DNA analysis to confirm Bjerke was the man who raped the lifeguard in the Alexandria attack. The same analysis was later used to link Bjerke to the earlier Fairfax County rape.

In 2019, genealogy researchers used public databases to link DNA recovered from the victim in the 2016 attack to a member of Bjerkes family.

While tailing Bjerke to an Old Town restaurant, detectives picked up two drinking straws Bjerke had used, after he tossed them in the garbage.

The straws were submitted to Virginias Department of Forensic Science, which developed a DNA profile from the straw. The findings enabled police to get an arrest warrant for Bjerke, who was unaware police considered him a suspect.

After his arrest, a buccal swab of Bjerkes DNA was analyzed, and matched the DNA found on the victim, according to prosecutors.

While not challenging the DNA findings, Bjerkes attorney has said police should have gotten a search warrant before submitting the straws for DNA analysis.

During trial and in his appeal, Leibig disagreed with rulings that said detectives could analyze DNA recovered from a discarded straw in the same way they can search for clues and evidence in garbage left outside a persons home.

In his petition to Virginias Supreme Court, Leibig said while courts have upheld the constitutionality of investigators harvesting evidence, including fingerprints from discarded garbage, Bjerkes case is different.

We leave traces of our genetic identity everywhere we go. These genetic traces, all of them capable of conveying extensive private information about us, are not abandoned in any traditional sense. These invisible troves of information are necessarily and unintentionally left behind. They can be easily collected, Leibig said.

Leibig argues a search warrant should be required before investigators can analyze DNA in the same way a search warrant is required before police can analyze the contents of a legally seized cellphone.

While cutting-edge technology is often used in law enforcement, Leibig says courts are often asked to set limits on whether usage violates a persons constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

It necessarily take a while for issues like this to work their way through courts, Leibig said.

Although police can lawfully follow people on a public street, Leibig said over time courts re-evaluate the reasonable expectation of privacy standard.

It was clear that people in society found the idea of GPS monitoring of the totality of their movements by the government substantially intrusive, and far different from being followed down the street in person, wrote Leibig.

In his conclusion, Leibig asks Virginias Supreme Court to address the issue, and overturn his clients conviction: At the present time there is no binding Virginia precedent about the Fourth Amendment implications of warrantless DNA testing of genetic material unintentionally shed in public.

Read more:

Man convicted of raping two lifeguards appeals to Va. Supreme Court over DNA collected from drinking straws - WTOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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