Valkyrie’s Fourth Amendment for the Launch of a Bitcoin ETF – Crypto Times

A prominent player in the digital asset management industry, Valkyrie Investments, recently filed its fourth amendment with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to introduce a spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) in the US.

This move demonstrates Valkyries continued commitment to getting past regulatory obstacles, despite past setbacks.

The companys unwavering strategy in this area demonstrates its commitment to creating a Bitcoin spot ETF, a financial instrument that has seen tremendous demand but intense regulatory scrutiny.

This comes after news that CoinShares, a well-known European cryptocurrency exchange-traded fund issuer, has acquired the sole right to buy Valkyrie Funds, with an expiration date of March 31, 2024.

This calculated move emphasizes the goal of strengthening a dominant position in the US digital asset investment market to create a comprehensive worldwide platform for digital asset investments.

This partnership could change the environment for bitcoin investments by bringing together a wealth of knowledge and resources from the digital asset management sector.

The fact that Blackrock and Fidelity have recently held talks with the SEC has added to the industrys growing expectations.

With a crucial deadline approaching on January 10, 2024, this development is seen as a promising sign of the SECs upcoming decision-making regarding the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs.

Link:

Valkyrie's Fourth Amendment for the Launch of a Bitcoin ETF - Crypto Times

HCSO to release body cam footage to plaintiff alleging Fourth Amendment violation – Smoky Mountain News

Monroe A. Miller Jr. petitioned the court on Nov. 22 to obtain the footage. On Dec. 14 following the hearing and his review of the recordings, visiting Superior Court Judge Steve Warren, of Asheville, published his order granting permission, albeit with some noteworthy restrictions.

On Nov. 9 at about 1:25 p.m., two Haywood County Sheriffs deputies visited Millers property along with the plaintiff in an ongoing civil dispute his sister, Linda Overcash as well as her attorney, Mark Melrose. Their civil dispute is over how to split up their late fathers estate. Monroe Albert Miller, who passed away on Jan. 20, 2017, is assumed to have left behind a good deal of money, along with a Haywood County home appraised at over $1 million dollars.

he was co-founder of one of the earliest Computer Companies, Electronic Associates, Inc., a NYSE listed company located in New Jersey, where he designed and manufactured many of the first electronic computers used in industry and the early space program, his obituary reads. In 1955, he founded Milgo Electronic Corporation, a company heavily involved in tracking and communication in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space programs. He and the company were also instrumental in the development of the first, and subsequently, the high speed modem. He served as President and Chairman of the Board until all its NYSE listed stock was acquired in 1977. Milgo's Miami, Florida facility employed more than 2500 and also carried out world- wide manufacturing and marketing operations in many foreign countries.

The group was there to survey the property. Also present on Nov. 9 was Terry Ramey, a Haywood County commissioner and staunch ally of Miller, as well as Millers attorney, Ed Bleynat.

The petition notes that after the visit, on that same day, Miller requested the recordings from Wilke. That communication was entered into evidence as part of the petition.

Deputies appeared indoctrinated by Mark Melrose on the aspects of the order issued, the initial request reads.

Deputies kicked Terry Ramey, Haywood County Commissioner, out of the dwelling also, even though he was acting as my agent, which was allowed in the Order, it later reads.

A Nov. 15 response from Haywood County Sheriffs Office Public Information Officer Gina Zachary notes that because there was no court order mandating the office provide the footage and audio, it could not be turned over at that time. A week later, Miller submitted the petition to the court.

Also included as evidence in the petition is a series of messages between Miller and Wilke from the evening of Nov. 9. In those messages, Miller alleges the deputies violated his rights.

You have made serious, unfounded allegations about my deputies and any further contact will need to be from your legal counsel to ours, Wilke replied. Your multiple public information requests will be handled in as reasonably prompt manner as possible.

Millers chief complaint is that he and Ramey were forced to remain outside while the others had full run of his home. The petition also notes that the order for a law enforcement escort during the survey said that one deputy would be present, but two showed up.

In order to keep the peace and allow a thorough inspection of the property the presence of a uniformed law enforcement officer would be helpful, that order reads.

The order also says that Overcash and Melrose should be allowed adequate space to engage in private conversations during the inspection and that Miller, Ramey and Bleynat shall remain 50 feet or more from the Petitioners and their attorneys while the Petitioners and their attorneys are outside the dwelling during this inspection.

The two deputies violated my Fourth Amendment rights, the petition claims. There was no reason, nor was Mark Melrose authorized, to bring two deputies for this visit. He took a Haywood County Sheriffs Deputy off-line for no good reason, therefore interfereing (sic) with the operation of a law enforcement agency by hindering and obstructing the second law enforcement officer in the performance of his duty.

According to court documents, Miller submitted a complaint against Melrose to the North Carolina Bar Association, something he has done in the past against multiple local attorneys. For his part, in an email to Bleynat, Melrose alleged that Miller behaved inappropriately and without an understanding of proper procedure when he showed up at Melrose's office seeking a signature for the receipt of a $5,000 check he was ordered by a judge to provide to cover administrative costs related to the dispute over the estate.

Your client just came to my office trying to get my staff to sign a document indicating receipt of a check, the email reads. I did not speak with him. He was instructed by my staff to call your office. Please advise Mr. Miller to never come to my office again, and advise him that I am not legally permitted to talk to him nor is my staff.

In court on Dec. 14, Wilke was accompanied by members of his command staff, as well as Zachary. While Ramey didnt accompany Miller, he did show up a few minutes after the hearing began. Neither side was represented by an attorney that morning. The hearing was the first of the day in Haywood County Superior Court, and when Warren took the bench, he brought Miller and Wilke up to argue their positions, noting that while he was called in the day before to review a case he wasnt familiar with, hed made time to review the petition. He went through state law outlining the procedure for a person to obtain law enforcement agency recordings.

That statute dictates that the court must consider a few things.

First, the person requesting the recording must be authorized to receive it. In this case, because Miller is depicted in the recording as stipulated by Wilke in court he is authorized. Next, the judge asked whether the recording may contain confidential information. It was acknowledged by both parties that it likely included conversations covered by attorney-client privilege. Miller agreed that audio in such segments could be redacted, which Warren said rendered that issue moot. Other concerns were whether the recording could reveal information that is highly sensitive or personal; if the disclosure could create a serious threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; or if its disclosure could jeopardize an active or inactive internal or criminal investigation. It was agreed that none of those would be an issue.

Wilke voiced concern that it could be technically cumbersome to redact the audio from the recordings while maintaining their integrity. In addition, according to statute, the disclosure of the recordings cant jeopardize the safety of a person, nor can it harm anyones reputation. Wilke said that Miller frequently uses a blog he has maintained for several years to launch personal attacks against numerous individuals.

While the sheriff said hed love the recordings to be made public because theyd refute the claim that we violated Mr. Millers Fourth Amendment Rights, he was concerned that Miller would use parts of the recording out of context to attack his deputies character and reputation. Warren addressed this in the order. First, he listed specific segments of the video that contain conversations covered by attorney-client privilege for which the audio must be redacted. He also gave Miller strict orders for how he can use the recording, once released to him.

No portion of the released videos may be published other than in a pending court proceeding, it reads, or to any party to any current or future lawsuit or witness is (sic) said lawsuit who are all hereby ordered not to publicly disclose the contents of said video. Said Order is punishable by contempt.

See the article here:

HCSO to release body cam footage to plaintiff alleging Fourth Amendment violation - Smoky Mountain News

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? | United States Courts

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonablein the eyes of the law,is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure.Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search;Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)If the search is incident to a lawful arrest;United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances;Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)If the items are in plain view;Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions.Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances.New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),

An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot.Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984),United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).

An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).

The use of a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop does not require reasonable, explainable suspicion.Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).

Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without any individualized suspicion.Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and searches.United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating drunk driving.Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

A state may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief and seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred on that highway.Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).

However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

Here is the original post:

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? | United States Courts

Fourth Amendment EPIC – Electronic Privacy Information Center

The Fourth Amendment is one of the main constitutional privacy protections in the United States. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrantgenerally, law enforcement must obtain a warrant when a search would violate a persons reasonable expectation of privacy. The Fourth Amendment also requires that warrants be supported by probable cause and describe with particularity the places to be searched and persons to be seized.

The advent of the internet and other digital technologies has ushered in new issues about when police must obtain a warrant, what must support the warrant, and what the warrant must say. Recurring questions include whether exceptions to the warrant requirement developed before cell phones and the internet apply to electronic data and the point at which police use of surveillance technology interferes with individuals reasonable expectation of privacy. EPIC works to ensure that advancing technology does not erode Fourth Amendment rights, primarily by participating as a friend of the court in important Fourth Amendment case.

In two seminal casesRileyv. California(2014) andCarpenter v. United States(2018)the Supreme Court has recognized that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their cell phone and in their historical location information. These cases show that the Court is reluctant to extend pre-digital warrant exceptions to new technological situations.

InRiley, the Court decided that the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement did not apply to cell phones. Under the traditional search-incident-to-arrest exception, law enforcement did not need a warrant to search objects on a person being arrested because the officers safety during the arrest depended on ascertaining whether the objects were weapons or contained weapons. InRiley, the Supreme Court refused to expand this exception to searches of cell phones during arrests because police do not need to look at the contents of the phone to determine whether the phone is a threat to their safety. The Court found that the warrantless search of a cell phone would be an unreasonable invasion of the persons privacy because of the vast amount of personal information it contained.

Similarly, inCarpenter, the Court found that police needed a warrant to obtain weeks-long records of peoples movements generated by their cell phones, refusing to expand the third-party exception to the warrant requirement. Under the traditional third-party exception, people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information held by a third party. InCarpenter, law enforcement attempted to use this exception to justify obtaining cell phone tower location records from the defendants phone carrier without first getting a warrant. The Court ruled that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements over a several weeks-long period because the information creates a revealing portrait of the persons daily life.

EPICfightsto ensure that our constitutional rights are not eroded by new technologies, primarily by participating as a friend of the court in important Fourth Amendment cases.

EPIC has filed briefs in cases about whether school administrators may search throughstudents cell phoneswithout consent, whether the police may collect peoplesDNAbefore they have been convicted of a crime, whether cities may compile information about peoplese-scooterrides, and whether the police may collect a personspublic transportation recordswithout a warrant. EPIC has also intervened in cases involving the scope and methods used in searches of private information, such as whether police who have probable cause to search a cell phone for one crime may conduct awholesale searchof the phones entire contents for any crimes, whether police can search electronic dataautomatically scanned and reported by service providerswithout first obtaining a warrant, and whether law enforcement may search through phones without a warrantnear the border.

More:

Fourth Amendment EPIC - Electronic Privacy Information Center

Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

1964 amendment prohibiting poll taxes

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

Southern states of the former Confederate States of America adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites (and following passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, women) from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.

When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia. The amendment prohibited requiring a poll tax for voters in federal elections. But it was not until 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 63 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It said these violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent litigation related to potential discriminatory effects of voter registration requirements has generally been based on application of this clause.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

Poll tax

Cumulative poll tax (missed poll taxes from prior years must also be paid to vote)

No poll tax

Southern states had adopted the poll tax as a requirement for voting as part of a series of laws in the late 19th century intended to exclude black Americans from politics so far as practicable without violating the Fifteenth Amendment. This required that voting not be limited by "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". All voters were required to pay the poll tax, but in practice it most affected the poor. Notably this affected both African Americans and poor white voters, some of whom had voted with Populist and Fusionist candidates in the late 19th century, temporarily disturbing Democratic rule. Proponents of the poll tax downplayed this aspect and assured white voters they would not be affected. Passage of poll taxes began in earnest in the 1890s, as Democrats wanted to prevent another Populist-Republican coalition. Despite election violence and fraud, African Americans were still winning numerous local seats. By 1902, all eleven states of the former Confederacy had enacted a poll tax, many within new constitutions that contained other provisions as barriers to voter registration, such as literacy or comprehension tests administered subjectively by white workers. The poll tax was used together with other devices such as grandfather clauses and the "white primary" designed to exclude blacks, as well as threats and acts of violence. For example, potential voters had to be "assessed" in Arkansas, and blacks were utterly ignored in the assessment.

From 1900 to 1937, such use of the poll tax was nearly ignored by the federal government. Several state-level initiatives repealed poll taxes during this period for two reasons: firstly that they encouraged corruption since wealthy persons could and would pay other people's poll taxes;[3][4] secondly, because they discouraged white voting more than many populist Southern politicians desired. The poll tax survived a legal challenge in the 1937 Supreme Court case Breedlove v. Suttles, which unanimously ruled that

[The] privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the state and, save as restrained by the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the state may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate.[5]

The issue remained prominent, as most African Americans in the South were disenfranchised. President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke out against the tax. He publicly called it "a remnant of the Revolutionary period" that the country had moved past. However, Roosevelt's favored liberal Democrats in the South lost in the 1938 primaries to the reigning conservative Southern Democrats, and he backed off the issue. He felt that he needed Southern Democratic votes to pass New Deal programs and did not want to further antagonize them. Still, efforts at the Congressional level to abolish the poll tax continued. A 1939 bill to abolish the poll tax in federal elections was tied up by the Southern Block, lawmakers whose long tenure in office from a one-party region gave them seniority and command of numerous important committee chairmanships. A discharge petition was able to force the bill to be considered, and the House passed the bill 25484. However, the bill was unable to defeat a filibuster in the Senate by Southern senators and a few Northern allies who valued the support of the powerful and senior Southern seats. This bill would be re-proposed in the next several Congresses. It came closest to passage during World War II, when opponents framed abolition as a means to help overseas soldiers vote. However, after learning that the US Supreme Court decision Smith v. Allwright (1944) banned the use of "white primary", the Southern block refused to approve abolition of the poll tax.

In 1946, the Senate came close to passing the bill. 24 Democrats and 15 Republicans approved an end to debate, while 7non-southern Democrats and 7Republicans joined the 19 Southern Democrats in opposition. The result was a 3933 vote in favor of the bill, but a cloture vote to end the filibuster required a two-thirds supermajority of 48 votes at the time, and so the bill was not brought to a vote. Those in favor of abolition of the poll tax considered a constitutional amendment after the 1946 defeat, but that idea did not advance either.

The tenor of the debate changed in the 1940s. Southern politicians tried to re-frame the debate as a constitutional issue, but private correspondence indicates that black disenfranchisement was still the true concern. For instance, Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo declared, "If the poll tax bill passes, the next step will be an effort to remove the registration qualification, the educational qualification of Negroes. If that is done we will have no way of preventing the Negroes from voting." This fear explains why even Southern Senators from states that had abolished the poll tax still opposed the bill; they did not want to set a precedent that the federal government could interfere in state elections.[citation needed]

President Harry S. Truman established the President's Committee on Civil Rights, which among other issues investigated the poll tax. Considering that opposition to federal poll tax regulation in 1948 was claimed as based on the Constitution, the Committee noted that a constitutional amendment might be the best way to proceed. Still, little occurred during the 1950s. Members of the anti-poll tax movement laid low during the anti-Communist frenzy of the period; some of the main proponents of poll tax abolition, such as Joseph Gelders and Vito Marcantonio, had been committed Marxists.

President John F. Kennedy returned to this issue. His administration urged Congress to adopt and send such an amendment to the states for ratification. He considered the constitutional amendment the best way to avoid a filibuster, as the claim that federal abolition of the poll tax was unconstitutional would be moot. Still, some liberals opposed Kennedy's action, feeling that an amendment would be too slow compared to legislation. Spessard Holland, a conservative Democrat from Florida, introduced the amendment to the Senate. Holland had opposed most civil rights legislation during his career.[13] Holland himself had tried several times ever since he entered the US Senate in 1946 to ban the poll tax but was unsuccessful.[14]

Kennedy's gaining his support helped splinter the monolithic Southern opposition to the amendment. Ratification of the amendment was relatively quick, taking slightly more than a year; it was rapidly ratified by state legislatures across the country from August 1962 to January 1964.[citation needed]

President Lyndon B. Johnson called the amendment a "triumph of liberty over restriction" and "a verification of people's rights".[15] States that had maintained the poll tax were more reserved. Mississippi's Attorney General, Joseph Turner Patterson, complained about the complexity of two sets of voters those who had paid their poll tax and could vote in all elections, and those who had not and could vote only in federal elections.[15] Additionally, non-payers could still be deterred by such requirements as having to register far in advance of the election and retain records of such registration.[16] Some states also continued to exercise discrimination in the application of literacy tests.

Ratified amendment, 19621964

Ratified amendment post-enactment, 1977, 1989, 2002, 2009

Rejected amendment

Did not ratify amendment

Congress proposed the Twenty-fourth Amendment on August 27, 1962.[17][18] The amendment was submitted to the states on September 24, 1962, after it passed with the requisite two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.[15] The final vote in the House was 29586 (13215 in the House Republican Conference and 16371 in the House Democratic Caucus) with 54 members voting present or abstaining,[19] while in the Senate the final vote was 7716 (301 in the Senate Republican Conference and 4715 in the Senate Democratic Caucus) with 7members voting present or abstaining.[20] The following states ratified the amendment:

Ratification was completed on January 23, 1964. The Georgia legislature did make a last-second attempt to be the 38th state to ratify. This was a surprise as "no Southern help could be expected"[16] for the amendment. The Georgia Senate quickly and unanimously passed it, but the House did not act in time.[15] Georgia's ratification was apparently dropped after South Dakota's ratification.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:

The following state rejected the amendment:

The following states have not ratified the amendment:

Arkansas effectively repealed its poll tax for all elections with Amendment 51 to the Arkansas Constitution at the November 1964 general election, several months after this amendment was ratified. The poll-tax language was not completely stricken from its Constitution until Amendment 85 in 2008.[21] Of the five states originally affected by this amendment, Arkansas was the only one to repeal its poll tax; the other four retained their taxes. These were struck down in 1966 by the US Supreme Court decision in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), which ruled poll taxes unconstitutional even for state elections. Federal district courts in Alabama and Texas, respectively, struck down these states' poll taxes less than two months before the Harper ruling was issued.

The state of Virginia accommodated the amendment by providing an "escape clause" to the poll tax. In lieu of paying the poll tax, a prospective voter could file paperwork to gain a certificate establishing a place of residence in Virginia. The papers would have to be filed six months in advance of voting, and the voter had to provide a copy of that certificate at the time of voting. This measure was expected to decrease the number of legal voters.[22] In the 1965 Supreme Court decision Harman v. Forssenius, the Court unanimously found such measures unconstitutional. It declared that for federal elections, "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed."[23]

While not directly related to the Twenty-fourth Amendment, the Harper case held that the poll tax was unconstitutional at every level, not just for federal elections. The Harper decision relied upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. As such, issues related to whether burdens on voting are equivalent to poll taxes in discriminatory effect have usually been litigated on Equal Protection grounds since.

See the article here:

Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Trump legal counsel vows ‘Fourth Amendment based’ challenge to Mar-a …

Former President Trump's legal counsel said on the Mark Levin Show that he's preparing to file a Fourth Amendment-related legal challenge "very soon" against the Department of Justice in relation to the Mar-a-Lago raid.

James Trusty, a former federal prosecutor, said that Trump's legal team is going to "weigh in very strong and very hard," stating that they are going to be "attacking" the search warrant used in the FBI's raid on the former president's Florida estate.

"It should be something that gets publicly filed. So the whole United States will get to read this thing," Trusty said regarding the action the former president will take. As for the timing of the move, Trusty said Monday is a "possiblity" but added "it's probably going to be more like hours."

"It's coming very soon," he said.

FEDERAL COURT RULES DOJ MUST RELEASE INTERNAL MEMO TO THEN-AG BARR STATING TRUMP DIDN'T OBSTRUCT JUSTICE

Former U.S. President Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower to meet with New York Attorney General Letitia James for a civil investigation on August 10, 2022 in New York City. (James Devaney/GC Images)

"You know, the Fourth Amendment requires particularity. It requires narrowness to the intrusion on the person's home. And this warrant had language in it. And keep in mind, all we've seen is a warrant and an inventory. But the warrant has language in it about if you find a classified document, you can take the whole box around, it and you can take any boxes near it. And that's really the functional equivalent of a general search. There's just no limit to that kind of scope in the warrant," Trusty said on the Mark Levin Show.

Trusty said that Trump is "entitled" to a specific inventory list of what was taken from Mar-a-Lago, and went on to say that the property receipt, which was publicly released, is a "very vague document."

"We are way behind in terms of the government playing fair and giving us the details that we're entitled to," Trusty said.

He also called it "perplexing" that FBI agents grabbed items such as attorney-client privileged information and passports belonging to the former president.

Agents from the FBI executed a search warrant on Trump's Florida estate on Aug. 8 and seized items, which include 11 sets of material that are listed as classified, as well as some that were marked as top secret.

Trump has denied that any of the materials in his possession at Mar-a-Lago were classified.

Trump's attorney also called for a "judicial intervention" at the district court level that "can help us vindicate the First Amendment rights of the president," adding "we're going to come out swinging."

JUDGE SCHEDULES HEARING ON UNSEALING FBI MAR-A-LAGO SEARCH RECORDS

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Hilton Anatole on Aug. 6, 2022 in Dallas, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Trusty called for a third party to get involved with the goal of stopping the Justice Department "in their tracks when it comes to inspecting these documents."

"They shouldn't have anybody filter team or not, looking at these materials right now because of the nature of this search and the misrepresentations, frankly, that we're getting from the DOJ about why they did the search and even how they conducted it," Trusty said on the Mark Levin Show.

He said that this is "bizarre territory" and said that it is "worrisome territory in terms of the historic precedent of it," also stating that there are large amounts of documents that were taken that are subject to privilege.

"We think there's a legitimate large swath of potential documents subject to privilege, and we're not willing to just take it on faith," Trusty said.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Donald Trump leaves NYC post FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago resort (Felipe Ramales: Fox News Digital)

Trump previewed the legal challenge on Friday in a Truth Social post, stating that a "major motion" would soon be filed.

"A major motion pertaining to the Fourth Amendment will soon be filed concerning the illegal Break-In of my home, Mar-a-Lago, right before the ever important Mid-Term Elections. My rights, together with the rights of all Americans, have been violated at a level rarely seen before in our Country. Remember, they even spied on my campaign. The greatest Witch Hunt in USA history has been going on for six years, with no consequences to the scammers. It should not be allowed to continue!," Trump said.

Adam Sabes is a writer for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to Adam.Sabes@fox.com and on Twitter @asabes10.

See more here:

Trump legal counsel vows 'Fourth Amendment based' challenge to Mar-a ...

With The Onions support, satirist asks court to revive lawsuit against police who arrested him – SCOTUSblog

petitions of the week ByKalvis Golde on Oct 14, 2022 at 6:10 pm

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions were watching is available here.

In a case that prompted satirical news outlet The Onion to file its first-ever amicus brief in the Supreme Court, an Ohio man sued police for violating his constitutional rights when they arrested him for creating a Facebook page parodying the local police department. This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether those officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Anthony Novak, a resident of Parma, Ohio, created a Facebook page with the same name, cover photo, and profile picture as the city police departments page. In the 12 hours Novaks page was live, it went viral thanks to six satirical posts announcing, for example, a new hiring initiative strongly encouraging minorities not to apply and a no means no fair at which residents could remove their names from the sex-offender registry by completing a series of puzzles.

After obtaining a warrant to investigate the owner of the page, police arrested Novak under an Ohio law that makes it a felony to disrupt, interrupt, or impair police operations. Novak was acquitted at trial. He then sued the officers who arrested him for violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit granted the officers qualified immunity. Before taking down the page, Novak had copied a disclaimer posted on the departments real Facebook page decrying the fake account and deleted user comments that his own page was a parody. Because no court case has clearly established that those actions are protected speech, the 6th Circuit held, the officers could reasonably believe that some of Novaks Facebook activity was not parody protected under the First Amendment.

In Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio, Novak asks the justices to clarify when qualified immunity is available if the justification for probable cause relies on speech. He argues that his arrest was retaliation for his speech, and that the officers conduct was an obvious constitutional violation not entitled to qualified immunity. Novak also points out that the 6th Circuit originally sided with him at an earlier stage in the case: Imagine if The Onion, Judge Amul Thapar wrote, were required to disclaim that parodical headlines are, in reality, false.

Answering that call, The Onion filed an amicus brief in support of Novaks petition from the court of appeals subsequent ruling for the officers. In urging the court to take up the case, the magazine tells the justices that the 6th Circuits ruling threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purely incidentally, forms the basis of The Onions writers paychecks.

Donziger v. United States22-274Issues: (1) Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2) authorizes judicial appointments of inferior executive officers; and (2) if so, whether such appointments violate the appointments clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Pavlock v. Holcomb22-282Issues: (1) Whether a judicial taking under the Fifth and 14th Amendments is a cognizable cause of action; and (2) whether a property owner who is deprived of property under the authority of a state court decision may seek prospective injunctive relief in federal court to halt encroachment on their property by state officials acting under the authority of that decision.

Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio22-293Issues: (1) Whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for arresting an individual based solely on speech parodying the government, so long as no case has previously held the particular speech is protected; and (2) whether the court should reconsider the doctrine of qualified immunity.

County of Ontario, New York v. Gunsalus22-294Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in refusing to extend the holding ofBFP v. Resolution Trust Corp.to a lawfully conducted tax foreclosure, where New York tax foreclosure law provides for ample notice, opportunity to cure and judicial oversight of the process, and where there is no evidence of a clear and manifest intent by Congress to allow11 U.S.C. 548to impinge upon the important state interests in securing real estate titles and collecting real property taxes.

More here:

With The Onions support, satirist asks court to revive lawsuit against police who arrested him - SCOTUSblog

Accused killer sent home in Indianapolis triple murder trial; evidence thrown out – WTHR

A Marion County judge gave the order releasing Caden Smith, who is charged with killing three friends on the south side last October.

INDIANAPOLIS A teenager accused of killing three people last year is at home with an ankle bracelet, instead of behind bars.

A Marion County judge gave the order releasing Caden Smith, along with throwing out key evidence in the case.

Family members of the victims call that decision dangerous and say they're frustrated with the courts. They expected to be in a courtroom Monday, watching justice begin to play out.

"He was just a really good person, great father, loyal to his family. He's just truly missed," said Michael James Jr.'s mother, Gladys Larsen.

It's been one year since Larsen was murdered, one of three young men shot multiple times and left in a field on the south side of Indianapolis.

"Surreal," said Michael James Sr. "I've experienced losses, but nothing like this."

His parents are stunned that a judge recently let his accused killer out of jail.

Smith's trial, which was originally supposed to start Monday, has been stalled. The judge in the case released the teenager with a GPS ankle monitor. He's at home and just can't leave the state.

"I'm at disbelief. Really puzzled," James said.

"I just don't understand how and why this is being allowed," Larsen added.

Smith is accused of killing James, Abdulla Mubarak and Joseph Thomas on two separate days last October.

According to court documents, IMPD detectives say they found the gun matching bullet fragments in the boys' bodies in Smith's home on West Thompson Road, along with a bulletproof vest, bags of drugs and several cell phones with internet searches like "Does freezing a gun remove DNA" and "How many deaths is considered a mass murder."

But Marion County Judge Jennifer P. Harrison recently ruled that law enforcement violated Smith's Fourth Amendment rights in the search warrant, even though the original warrant was signed and approved by another judge.

Harrison also suppressed key evidence in the case, including the alleged murder weapon.

Family members, including the mother of Michael's young children, call the decision dangerous.

"I've got kids here and now I've got to sit here and think if this kid cuts off his anklet, is someone gonna get him in time before he's gone?" she asked. "And now I have to worry about my kids."

"I think it is very dangerous," Larsen said. "You find the murder weapon in someone's home and you set them free on GPS? Who's to say this is not going to happen again? Who's to say he's not going to seek revenge on family members? There are a lot of variables here we are very concerned about. I am actually a former Chicago police officer and I do not put anything past Caden Smith."

The Marion County Prosecutor's Office objected to Smith's release and Indiana's attorney general has now filed an appeal in the case. Prosecutors also asked for, and were granted, a stay in the case until the appeal is heard.

Attorneys are set to meet again in January.

Family members of the young men killed say they just want justice.

"We have to put things in motion so we can get Caden Smith back behind bars where he belongs before he hurts someone else," Larsen said.

"I'm just in disbelief, because these three young men don't have a chance to share love and be with their families anymore," James added, "because a lot of families were affected by this heinous act."

Follow this link:

Accused killer sent home in Indianapolis triple murder trial; evidence thrown out - WTHR

Some Texas Lawyers Think Greg Abbott’s Border Initiative Is UnconstitutionalBut They’re Afraid to Challenge It – Texas Monthly

When Jess Alberto Guzmn Curipoma, an engineer in Ecuador, decided to escape rampant gang violence and head to the United States last fall, he did not imagine the legal dragnet that would ensnare him. Curipoma knew a bit about the asylum process in the U.S. and planned to turn himself in to federal immigration authorities at the border. But a few months before he began his journey north, Texas governor Greg Abbott launched a showy initiative, Operation Lone Star, under which Texas law enforcement agents were deployed to arrest thousands of immigrants on state trespassing charges. When Curipoma crossed the Rio Grande into rural Kinney County in September, he was arrested by state troopers, not federal agents. Then, because Kinney County was arresting so many migrants and could not handle its caseload, Curipoma spent weeks in a Frio County jail, about one hundred miles to the east, awaiting a hearing.

Curipomas family contacted Angelica Cogliano and Addy Mir, Austin-based criminal defense attorneys, who secured his release. As his hearing was delayed with no relief in sight in backlogged Kinney County courts, Cogliano filed a writ of habeas corpus in Travis County, home to Austin, arguing that the operation that had imprisoned her client had unconstitutionally violated the preemption doctrine, which holds that state laws cannot interfere with federal authority on matters of immigration or otherwise. A state district judge agreed, finding that Operation Lone Star was indeed preempting federal immigration enforcement. Even the Travis County district attorneys office, our adversary at the hearing, agreed with us, and we were all in tears after that, Cogliano said.

On the heels of the ruling, the future of Abbotts program appeared in peril. Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, a nonprofit providing legal services to those in poverty, filed more than four hundred cases in the Austin court that issued the Curipoma decision. But Kinney County appealed in February on the basis that it, not Travis County, was the proper venue for the hearing. The Curipoma case, along with the hundreds of similar ones, has been held up since then.

As their clients fates remained in limbo, many lawyers representing migrants hoped that constitutional lawyers would bring a larger challenge to Abbotts border security initiative that could offer wholesale relief. Preemption was on the radar of everyone litigating criminal cases in Operation Lone Star, Cogliano said. She reached out to S. Rafe Foreman and Susan Hutchison, Fort Worthbased attorneys, and convinced them to get involved in bringing a larger suit.

In April, Hutchison, who has spent the better part of four decades working on employment discrimination and civil rights cases, sued state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. She brought claims on Fourth Amendment and equal-protection grounds, arguing that Operation Lone Star enforcement constituted an unreasonable search and seizure and targeted her clients because of their race. But, above all, Hutchison built her case on preemption. There was a widely held view among attorneys and other legal experts that Texas officials were in flagrant violation of a 2012 Supreme Court ruling that found that an Arizona show me your papers law interfered with federal immigration authority. In June of 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union argued in a letter to Kinney County officials that state and local officials had no grounds for enforcing federal immigration laws, citing the federal preemption doctrine. In the fall of 2021, more than two dozen members of Congress, including Joaquin Castro, a Democrat who represents much of San Antonio, sent a letter to U.S. attorney general Merrick Garland and Alejandro Mayorkas, head of the Department of Homeland Security, accusing Abbott of violating the Constitutions Supremacy Clause, from which the doctrine of preemption is derived.

And yet, months later, the preemption challenge has not come. Hutchison says that, from the outset, the ACLU privately urged her against bringing forward a case built on preemption, and the Department of Justice never rallied around her lawsuit. While representatives in neither organization granted requests for interviews about their rationales, some legal scholars believe the organizations feared that the federal judiciary had shifted so far to the right that itwould use the Operation Lone Star suit to overturn the Arizona precedent. Everybody and their brother, including the ACLU, was telling us to drop the preemption claim, Hutchison said. And considering the current state of the Fifth Circuit, and the Supreme Court, making a preemption argument might just be giving Texas a chance to overturn Arizona, or at least make it super narrow.

Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, said the refusal to sue on preemption grounds is part of a larger strategy to avoid bringing precedent-setting cases before the Supreme Court with its 63 right-wing majority. To avoid adverse precedents, sometimes you make the decisions you may not like. Thats just how litigation works, Blackman said.

Hutchison has subsequently refocused her case, dropping the preemption argument in favor of the equal-protection and Fourth Amendment ones. Regardless of how her ongoing lawsuit on those grounds resolves, experts think Texas has already won in many respects. Abbott and state leaders have designed a program that made clever use of the states existing criminal infrastructure to avoid a sweeping lawsuit for more than a year and counting. An official in Texas attorney general Ken Paxtons office, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told me that Paxton believes Arizona was incorrectly decided, but added with a dash of bravado that the precedent doesnt apply to Operation Lone Star in the first place, since the program simply relies on enforcing Texas laws already on the books, including laws against trespassing.

Cogliano acknowledged that the programs design makes it hard to challenge. Texas wants Arizona reversed, but instead of tackling it directly, and creating state laws that let us litigate them on their face, theyre hiding from it under the blanket of criminal justice, she said. Texas is a mastermind at manipulating the way the legal system is supposed to work.

Many lawyers argue, nonetheless, that Operation Lone Star does, in fact, preempt federal immigration authority, even if not by letter of the law. Geoffrey Hoffman, a former professor and director of the immigration clinic at the University of Houston Law School and a newly appointed immigration judge in Houston, said, While they are prosecuting for trespass, a state-level crime, the actual implementation has been to enforce immigration law, and that interferes with federal policies and the federal statutory scheme. He and other lawyers point to the evidence of who is being arrested on trespassing charges. In Kinney County, for example, officials say that law enforcement agents have arrested just three individuals for trespassing who were not immigrants since Operation Lone Star beganagainst the more than four thousand arrested who had just crossed the border.

Lawyers also note that Abbott speaks of Operation Lone Star as a border enforcement initiative, not one designed to stop trespassing. The governor has repeatedly referred to the program as a way to secure the border despite what he identifies as the Biden administrations refusal to do so, and hes said the policy will senda message to those south of the Rio Grande to not attempt a crossing. He also once tweeted that Lone Star was a program to arrest and jail illegal immigrants. Operation Lone Star prosecutors have spoken of the program in similar terms. When the first migrant defendant arrested under Operation Lone Star was convicted in May and sentenced to a year in jail on a misdemeanor, Tony Hackebeil, the San Antoniobased prosecutor in the case, declared the ruling had sent a message to those considering crossing the border. The trespassing prosecution, he seemed to suggest, was just a means to an end.

The Biden administration sued Texas in July of last year over a specific Lone Star directive that sought to prevent drivers from transporting migrants suspected of carrying COVID-19. And the Texas Tribune and ProPublica reported this July that Justice Department officials are investigating Operation Lone Star for alleged civil rights abuses. But Texas lawyers say the Department of Justices silence on Texass overall enforcement activities appears to acknowledge a legal disadvantage. Others say federal authorities might even be cooperating with Texas. Homeland Security and the Texas Department of Public Safety declined to comment for this story, but according to Amrutha Jindal, chief defender of migrants arrested under Lone Star at the Lubbock Private Defenders Office, the state initiative would not be possible without the support of federal immigration authorities. Were seeing the U.S. Border Patrol apprehend individuals that they later turn over to the Texas Department of Public Safety for prosecution, and then federal law enforcement picks them up after theyve posted bond or their case is complete, Jindal said. And state law enforcement relies on Border Patrol technology, and sharing information over radio dispatch channels.

Meanwhile, as the Curipoma case has been appealed, it has become effectively impossible to pursue habeas corpus relief for migrants.The high [we felt with the release] of Curipoma has been stomped on by our inability to address the real issue, Cogliano said. She added that she understands the risks of challenging Operation Lone Star more broadly, but that playing it safe offers little comfort to her clients. Since his release, Curipoma has settled in Texas and has kept busy working on his graduate dissertation in engineering, but many others like him remain imprisoned while awaiting long-delayed trials. The Biden administration doesnt have to look our clients in the face. They dont see the desperation, or what theyre enduring in prison, Cogliano said. There comes a point when you have to stop being scared.

Originally posted here:

Some Texas Lawyers Think Greg Abbott's Border Initiative Is UnconstitutionalBut They're Afraid to Challenge It - Texas Monthly

Utah Court of Appeals reverses sex offender’s conviction, claiming state failed to prosecute case for 2 years – FOX 13 News Utah

SALT LAKE CITY The Utah Court of Appeals has reversed a sex offender's conviction after they say prosecutors failed to notify him they'd charged him or were prosecuting him.

In to a 74-page document filed by the Utah Court of Appeals on Friday, Judge Ryan Harris said the appellant, Chad Hintze, wasn't made aware of a charge against him for two years.

The charge, according to the documents, stemmed from an incident in June of 2016 in which Hintze and a teenage girl were eating and sitting on a park bench along the Jordan River Trail. Hintze and the girl were approached by three uniformed officers on bike patrol.

Hintze wasn't permitted to be there because he was convicted of attempted unlawful sexual activity with a minor in 2011. He was required to register as a sex offender following that incident.

For the 2016 incident, Hintze was ultimately charged by the state with one count of violation by a sex offender of a protected area.

Judge Harris' opinion in the documents goes on to say the state did not immediately file charges against Hintze.

In March of 2017, Hintze was charged with forcible sexual abuse, which is considered a second-degree felony. This incident happened in a separate and unrelated case. In August of 2017, Hintze was sentenced to a prison term of zero-to-five years based on that conviction.

"He should have spent separate times in jail for his two separate offenses," said Danielle Ahn, a candidate for Salt Lake County District Attorney.

Instead, Ahn says, he was punished for just the incident that took place in 2017.

It's something Ahn says is unacceptable.

"It's an injustice to the defendant, it's an injustice to the community and to the victim," she said.

FOX 13 News sat down with Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill Monday afternoon. He said the 2016 case involving Hintze was filed in 2018, which is within the two-year statute of limitations.

"When this case was filed, he had apparently been gone to prison, so we filed the charges, we asked for a warrant," said Gill.

Looking back on the case, Gill said Hintze was not served that warrant until the Board of Pardons was reviewing his case, while Hintze was housed in Kane County.

As for the Utah Court of Appeals decision, Gill says another issue brought up pertaining to that 2016 case was the underlying issue of the initial police contact, and whether that violated Hintze's Fourth Amendment rights in terms of probable cause.

"There was a hearing that was done, that at that time, the state prevailed on that," Gill said. "Tthe court ruled and they overruled."

FOX 13 News asked Gill about Hintze's status and if he was a free man at the moment, but the DA said he didn't know whether Hintze was in custody or not.

Bethany Crisp is the outreach coordinator with the Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

"We just help, you know, create that statewide collaboration," she said.

Crisp said that in her line of work, victims often have a difficult and traumatic time when reporting crimes against them.

"The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network show that more than two out of every three sexual assaults go unreported," she said.

Crisp said some victims go through a lengthy trial only to then see the perpetrator walk free, which she says also makes it difficult for many of them to decide if they want to want to report that kind of crime or not.

"That's why this matter of reporting and making sure that people feel comfortable reporting is a public health concern," said Crisp.

In a split ruling, judges ruled that Hintze's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. On that basis, they decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss the charge from 2016.

FOX 13 News also spoke with former federal judge Paul Cassell about the dismissed case.

"So this was a case in which the DA'S office had filed charges and then took no action for two years to move the case forward," said Cassell, who is now a criminal law professor at the University of Utah, "And so if we're looking for who's responsible for the delay here, the Utah Court of Appeals has said the Salt Lake DA'S Office is the one that's ultimately responsible for moving this case forward and failed to do so."

Cassell went on to say that if the charges had been filed properly, it could have prevented the other crime from taking place.

Read this article:

Utah Court of Appeals reverses sex offender's conviction, claiming state failed to prosecute case for 2 years - FOX 13 News Utah

What is Fog Reveal? A legal scholar explains the app some police forces are using to track people without a warrant – Cobb County Courier

by Anne Toomey McKenna, University of Richmond [This article first appeared in The Conversation, republished with permission]

Government agencies and private security companies in the U.S. have found a cost-effective way to engage in warrantless surveillance of individuals, groups and places: a pay-for-access web tool called Fog Reveal.

The tool enables law enforcement officers to see patterns of life where and when people work and live, with whom they associate and what places they visit. The tools maker, Fog Data Science, claims to have billions of data points from over 250 million U.S. mobile devices.

Fog Reveal came to light when the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit that advocates for online civil liberties, was investigating location data brokers and uncovered the program through a Freedom of Information Act request. EFFs investigation found that Fog Reveal enables law enforcement and private companies to identify and track people and monitor specific places and events, like rallies, protests, places of worship and health care clinics. The Associated Press found that nearly two dozen government agencies across the country have contracted with Fog Data Science to use the tool.

Government use of Fog Reveal highlights a problematic difference between data privacy law and electronic surveillance law in the U.S. It is a difference that creates a sort of loophole, permitting enormous quantities of personal data to be collected, aggregated and used in ways that are not transparent to most persons. That difference is far more important in the wake of the Supreme Courts Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization decision, which revoked the constitutional right to an abortion. Dobbs puts the privacy of reproductive health information and related data points, including relevant location data, in significant jeopardy.

The trove of personal data Fog Data Science is selling, and government agencies are buying, exists because ever-advancing technologies in smart devices collect increasingly vast amounts of intimate data. Without meaningful choice or control on the users part, smart device and app makers collect, use and sell that data. It is a technological and legal dilemma that threatens individual privacy and liberty, and it is a problem I have worked on for years as a practicing lawyer, researcher and law professor.

U.S. intelligence agencies have long used technology to engage in surveillance programs like PRISM, collecting data about individuals from tech companies like Google, particularly since 9/11 ostensibly for national security reasons. These programs typically are authorized by and subject to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act. While there is critical debate about the merits and abuses of these laws and programs, they operate under a modicum of court and congressional oversight.

Domestic law enforcement agencies also use technology for surveillance, but generally with greater restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitutions Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and federal electronic surveillance law require domestic law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before tracking someones location using a GPS device or cell site location information.

Fog Reveal is something else entirely. The tool made possible by smart device technology and that difference between data privacy and electronic surveillance law protections allows domestic law enforcement and private entities to buy access to compiled data about most U.S. mobile phones, including location data. It enables tracking and monitoring of people on a massive scale without court oversight or public transparency. The company has made few public comments, but details of its technology have come out through the referenced EFF and AP investigations.

Every smartphone has an advertising ID a series of numbers that uniquely identifies the device. Supposedly, advertising IDs are anonymous and not linked directly to the subscribers name. In reality, that may not be the case.

Private companies and apps harness smartphones GPS capabilities, which provide detailed location data, and advertising IDs, so that wherever a smartphone goes and any time a user downloads an app or visits a website, it creates a trail. Fog Data Science says it obtains this commercially available data from data brokers, permitting the tool to follow devices through their advertising IDs. While these numbers do not contain the name of the phones user, they can easily be traced to homes and workplaces to help police identify the user and establish pattern-of-life analyses.

Law enforcement use of Fog Reveal puts a spotlight on that loophole between U.S. data privacy law and electronic surveillance law. The hole is so large that despite Supreme Court rulings requiring a warrant for law enforcement to use GPS and cell site data to track persons it is not clear whether law enforcement use of Fog Reveal is unlawful.

Electronic surveillance law protections and data privacy mean two very different things in the U.S. There are robust federal electronic surveillance laws governing domestic surveillance. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act regulates when and how domestic law enforcement and private entities can wiretap, i.e., intercept a persons communications, or track a persons location.

Coupled with Fourth Amendment protections, ECPA generally requires law enforcement agencies to get a warrant based on probable cause to intercept someones communications or track someones location using GPS and cell site location information. Also, ECPA permits an officer to get a warrant only when the officer is investigating certain crimes, so the law limits its own authority to permit surveillance of only serious crimes. Violation of ECPA is a crime.

The vast majority of states have laws that mirror ECPA, although some states, like Maryland, afford citizens more protections from unwanted surveillance.

The Fog Reveal tool raises enormous privacy and civil liberties concerns, yet what it is selling the ability to track most persons at all times may be permissible because the U.S. lacks a comprehensive federal data privacy law. ECPA permits interceptions and electronic surveillance when a person consents to that surveillance.

With little in the way of federal data privacy laws, once someone clicks I agree on a pop-up box, there are few limitations on private entities collection, use and aggregation of user data, including location data. This is the loophole between data privacy and electronic surveillance law protections, and it creates the framework that underpins the massive U.S. data sharing market.

AP investigative journalist Garance Burke explains how she and her colleagues uncovered law enforcement use of Fog Reveal.

Without robust federal data privacy safeguards, smart device manufacturers, app makers and data brokers will continue, unfettered, to utilize smart devices sophisticated sensing technologies and GPS capabilities to collect and commercially aggregate vast quantities of intimate and revealing data. As it stands, that data trove may not be protected from law enforcement agencies. But the permitted commercial use of advertising IDs to track devices and users without meaningful notice and consent could change if the American Data Privacy Protection Act, approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 53-2 on July 20, 2022, passes.

ADPPAs future is uncertain. The app industry is strongly resisting any curtailment of its data collection practices, and some states are resisting ADPPAs federal preemption provision, which could minimize the protections afforded via state data privacy laws. For example, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has said lawmakers will need to address concerns from California that the bill overrides the states stronger protections before she will call for a vote on ADPPA.

The stakes are high. Recent law enforcement investigations highlight the real-world consequences that flow from the lack of robust data privacy protection. Given the Dobbs ruling, these situations will proliferate absent congressional action.

Anne Toomey McKenna, Visiting Professor of Law, University of Richmond

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

View original post here:

What is Fog Reveal? A legal scholar explains the app some police forces are using to track people without a warrant - Cobb County Courier

HIGHPEAK ENERGY, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance…

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On October 14, 2022 (the "Fifth Amendment Effective Date"), HighPeak Energy,Inc. (the "Company"), as borrower, Fifth Third Bank, National Association, asthe existing administrative agent (the "Existing Agent"), Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as the new administrative agent (the "New Agent"), theguarantors party thereto and the lenders party thereto entered into that certainFifth Amendment to Credit Agreement (the "Credit Agreement Amendment"), which,upon effectiveness, amended that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of December17, 2020 (as amended, restated, amended and restated, supplemented or otherwisemodified by (i) that certain First Amendment to Credit Agreement, dated as ofJune 23, 2021, (ii) that certain Second Amendment to Credit Agreement, dated asof October 1, 2021, (iii) that certain Third Amendment to Credit Agreement,dated as of February 9, 2022, (iv) that certain Fourth Amendment to CreditAgreement, dated as of June 27, 2022 and (v) the Credit Agreement Amendment,(the "Credit Agreement")), among the Company, Fifth Third Bank, NationalAssociation, as administrative agent, the guarantors party thereto and thelenders party thereto to, among other things, (i) increase the electedcommitments to $525 million and the borrowing base to $550 million, (ii) requirean additional borrowing base redetermination on or about December 1, 2022, (iii)modify the permitted dividends and distributions conditions such that minimumavailability under the credit facility must be 25% percent (as opposed to 30%before giving effect to the Credit Agreement Amendment) and (iv) appoint the NewAgent as the replacement administrative agent to replace the Existing Agent.

In addition, in connection with the Credit Agreement Amendment, to the extentthe Company incurs any additional specified unsecured senior, seniorsubordinated or subordinated future indebtedness between the Fifth AmendmentEffective Date and June 30, 2023, the Company's obligation to reduce theborrowing base by an amount equal to 25% of the principal amount of suchadditional future indebtedness shall be waived. In connection with the CreditAgreement Amendment, the lenders waived two technical events of default existingwith the Credit Agreement, as it existed prior to giving effect to the CreditAgreement Amendment, related to entering into and maintaining certain minimumhedges as of the fiscal quarters ending June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2022 andcomplying with the required current ratio as of the fiscal quarter endingSeptember 30, 2022.

The foregoing description of the Credit Agreement Amendment is qualified in itsentirety by reference to the Credit Agreement Amendment, a copy of which isattached hereto as Exhibit 10.1 and is incorporated by reference.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial

The information set forth under Item 1.01 above is hereby incorporated into thisItem 2.03 by reference.

Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.

The Company issued a press release on October 18, 2022 announcing that onOctober 18, 2022 it had entered into the Credit Agreement Amendment. A copy ofthe press release is included as Exhibit 99.4 hereto and incorporated byreference.

The information furnished pursuant to this Item 7.01 shall not be deemed to be"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act and will not beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act, unlessspecifically identified therein as being incorporated therein by reference.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Here is the original post:

HIGHPEAK ENERGY, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance...

West Virginia midterm elections: What to know about voting in Mon County – The Daily Athenaeum – thedaonline

Election season is here, and West Virginians will soon cast their ballots for a number of county, state and federal offices, as well as four proposed amendments to the state constitution.

Tuesday, Oct. 18, is the voter registration deadline in West Virginia to participate in the 2022 midterm elections. Early voting will take place from Oct. 26 to Nov. 5.

Heres what you need to know about voting in Monongalia County.

You can verify your voter registration status on the Secretary of States website by entering your full name and birthdate. From there, you can see your voter status, party affiliation, political district and polling location.

The deadline to register to vote in West Virginia is Tuesday, Oct. 18.

You can register online, by mail or in person by providing a valid ID and the last four digits of your Social Security number. Your county clerk should notify you once your application has been processed.

If you dont have a driver's license or access to your Social Security number, you can create a voter application online and deliver a signed copy to your county clerk by mail or in person.

If this is your first time registering to vote in the state, youll be required to show valid identification when registering and voting for this election. Heres a full list of acceptable IDs.

To qualify for voter registration in West Virginia, you must be a U.S. citizen and 18 years or older. You must also have a physical address in the state.

You cannot register to vote in the state if youve been convicted of a felony and are still serving a sentence, including probation or parole, or if youve been deemed mentally incapacitated by the court of law.

Heres more information on voter eligibility.

Yes, anyone in West Virginia can update their voter registration on the Secretary of State's website.

In-state students can change their voting district by providing a physical address, including college dorms and apartments.

Out-of-state students can register to vote in the state as well by providing a physical address and a valid ID. However, these students are strongly encouraged to cancel their out-of-state registration while voting in West Virginia, according to Donald Kersey, deputy legal counsel for the Secretary of State.

Although its not illegal to be registered to vote in two states, voting on two different ballots is a felony in West Virginia, according to the State Code.

In West Virginia, you can vote in person or by mail, though you must meet certain eligibility requirements.

If youre voting in person, you can confirm your polling location with the Secretary of State.

For absentee voting, you must fill out a ballot application and submit it to the county clerk at least six days before the election (Nov. 2, 2022).

Track your absentee ballot here.

A number of county, state and federal offices will be on the ballot in the November general election.

All West Virginians will vote for members of the U.S. House of Representatives, state delegates and state senators.

Offices in both the states House of Delegates and Senate are also up for grabs, with all previous position-holders running for re-election. Ballots will vary for voters based on districts and precincts.

Additionally, local elections for the Monongalia County Commission, Clerk and Circuit Clerk will also take place on Nov. 8. Both the candidate for the County Clerk and the County Circuit Clerk will run unopposed, whereas the race for the County Commission has two candidates, Democrat Bob Beach and Republican Sean Sikora.

You can look up a sample ballot on the Secretary of States website.

Voters will also be asked to weigh in on four different amendments to the states constitution, regarding tax, religion, education and impeachment.

Amendment 1: Judiciary Role in Impeachment

The first proposed amendment is aimed to clarify the Judiciarys role in impeachment proceedings and thereafter.

Currently, any state official, in either the House of Delegates or the Senate, may be impeached for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the neglect of duty, corruption or a high crime or misdemeanor. The House holds the power to impeach while the Senate is responsible for trying.

This amendment would assert that the Judiciary and its courts have no power to interfere or intervene with any impeachment proceeding of the House or Senate. The Judiciary is also prohibited from reviewing a judgment in the House or Senate regarding an impeachment.

Amendment 2: Property Tax

The proposed amendment on how much power the state should maintain over taxation may be the most controversial.

The second and most controversial amendment would permit the state to give tax cuts and exemptions for personal property taxes on tangible machinery, equipment and inventory used for business practices. It would also exempt the personal motor vehicle tax from ad valorem property taxes, which means that the tax is proportional to the value of the transaction or the property being taxed.

According to the West Virginia Center for Budget & Policy, the proposed amendment would give the legislature control over 27% of personal property taxes in the state.

Amendment 3: Incorporation of Churches

The third amendment discusses the incorporation of churches or religious denominations. This would allow for provisions to be made through general laws for securing, selling or transferring the title of a church property for purposes of the church or religious denominations.

Currently, West Virginia is the only state that prohibits any charter of incorporation to be granted to any church or religious denomination, as the provision was inherited from Virginias constitution when the state seceded. Allowing churches and religious denominations to incorporate would make it easier for them to borrow and manage money.

Amendment 4: Board Education

Lastly, the fourth amendment would clarify that any rule or policy enacted by the State Board of Education is subject to legislative review, approval, amendment or rejection. After the BOE creates a rule or policy, it must be submitted for review.

This means the state Legislature would give the final ruling over any proposed BOE rule or policy change.

View post:

West Virginia midterm elections: What to know about voting in Mon County - The Daily Athenaeum - thedaonline

NJ Appeals Court: Lower Court Mixed Up 4th And 5th Amendment And Either Way, Phone Passcodes Can Be Compelled – Techdirt

from the looking-at-the-wrong-problem-and-it's-not-even-a-problem dept

More case law on compelled passcode production and the Fifth Amendment has been generated by a New Jersey appeals court. Unfortunately, it doesnt do anything to strengthen Fifth Amendment protections against compelled production.

And thats largely because this court cant. The states Supreme Court handed down a ruling in August 2020 that limited the foregone conclusion the government needed to reach before securing a court order demanding passcode production was limited to the device and the existence of a passcode, rather than offering supporting arguments about the presumed existence of criminal evidence on the device.

That case dealt with a crooked cop whose phones were seized during an investigation. After discussing some (still unaddressed) concerns about the Fifth Amendments inconsistent application in other cases that may protect people using passwords more than people using biometric features to unlock phones, the court said that, in this case, law enforcement knew what it needed to know to surmount the foregone conclusion barrier.

The States demonstration of the passcodes existence, Andrewss previous possession and operation of the cellphones, and the passcodes self-authenticating nature render the issue here one of surrender, not testimony, and the foregone conclusion exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination thus applies. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment does not protect Andrews from compelled disclosure of the passcodes to his cellphones.

Its this case thats specifically cited in this appeals court decision [PDF]. The lower court refused to grant the governments motion to compel, citing its inability to prove the locked iPhone seized belonged to the suspect. It also said the search of the phone (which hasnt occurred yet) raised additional Fourth Amendment concerns.

Heres how everything started:

Det. Pancza and members of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force executed the three warrants at 6:00 a.m. on July 16, 2021, at defendants residence. Defendant was located in his locked bedroom. He was the only occupant of the room, and he refused to open the door. Ultimately, the officers forced entry into defendants bedroom.

During their search of defendants bedroom, officers located three electronic devices: a Samsung cell phone, an Asus laptop, and an Apple iPhone. The iPhone was found in a pull string bag hanging on the back of a computer chair.

In accordance with the search warrant, Detective Brian Migliorisi attempted to access the iPhone 7, but he was prevented from doing so because the iPhone was passcode protected. The only information Det. Migliorisi could retrieve from the iPhone was its association with the same iCloud email account from the cyber tips, the one containing defendants last name and first initial. Defendant was charged with third-degree endangering the welfare of children, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(b)(iii).

The lower court did not find these circumstances added up to proof of the defendants ownership of the iPhone.

The court denied the motion, concluding the State failed to establish defendants ownership of the iPhone and knowledge of the passcode. The court found that officers locating the iPhone in a backpack in a bedroom was insufficient to prove defendants ownership. The court also found that the phone immediately being in the vicinity of the defendant at the time of the search did not conclusively demonstrate that . . . defendant own[ed] the phone.

The appeals court disagrees. First, it points to the August 2020 Andrews decision, which limited the Fifth Amendment discussion to the government proving a passcode exists, the defendant operates or controls the device in question, and that entry of the passcode would allow investigators to access the devices contents. From what it sees here, the government has everything it needs to utilize the foregone conclusion exception.

Further, it says the Fourth Amendment concerns about the proposed search have no bearing on this discussion because the search hasnt been performed and the defendant never challenged the warrants utilized in this case. If the search is indeed determined to be overbroad, the defendant can challenge it then. But because no challenge to the probable cause basis was raised by the suspect, the lower court was wrong to bring Fourth Amendment analysis into a discussion dealing solely with compelled production.

The only standard being applied to compelled production was easily met here, the appeals court says.

The motion court found defendant was in the vicinity of the phone and concluded that this was insufficient to prove defendants ownership or operation of it. We disagree, as the court overlooked credible evidence in the record when making its findings. At the time of the search the phone was in defendants locked bedroom; he was the sole occupant and refused to let the police in. Significantly, the email address associated with the phones iCloud account incorporates defendants last name and first initial. These probative facts, which suggest that defendant owned and operated the iPhone, were omitted from the motion courts analysis.

Any further appeal efforts within the state will be foreclosed by the state Supreme Courts decision. To appeal this determination, the defendant will have to look to the top court in the land. That remains an option because this is a discussion about federal constitutional rights rather than limited to the protections granted by New Jerseys constitution. But odds are slim this will be examined by the US Supreme Court. The Andrews case that set state precedent has already had its appeal effort rejected by SCOTUS. For the time being, it will remain pretty easy for New Jersey law enforcement to bypass the Fifth Amendment.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, 5th amendment, compelled disclosure, compelled speech, new jersey, passwords, phone passcode

More:

NJ Appeals Court: Lower Court Mixed Up 4th And 5th Amendment And Either Way, Phone Passcodes Can Be Compelled - Techdirt

WMU Law professor says if federal probe is opened, the 4th and 5th amendments will be key in Lyoya case – FOX 17 West Michigan News

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. Last Friday morning, April 22, Civil Rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton flew into town to do the eulogy for Patrick Lyoyas funeral at Renaissance Church of God in Christ.

Over a thousand people including family, friends, state and local officials joined the Congolese community in mourning the 26-year-olds death.

Before them, Reverend Sharpton said hes calling on the justice department to step in and conduct their own investigation into Lyoyas death.

Im not going to desecrate the local authorities. But, I want to call on the federal justice department. We need the justice department to investigate this death, Reverend Sharpton said at the podium at the front of the church. We have reason to not just want to wait on the local prosecutor. We dont want local politics to compromise justice. Were calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene and to stand up for the civil rights of Patrick Lyoya.

Peter Lyoya told FOX 17 in an interview this week that he too would like the justice department to step in and open an investigation into his sons death.

On Monday morning April 4, Patrick Lyoya was fatally shot in the back of the head by a Grand Rapids police officer identified by GRPD as Christopher Schurr during a traffic stop near the intersection of Nelson and Griggs.

Reverend Sharpton said at the podium that there was intent to use a deadly weapon and reiterated his call for a federal investigation.

Western Michigan University Law Prof. Lewis Langham said if that should happen, the DOJ will look to see if Lyoyas constitutional rights were violated, he said.

[Reverend Sharpton] is looking to have the federal government investigate as to whether or not there is some type of constitutional law violation, Langham said, whos professor emeritus at WMU's Cooley Law School. [Theyre] probably looking at Section 242 Title 18, which basically makes it a crime for a police officer or others in their profession similar, when theyre acting under the authority of their job, to deny someone their constitutional right.

Langham spoke with FOX 17 on Monday afternoon via Zoom. He said specifically the justice department would look at the fourth amendment and the overall traffic stop.

The traffic stop, as it relates to the license plate ... that was a legitimate stop, Langham said. But, I think they may be looking at the question as to why. What drew their attention to Patrick Lyoya in the first place, that you even looked at his license plate. So, that could be something that theyre looking at under the fourth amendment.

Langham said that officers cannot stop anyone under false pretenses. He added that the DOJ may look at the fifth amendment and double jeopardy.

If for some reason if the officer is charged, if hes found not guilty, looking down the road, if that were to happen, you can still seek federal charges and that'd be considered double jeopardy under the fifth amendment because the federal government and state government are considered separate sovereigns, he said.

Currently, Michigan State Police is conducting its investigation into the fatal officer-involved shooting. Langham said once they wrap, itll head to Prosecutor Chris Becker, who will then determine if criminal charges should be brought.

However, he said its up to the justice department if they should get involved and when.

For now, the request is an avenue Lyoyas legal team, led by civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Ven Johnson, is seeking in order to bring justice to the family.

Whatever and however the federal government gets involved they will make a decision whether or not they want to, and if they do there may not even be a federal civil rights type violation, Langham said. They could look at it and determine there isnt an issue here.

READ MORE: GRPD explains process behind releasing officer's name in Lyoya shooting

Follow FOX 17: Facebook - Twitter - Instagram - YouTube

Go here to see the original:

WMU Law professor says if federal probe is opened, the 4th and 5th amendments will be key in Lyoya case - FOX 17 West Michigan News

Department of Justice reaches agreement with Springfield about policing – Reminder Publications

SPRINGFIELD The announcement the city of Springfield has entered into a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) was met with positive reactions from both Mayor Domenic Sarno as well as people who have been critical of the actions of some members of the department.

Sarno released the following statement: Our brave and dedicated men and women in blue do a tremendous job day in and day out. Policing is a dangerous but still a very honorable profession and everyone knows that throughout my career I have been one of SPDs (Springfield Police Departments) biggest supporters in good times and bad. However, Police Superintendent Cheryl Clapprood and I found these issues and deficiencies concerning and we cooperated fully with the DOJ in their investigation. We acknowledge that past misconduct should not have occurred and it is our goal that it does not happen in the future. Simply put, its a balance between public safety and cop accountability. Working together with the DOJ and our internal city team, including former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Roderick L. Ireland, the city is striving to have the best Police Department possible. Additionally, we were quick to move to correct and enhance our policing practices once these issues were found. Since that time, under Superintendent Clapproods leadership, our SPD have implemented numerous reforms and initiatives aimed and focused on improving and enhancing our policing practices, training, and document and record tracking to increase accountability and transparency.

According to information from the DOJ, The settlement agreement, in the form of a proposed consent decree, which must be approved by a federal district court judge, would resolve the United States claim that the city and the Narcotics Bureau of the Springfield Police Department engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force that deprived individuals of their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Under the agreement, the Springfield Police Department will improve policies and training related to officers use of force. These improvements will ensure that officers avoid force whenever possible through the use of de-escalation tactics; that officers know when force can and cannot be used; and that officers report all instances where force is used. In addition, the Springfield Police Department will provide better supervision to officers and improve internal investigations of complaints of officer misconduct. When officers violate use-of-force policies, the agreement will ensure that the Springfield Police Department holds officers accountable.

The settlement is the resolution for illegal conditions within the Springfield Police Departments former Narcotics Bureau.

According to the DOJ documents, The Narcotics Bureau was a unit of SPD plainclothes officers tasked with apprehending those suspected of narcotics offenses and executing narcotics search and arrest warrants. On July 8, 2021, SPD announced that it was dismantling its Narcotics Bureau and renaming it the Firearms Investigation Unit. All Narcotics Bureau officers have been reassigned to the newly created Firearms Investigation Unit, which focuses on reducing gun violence in Springfield. On April 13, 2018, the United States opened a pattern or practice investigation into SPDs Narcotics Bureau.

The United States issued a report on SPDs Narcotics Bureau on July 8, 2020. As a result of its investigation, the United States found reasonable cause to believe that SPDs Narcotics Bureau engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

SPDs Narcotics Bureau engaged in a pattern or practice of using force that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances in which the force was applied, including the threat posed by the suspect and the severity of the alleged underlying crime, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. SPD Narcotics Bureau officers punched individuals in the face unnecessarily, in part because they escalated encounters with civilians too quickly. SPD Narcotics Bureau officers also punched subjects head areas with closed fists as an immediate response to resistance without attempting to obtain compliance through other less serious uses of force. SPD Narcotics Bureau officers conducted unnecessarily forceful takedowns that could reasonably be expected to cause head injuries without legal justification. SPD Narcotics Bureau officers often failed to report use of force incidents that should have been reported and made reports that were inconsistent with other available evidence, including video and photographs.

Clapprood said, We have also made transparency a cornerstone of our operations. The Springfield Police Department has acquired early warning intervention software that collects and assesses data to identify trends in troublesome conduct, and I am very proud that all sworn personnel now wear body-worn cameras while on duty. Our Use-of-Force and Internal Investigations Unit policies have been modernized, and we have begun the process toward achieving the departments first-ever, voluntary and self-initiated state certification.

The superintendent continued, We have already seen encouraging outcomes as a result of these reforms. In 2021 body-worn camera footage helped to resolve all seven use-of-force complaints against officers, including one against the now-former Narcotics Unit, with zero of the complaints being sustained. This work will continue in the coming years as we plan for additional changes, including a new state-of-the-art records management system and transforming how we respond to, report and investigate use-of-force calls.

City Councilor Tracye Whitfield said, On Feb. 2, 2021, Councilor [Justin] Hurst, Sen. [Adam] Gomez, state Rep. [Orlando] Ramos (city councilor at the time), Councilor [Malo] Brown and I sent a letter requesting the DOJ and the US Attorney enter into a Consent Decree with the city of Springfield to ensure the much needed changes highlighted in the scathing DOJ report on Springfield Police Narcotics Bureaus civilian abuse are adequately addressed. I am so pleased to witness the decision made by the US Attorney and the Department of Justices to do just that, enter into a consent decree also called a settlement agreement.

Hurst noted, The city of Springfield is at a pivotal time in its history that cant be left for chance and having the same people who created the problem solve it after years of inaction was never a viable solution. It is comforting to know that from this point forward an independent and objective third party will have oversight over much need reforms in our Police Department.

Bishop Talbot Swan II, president of the Springfield chapter of the NAACP, said, The need for the department to improve policies and training relative to the use of force and to ensure that officers use proper de-escalation tactics and respect the rights of residents is long overdue. The systemic racism that has resulted in disproportionate abuse of Black and other non-white citizens has long been a problem of a department labeled by some as one of the worst departments in the nation.

Tara Parrish, executive director of the Pioneer Valley Project (PVP), said, This shows that the Department of Justice listened during multiple meetings with PVP and the NAACP, and took the communitys experience seriously. They looked thoughtfully at the harm that has been done in our city by the practices of the Springfield Police Department and concluded that the Sarno Administration could not be trusted to enact needed reforms on its own.

Read more here:

Department of Justice reaches agreement with Springfield about policing - Reminder Publications

Op-ed: The Constitution in a time of change – Courier & Press

Evansville Bar Association editorial board| Evansville Courier & Press

The following article was written by the editorial board of the Evansville Bar Association, chaired by Joe Langerak, and comprised of Max Fiester, Carl Heldt, Steven Hoar, Yvette LaPlante, Katherine Rybak, Les Shively, Dirck Stahl, Kathryn Sullivan, Shawn Sullivan and Cliff Whitehead.

Law Day, commemorated on May 1, is a celebration of the law and its role in society. The theme for 2022 is Toward a More Perfect Union: The Constitution in Times of Change. Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the Constitution has survived over two centuries of societal changes and has served as a great influence on other countries systems of government.

The document has served as the cornerstone of American jurisprudence even as the viewpoints, standards, and norms of our country have changed. With these changes, judges have been tasked with determining how to interpret the words of the Constitution. Even at the highest level of judicial office, reasonable jurists disagree on how that should be done.

The task seems easy: If we start from the premise that the words of the Constitution contain the answer to whatever question is posed, we should simply need to read the words and then apply them. But in practice, interpreting the Constitution is much more difficult. Rules from a 200-year-old text may not always neatly address modern problems.

For example, how should a judge apply the Fourth Amendments protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in todays society where a cell phone carries the types of information that a citizen would have previously kept locked in a filing cabinet or a safe? When the First Amendment was written, there was no such thing as television. How do we apply a term that was written into the Constitution to a situation which did not exist at the time?

To answer that question and others like it, judges apply one of (at least) two schools of thought, known in the legal world as Constitutional Theories. The theories, sometimes referred to as Originalism and Evolutionism, are guiding principles that help the judge tackle a common problem, in a way that ensures their decisions are consistent. If the law were an algebra problem, constitutional theories would be a way for problem solvers to show their work through reasoning.

By showing their work, judges provide a consistent approach to solving the problem, which allows litigants and citizens to more accurately anticipate how a court may rule.

Judges who are Originalists interpret the statute as it would have been understood by competent users of the language at the time when the law was enacted. Originalists analyzing the search of a cell phone look at the Fourth Amendments prohibition on unlawful search and seizures and decide what The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects means, and they take the approach that we cannot change those words, simply because hundreds of years have passed.

By reference to another example, because the death penalty was not a cruel and unusual punishment when the 8th Amendment was adopted in 1791 (indeed any felony was punishable by death), it cannot be a cruel and unusual punishment in 2022. The Originalist would object to the argument that the Constitution prohibits the death penalty today, because the death penalty existed when the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was adopted.

The Evolutionists look to the purpose of the law they are interpreting. In reviewing a cell phone search, they would ask what value or objective the Founding Fathers were trying to protect or accomplish when they drafted the Fourth Amendment. They would then determine if the search of the cell phone violated that value or objective. Importantly, the Evolutionists are quick to point out that they are not changing the meaning of the words in the Constitution, but are recognizing that the world has changed.They place emphasis on what the goal of the language was, not simply the meaning of the word itself.

Further, they take the stance that the Originalist approach is flawed because it fails to recognize that sometimes, the meaning of a word is not clear. One judges definition of cruel may be different from another judges definition of cruel. The Evolutionist may argue that if we fail to consider the values or objectives of the wording, we run the risk of violating the entire purpose for which the wording was used.

In response, the Originalist would argue that in this effort to attempt to determine what the authors of the Constitution (including the Amendments) were trying to protect, the Evolutionist goes too far to essentially revise the Constitution. The Originalist is quick to point out that in applying the Constitution, courts are not permitted to re-write its language by placing a different meaning on a word. The Originalist points to the fact that the Constitution can be amended, and if there is language in the document that we as a governed people no longer agree with, we can amend it through the legislative process.

Jurists from both schools of thought serve at all levels throughout the country. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was perhaps the most passionate Originalist. Justices Hugo Black and Clarence Thomas also utilized the doctrine in their opinions. Evolutionists include Justices Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, and Stephen Breyer.

As the members of the Supreme Court change, so will the way that justices interpret the laws. But, one thing remains constant: Justices continue to use certain guiding principles to reach their conclusions in a consistent manner.

Link:

Op-ed: The Constitution in a time of change - Courier & Press

Sinclair Closes Refinancing and Extension of STG Credit Facilities – Business Wire

BALTIMORE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair or the Company) (Nasdaq: SBGI) announced today that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sinclair Television Group, Inc. (STG), has entered into the Fourth Amendment (Fourth Amendment) to its Seventh Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of August 23, 2019, as amended with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent, the guarantors party thereto and the lenders and other parties thereto, to, among other things, provide for the incurrence of new term loans in an aggregate principal amount of $750 million (the Term B-4 Loans), refinance all outstanding term B-1 loans and extend the maturity of $612.5 million of revolving commitments to April 21, 2027. The proceeds of the Term B-4 Loans are being used to refinance all of the existing term B-1 loans and to redeem STGs outstanding 5.875% senior notes due 2026. The Term B-4 Loans will mature on April 21, 2029 and will bear interest, at the option of STG, at Term SOFR plus 3.75% (subject to customary credit spread adjustments) or at base rate plus 2.75%.

This description of the Fourth Amendment is only a summary, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the complete amendment, a copy of which will be filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K.

Forward-Looking Statements:

The matters discussed in this news release include forward-looking statements regarding, among other things, future events and actions. When used in this news release, the words outlook, intends to, believes, anticipates, expects, achieves, estimates, and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results in the future could differ materially and adversely from those described in the forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including and in addition to the assumptions set forth therein, but not limited to: the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business operations, financial results and financial position and on the world economy, including the significant disruption to the operations of the professional sports leagues, need to provide rebates to our distributors related to canceled professional sporting events, and loss of advertising revenue due to postponement or cancellation of professional sporting events, and reduced consumer spending as a result of shelter in place and stay at home orders; our ability to generate cash to service our substantial indebtedness; successful execution of outsourcing agreements; the successful execution of retransmission consent agreements; the successful execution of network affiliation and distribution agreements; the successful execution of media rights agreements with professional sports teams; the impact of OTT and other emerging technologies and their potential impact on cord-cutting; the impact of distributors offering "skinny" programming bundles that may not include all programming of our networks; pricing and demand fluctuations in local and national advertising; the successful implementation and consumer adoption of our sports direct to consumer platform; volatility in programming costs; the market acceptance of new programming; our ability to identify and consummate acquisitions and investments, to manage increased leverage resulting from acquisitions and investments, and to achieve anticipated returns on those investments once consummated; the impact of pending and future litigation claims against the Company; the ongoing assessment of the October cybersecurity event, material legal, financial and reputational risks resulting from a breach of the Company's information systems, and operational disruptions due to the cybersecurity event; the impact of FCC and other regulatory proceedings against the Company, uncertainties associated with potential changes in the regulatory environment affecting our business and growth strategy; and any risk factors set forth in the Company's recent reports on Form 10-Q and/or Form 10-K, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There can be no assurances that the assumptions and other factors referred to in this release will occur. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release the result of any revisions to these forward-looking statements except as required by law.

Continued here:

Sinclair Closes Refinancing and Extension of STG Credit Facilities - Business Wire

SP PLUS CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet…

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

Fifth Amendment to Credit Agreement

On April 21, 2022 (the "Fifth Amendment Effective Date"), SP Plus Corporation, aDelaware corporation (the "Company"), entered into a fifth amendment (the "FifthAmendment") to the Company's credit agreement (as amended prior to the FifthAmendment Effective Date, the "Credit Agreement"; the Credit Agreement, asamended by the Fifth Amendment, the "Amended Credit Agreement") with Bank ofAmerica, N.A. ("Bank of America"), as Administrative Agent, swing-line lenderand a letter of credit issuer; certain subsidiaries of the Company, asguarantors; and the lenders party thereto (the "Lenders"), pursuant to which theLenders have made available to the Company a senior secured credit facility (the"Senior Credit Facility"). Prior to the Fifth Amendment Effective Date andpursuant to the fourth amendment (the "Fourth Amendment") to the Company'scredit agreement, which was entered into on February 16, 2021, the Senior CreditFacility permitted aggregate borrowings of $550.0 million consisting of (i) arevolving credit facility of up to $325.0 million at any time outstanding, whichincluded a letter of credit facility that was limited to $100.0 million at anytime outstanding, and (ii) a term loan facility of $225.0 million (the entireprincipal amount of which the Company drew on November 30, 2018). Among otherthings, the Fifth Amendment extended the maturity date of the Senior CreditFacility to April 21, 2027 and increased the aggregate commitments under therevolving credit facility by $75.0 million to $400.0 million. Prior to the FifthAmendment Effective Date, the outstanding principal balance under the term loanfacility was $182.8 million. Pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amendment, theCompany received an additional advance under the term loan facility in anaggregate principal amount of $17.2 million so that as of the Fifth AmendmentEffective Date, the term loan facility was $200 million (the entire principalamount of which the Company drew on April 21, 2022).

In addition, the Fifth Amendment transitioned all loans under the Senior CreditFacility that bore interest at the London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") to aforward-looking SOFR term interest rate administered by CME ("Term SOFR"). As ofthe Fifth Amendment Effective Date, borrowings under the Senior Credit Facilitybear interest, at the Company's option, at the applicable margin plus (i) TermSOFR plus a credit spread adjustment, subject to a "floor" on Term SOFR of0.00%, or a successor rate to SOFR approved in accordance with the terms of theAmended Credit Agreement or (ii) a base rate consisting of the highest of (x)the federal funds rate plus 0.5%, (y) the Bank of America prime rate and (z) adaily rate equal to Term SOFR for an interest period of one-month plus 1.0%. Theapplicable margin is based on the Company's ratio of consolidated total debt(net of up to $30.0 million in unrestricted cash and cash equivalents) to EBITDAfor the 12-month period ending as of the last day of the immediately precedingfiscal quarter (the "Consolidated Leverage Ratio"), determined in accordancewith the applicable pricing levels set forth in the Credit Agreement. The FourthAmendment provided that until the compliance certificate for June 30, 2022 wasdelivered, the applicable margin for all loans under the Senior Credit Facilitywould be 2.75% for LIBOR loans and 1.75% for Base Rate Loans. The FifthAmendment eliminated these fixed applicable margin rates.

In addition, the Fifth Amendment eliminated the requirement that the Companyrepay its revolving loans at any time cash on hand exceeded $40.0 million for aperiod of three consecutive business days. The Fifth Amendment also eliminatedrestrictions on certain Investments, Permitted Acquisitions, Restricted Paymentsand Prepayments of Subordinated Debt (each as defined in the Amended CreditAgreement) that were imposed by the Fourth Amendment.

Prior to the Fifth Amendment Effective Date, the maximum Consolidated LeverageRatio was 5.25:1.0 for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2021, withcertain step-ups and step-downs described in the Credit Agreement, including astep down to a maximum Consolidated Leverage Ratio of 4.00:1.00 for the fiscalquarter ending December 31, 2023 and each fiscal quarter ending thereafter. TheFifth Amendment amended the Consolidated Leverage Ratio covenant to provide thatthe maximum Consolidated Leverage Ratio will be 4.50:1.0 for the fiscal quartersending March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2022, 4.25:1.0 for thefiscal quarters ending December 31, 2022, March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023 andSeptember 30, 2023, and 4.00:1.00 for the fiscal quarter ending December 31,2023 and each fiscal quarter ending thereafter. In addition, the Fifth Amendmentadded a covenant holiday option to the Consolidated Leverage Ratio covenant,which allows the Company to elect to raise the maximum Consolidated LeverageRatio up to 4.50:1.0 for a fiscal quarter in which an acquisition involvingconsideration in excess of $50.0 million would be consummated, subject to theconditions in the Amended Credit Agreement.

Prior to the Fifth Amendment Effective Date, the Company was required tomaintain a minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio of not less than1.60:1.0 for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2021, with certain step-ups andstep-downs described in the Credit Agreement, including a step up to a minimumconsolidated interest coverage ratio of not less than 3.50:1.0 for the fiscalquarter ending June 30, 2022 and thereafter. The Amended Credit Agreementprovides that the Company shall maintain a minimum consolidated interestcoverage ratio of 3.5:1.0 for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2022 and eachfiscal quarter thereafter.

The forgoing description of the Fifth Amendment is not complete and is qualifiedin its entirety by reference to the full text of the Fifth Amendment, a copy ofwhich is filed as Exhibit 10.1 hereto.

The information set forth in Item 1.01 above is hereby incorporated by referenceunder this Item 2.03.

Item 9.01.Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d) Exhibits

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

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the rest here:

SP PLUS CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...

‘You Have The Right To Remain Silent JUST KIDDING!’ Says Biden Administration – Above the Law

Its probably fair to say that the first scrap of constitutional law mastered by an American child is Miranda. Every police procedural has snuck the right to remain silent into the script since at least Kojak. Its an inescapable nugget of constitutional fabric you cant watch Spongebob without learning it. Most shows dont carry the bit through to the equally important right to an attorney part, but that initial right is tattooed on the brains of Americans early.

Kids say you have the right to remain silent when they play cops and robbers on the playground!

So it should come as little surprise that Miranda take its place alongside Roe, Affirmative Action, and eventually Brown v. Board as cornerstones of constitutional order that this Supreme Court plans to bulldoze. As the real Federalist Society heads out there will point out, if its really a right, how come the word Miranda wasnt in the Constitution, hmmmmm?

And Bidens Department of Justice, under the helm of Merrick Garland, is right there waving the bulldozer in on this one.

Honestly, between punting on civil rights inquiries and refusing to ask any serious questions about how January 6 happened, this Justice Department greases the wheels of fascism like its competing at the Mr. Universe pageant.

The Court heard oral argument in Vega v. Tekohthis week. I hadnt really tracked this case until arguments this week, but having gone back and read the filings, this case is nuts.

A sheriffs deputy named Carlos Vega held Terence Tekoh, a nursing assistant, in a windowless, soundproof room for over an hour. Without providing any Miranda instructions, Vega produced a confession from Tekoh. Tekoh testified that this investigation was replete with profanities and threats to have Respondent and his family deported Tekoh is a Cameroonian immigrant and that at all times Vega refused to allow Tekoh to speak to a lawyer or any of his supervisors.

Pretty cut and dry Miranda violation. Vega used this confession to get Tekoh prosecuted. Ultimately the jury acquitted Tekoh. Take a second to consider how completely bullshit a case in 21st century America has to be for a jury to acquit an immigrant when the prosecution says we have a written confession.

Tekoh filed a 1983 action for violation of his civil rights. The Biden administration, answering the question no one asked them, decided to roll in as amicus on Vegas side. Just like all the people who voted for this administration would have OBVIOUSLY wanted.

Look, the administration has an interest here. It doesnt want a bunch of 1983 cases arising to gum up counter-terrorism interrogations or anything like that. And if the brief limited itself to we caution the Court to make clear that 1983 relief isnt available in every outlier circumstance, that would be fine.

Did they do that? Oh, you already know the answer:

The Miranda rule, which was crafted to account for practical realities, makes sense in light of those realities only if it is treated as a constitutional rule of evidence, rather than a rule of law-enforcement procedure.

Yep, they went after the very idea of Miranda.

Again, we all learned this rule from TV shows we call police procedurals for a reason. Issuing these instructions is the heart of police procedure. Some forces hand out little cards with scripted instructions to make sure everything is done on the up and up. The DOJ is redefining procedure like it was sanitation.

It also doesnt make any sense.

The DOJ position is that since the jury acquitted Tekoh no harm, no foul. Miranda only exists to give defendants an avenue to toss a confession in their eyes like tainted evidence or something. But thats not what Miranda was all about.

As Tekohs brief explains, Miranda is about informing defendants of their Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself in a criminal trial. The civil rights violation occurs when the confession is used against him at trial without warning. Full stop. As for the tainted evidence comparison, as one Supreme Court opinion put it, Unlike the Fourth Amendments bar on unreasonable searches, the Self-Incrimination Clause is self-executing.

The DOJ position doesnt strike down Miranda, it just strips the self-executing part of this right and relegates it to another Fourth Amendment style balancing test. And no one gets away with illegal searches and seizures under those! The federal docket is paved with decisions that read, obviously this was an illegal search BUT we figure the defendant was guilty anyway. Turn the right against self-incrimination over to that model and just see what happens. Well have coerced, extorted confessions getting rubber-stamped by judges by the end of the week.

Its not so much that the DOJ is wrong though it is its the way this administration seems willing to play lead blocker for the worst judicial abuses. What does a brief like this accomplish other than add credibility to the inevitable opinion declaring Miranda advisory? Who do they think is going to end up on the wrong end of it when they abdicate their constitutional duty like this?

Check out all the filings here.

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

View post:

'You Have The Right To Remain Silent JUST KIDDING!' Says Biden Administration - Above the Law