So You Think You Know the Constitution? – Project On Government Oversight

The Constitution is central to the American political identity, so its at the heart of a lot of conversations not just about the law and politics, but how we go about our lives every day. However, sometimes the facts about our founding charter get distorted in the ensuing game of telephone. This Constitution Day, we are taking a look at some common misconceptions about the Constitution and what the document really says.

The First Amendment protects your speech from being shut down or limited by companies.

Not really. The First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting your right to freedom of speech. That means private companies can restrict what you say, and penalize or fire you for speech they dont like. It also means social media companies like Facebook can set whatever rules and limits they want for speech on their platforms, and block certain types of speech or kick off users as they choose. The Supreme Court has set some limits on speech restrictions directed at government employees, but has done so on the basis that the First Amendment protects speech from restrictions set by the government, not by an employer per se.

Falsely yelling fire! in a crowded theater is never protected by the First Amendment.

It depends. This famous and often-used example comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States, which set a standard that the First Amendment did not protect speech that created a clear and present danger. However, in the 100 years since Schenck, this standard has evolved and is now more rigorous: In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the mere likelihood of creating imminent harm doesnt put speech beyond First Amendment protectionsspeech also has to be directed to inciting or producing imminent unlawful action in order to not be protected. Justice William Douglas wrote in his concurring opinion for the case about the example of falsely shouting fire! in a crowded theater, emphasizing that the intent to cause a specific outcome, rather than what is said, is the critical factor.

The police cant lie to you.

The Fifth Amendment provides you the right not to speak to police, even during a formal interrogation, but it doesnt limit what the police can say to you. Although it can have a coercive effect and increases the potential for false confessions, the Constitutions protection for due process (which the Supreme Court has ruled includes a prohibition on the government using involuntaryconfessions as evidence) does not stop police from lying to you, either in the field (yes, it turns out all those TV characters saying Are you a cop? You have to tell me if youre a cop! arent giving sound legal advice) or during a formal interrogation. In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that police are allowed to lie to a suspect about whether their associate confessed, or the existence of forensic evidence such as fingerprints.

The word slavery appears in the Constitution numerous times before the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

In fact, the firstmention of the word slavery is in the 13th Amendment (ratified in 1865), despite the existence of slavery since the 1500s in settlements that would become part of the United States and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. This may seem shocking since when the Constitution was created, more than 500,000 people were enslaved in the United Statesmany of them owned by the signers of our nations founding document. So how did the Constitution manage to evade mention of slavery for so long? Cunningly ambiguous wording. Take, for example, the infamous three-fifths compromise. Article I, Section 2, in apportioning seats among the states for representation in the House of Representatives, states that

Eleven clauses of the Constitution directly address slavery or hold implications for slavery, including provisions that prohibited Congress from abolishing the slave trade (Article I, Section 9) and required fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners (Article IV, Section 2). But each of these provisions was deftly crafted to avoid direct mention of the abominable institution of slavery, instead using euphemisms like other persons.

The president is the countrys commander in chief, and Congress cannot limit their authority in wartime.

Not really. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. The president does not have command power over ordinary citizensand more importantly, Congress has as much authority as the president over matters of war and peace. Article I gives Congress the power to declare war; make rules related to wartime captures; raise, support, and make rules for governing an army and navy; and to define and set punishments for offenses against international laws and treaties. The Senate must also consent to treaties.

Youll find checks and balances mentioned throughout the Constitution.

No, but you will find the concept woven into the structure of our constitutional democracy. The phrase is shorthand for the myriad mechanisms the Constitution sets out to ensure that each branch of governmentexecutive, legislative, and judicialserves as a check on the other, to guard against the accumulation of power into a single entity of our government. One example is that the power of Congress to legislate is checked by the veto power of the president. Another example is that the framers of the Constitution established the House of Representatives in Article I as a large body, in part to guard against corruption in the Senate, as it was believed that senators may be more susceptible to special interests (rather than the public interest) because of their small number.

Non-citizens are not protected by the Constitution.

No. The bill of rights refers to persons, not citizens, and most fundamental constitutional rights apply to all people within the United States. The major exception to this is the right to vote. The 15th and 19th Amendments (which extended the right to vote to racial minorities and women, respectively), the 26th Amendment (which lowered the voting age to 18), and the 24th Amendment (which abolished the poll tax) only apply to U.S. citizens. The Constitution also contains citizenship requirements for members of Congress and the president.

Presidents can pardon anyone convicted of a crime.

The presidential pardon power is broad, but it only applies to federal crimes. So the roughly 1.3 million peoplein state prisonsby far the majority of prisoners nationwideare beyond the reach of the power. Theres also an open question about whether there are any situations in which a president cant pardon a federal offense. The Supreme Court has left the door open to the idea that other parts of the Constitution could limit the power, and some scholars and advocates have argued that the power does not allow self-pardons or pardons that cover up a presidents own wrongdoing.

The Constitution doesnt contain a right to privacy.

Although it doesnt include the word privacy, it is a basic tenet of our Constitution that the Fourth Amendment provides a right to privacy from excess government surveillance and intrusions. The Fourth Amendment goes far beyond just warrantsits prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures provides a range of privacy protections against intrusions in different situations. And as weve written, the Fourth Amendments guarantee that individuals will be secure in their persons goes beyond preventing the police from sifting through your pockets at will. It means we have a basic privacy right that limits how much the government can track the sensitive activities and associations in our lives.

The Constitution defines treason as spying for or providing aid to a foreign country, and makes the offense punishable by death.

No. The Constitution limits the definition of treason as follows:

It leaves it to Congress to set the punishment for the crime. Someone has to intentionally help an enemy of the country to commit treason, and enemies refers only to actual wartime enemies of the United Stateswhich is why most famous Cold War spies, from Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to Robert Hanssen, were convicted of espionage rather than treason.

View original post here:

So You Think You Know the Constitution? - Project On Government Oversight

Voters fired up, but Dems keep the edge – Fox News

**Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign uphere.**

On the roster: Voters fired up, but Dems keep the edge - Ill Tell You What: An adorable roast - Congress digs into Trumps alleged improper promise -Netanyahu comes up short, scrambles for survival-Arrrrrrrrrr you ready, kids?

VOTERS FIRED UP, BUT DEMS KEEP THE EDGEFox News:Fifty-nine percent of voters are extremely interested in the 2020 presidential election. Thats a number typically only seen right before an election. Its 27 points higher than around this same time in the last presidential cycle -- and only one point off the record 60 percent extremely interested the week before Election Day in 2008. In addition, more Democrats (65 percent) than Republicans (60 percent) are extremely interested in the election and more Democrats (69 percent) than Republicans (63 percent) are extremely motivated about voting in 2020. That helps Democratic candidates top President Donald Trump in potential head-to-head matchups. Joe Biden continues to perform best of the Democratic candidates tested, according to a new Fox News Poll. He has the biggest lead over Trump (+14 points), is the only one to receive 50 percent support, and the only one to keep Trump under 40 percent (52-38 percent).

Fox poll shows Bernie boost -Fox News:Biden captures the support of 29 percent of Democratic primary voters, according to a new Fox News Poll. Thats down 2 points since last month and down 6 points since May, when he was at a high of 35 percent support. [Bernie] Sanders climbs back into second with 18 percent (up 8 points since August), followed by Elizabeth Warren at 16 percent (down 4), forming the clearest top three candidate tier seen in this race to date.The next tier includes Kamala Harris at 7 percent, Pete Buttigieg at 5 percent, Beto ORourke at 4 percent, Cory Booker at 3 percent, and both Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar at 2 percent.

Bernie shook up Iowa team too -WaPo:Sen.Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) parted ways with his Iowa political director in recent weeks, his campaign confirmed Wednesday, part of a series of staff shake-ups in key early states. The campaign announced in March thatJess Mazourwould be political director in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, part of a first wave of early state hires. She is no longer on the team. Well continue to make moves that we feel best position this campaign to win, Sanders campaign managerFaiz Shakirsaid in a written statement after The Washington Post reached out to the campaign about the matter. A campaign official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation said Mazour was let go in late summer and has not been replaced. Mazour, who was a high-ranking campaign aide but not the director of the Iowa effort, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The campaign did not publicly announce her departure at the time.

Harried Harris tries to turn it around in Iowa -Politico:Kamala Harris is putting her stumbling campaign on the line with a new Iowa-or-bust strategy: She's shifting away from the closed-door fundraisers that dominated her summer calendar to focus on retail politicking in the crucial kickoff state. Harris huddled with top campaign officials Tuesday in Baltimore to discuss the next steps as a series of polls show her plummeting into the mid-single digits. She's not expected to significantly alter her message. Instead, Harris is planning to make weekly visits to the state and nearly double the size of her 65-person ground operation, sources familiar with the discussions told POLITICO. The re-engagement in Iowa where the California senator held a 17-stop bus tour in August but hasnt returned since is part of a broader acknowledgment inside the campaign that she hasnt been in the early states enough. It's designed to refocus her campaign and clarify her narrowing path to the nomination.

THE RULEBOOK: WHY WERE HEREIt is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. James Madison,Federalist No. 45

TIME OUT: ZIP ITWriterAmos Barshadoffers a concise fashion history of the few clothing items to truly transcend the social strata: the track suit.New Yorker: Adidas launched its now internationally renowned tracksuit in 1967, with an ad campaign starring the West German soccer legendFranz Beckenbauer.Joanne Turney, a professor of fashion at the University of Southamptons Winchester School of Art, has tracked the American embrace of the tracksuit toJames F. Fixxs The Complete Book of Running, from 1977, which became a best-seller. Fixx evangelized running as life extension, Turney explains in her book Fashion Crimes. This put the runner, in his tracksuit, in a God-like role, both man and superman, ego and super-ego, performing a Foucaultian battle that will ultimately result in the mastery of the mind over the weakness of the flesh. By the early eighties, acts from the Bronx and from Hollis, Queens, had made the tracksuit the uniform of hip-hop.

Flag on the play? -Email us atHALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COMwith your tips, comments or questions.

SCOREBOARDDEMOCRATIC 2020 POWER RANKINGBiden:28.2 pointsWarren:20.2 pointsSanders:16 pointsHarris:6.6 pointsButtigieg:5.4 points[Averages include: Fox News, NBC News/WSJ, CNN, ABC News/WaPo and IBD.]

TRUMP JOB PERFORMANCEAverage approval:41.4 percentAverage disapproval:54.2 percentNet Score:-12.8 percentChange from one week ago:up 2 points[Average includes: Gallup: 43% approve - 54% disapprove; NPR/PBS/Marist: 41% approve - 54% disapprove; CNN: 42% approve - 54% disapprove; ABC News/WaPo: 40% approve - 55% disapprove; IBD: 39% approve - 55% disapprove.]

WANT MORE HALFTIME REPORT?You can join Chris and Brianna every day on Fox Nation. Go behind-the-scenes of your favorite political note as they go through the must-read headlines of the day right from their office with plenty of personality.Click hereto sign up and watch!

ILL TELL YOU WHAT: AN ADORABLE ROASTThis weekDana PerinoandChrisStirewaltdiscuss the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates, Dana explains why she was late to the podcast taping and Chris answers some failed campaign slogan trivia.LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE HERE

CONGRESS DIGS INTO TRUMPS ALLEGED IMPROPER PROMISEWaPo:The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trumps communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter. Trumps interaction with the foreign leader included a promise that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with or what he pledged to deliver, but his direct involvement in the matter has not been previously disclosed. It raises new questions about the presidents handling of sensitive information and may further strain his relationship with U.S. spy agencies. One former official said the communication was a phone call.

Trump denies -Politico: It never ends! Trump wrote, complaining in another tweet that the explosive allegations were yet another example of Presidential Harassment! The presidents denial came as the intelligence community's inspector general briefed members of the House Intelligence Committee about the complaint. Its existence first came to light earlier this week when committee ChairmanAdam Schiff(D-Calif.) demanded it be turned over to Congress.

KENNEDY-MARKEY PRIMARY LOOKS TO BE A DONNYBROOKPolitico:Rep.Joe Kennedy IIIwill challenge Sen.Ed Markeyfor his Senate seat in 2020, setting up a Democratic primary battle that has the potential to divide the Massachusetts political class and draw national attention. Kennedy will formally announce his plans Saturday morning at a breakfast in East Boston, according to a source familiar with the news. In the days following the announcement, Kennedy plans to take a tour across the state, the source said. News of Kennedys announcement was first reported by the Boston Globe. Kennedy met with Markey on Wednesday afternoon to inform him of the news, according to the source. Markey and Kennedy have steered clear of one another since news broke that Kennedy was considering a challenge for the seat. Over the weekend, Kennedy held a meet-and-greet with activists after the state Democratic party's annual convention to gather input on a Senate run.

GOP frets over Kobach effect in Kansas -WSJ:Former Kansas Secretary of StateKris Kobachtrails DemocratBarry Grissomby 10 percentage points in a head-to-head matchup for Kansas' open Senate seat in 2020, according to internal GOP polling data reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The previously unpublished findings reveal why some Republicans are deeply concerned that a Kobach candidacy could cost the party a Senate seat in Kansasand why Senate Majority LeaderMitch McConnellhas been pushing so hard for Secretary of StateMike Pompeo, a former congressman from Wichita, to challenge Mr. Kobach for the GOP nomination. It's laughable that anyone is taking seriously a poll on a hypothetical match-up conducted 18 months before the election and prior even to Secretary Kobach's entry into the race, saidSteve Drake, Mr. Kobach's campaign manager.

Ocasio-Cortez to face primary challenge -Fox News:Rep.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., will have to get through a primary challenger if she wants to hold on to her seat in 2020. Democratic activistBadrun Khan, who has challenged Ocasio-Cortez for the Democratic nomination to represent New York's 14th district, says on her website that she'll provide REAL Results... Not Empty Promises -- an apparent jab at the socialist darling. When asked about Khan's challenge, Ocasio-Cortez said: I just focus on delivering for my district and doing the best job. I try not to focus too much on other folks in the field, according to The Hill. Khan filed her statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Committee in July. The website for New York City's government confirms that Khan serves on Queens Community Board 2.

NETANYAHU COMES UP SHORT, SCRAMBLES FOR SURVIVALNYT: Seizing the initiative in Israels postelection political gridlock, Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahuon Thursday called on his main rival,Benny Gantz, to meet immediately to discuss forming a government of national unity together. Mr. Netanyahu, facing a looming indictment in three corruption cases, is fighting for his political survival and, potentially, his freedom. His only chance of gaining immunity from prosecution would be to remain in the top office, though neither he nor Mr. Gantz emerged from Tuesdays election with a clear path to the premiership. Mr. Gantz had already called for a unity government, but for Mr. Netanyahu, time is of the essence. He has a special hearing with the attorney general set for Oct. 2, and charges could be filed soon after. Tuesdays redo election was Israels second in five months, after an April ballot also ended inconclusively.

Trump distances himself from longtime ally -Axios: President Trump appeared to distance himself from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today after the latters failure to win a parliamentary majority in Tuesdays elections. Trump told reporters in California that he hasnt spoken yet to Netanyahu about the election results and stressed that his administration's relations are with Israel. Those cool remarks are a blow to Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political survival. During his election campaign, Netanyahu used his personal relationship with Trump as an asset. Netanyahu used images of himself and Trump on billboards around the country and in campaign ads under the headline In a different league, a message intended to stress his advantage when it comes to foreign policy experience. Trump gave Netanyahu his enthusiastic backing during April's elections but offered less active public support in the run-up to this week's vote.

THE JUDGES RULING: DON'T SMILE FOR THE CAMERAThis week Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst JudgeAndrew Napolitanoexplains why police surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology threaten Americans privacy: The Fourth Amendment makes no such distinction among intelligence or law enforcement or governmental curiosity. Rather, the Fourth Amendment the essence of which is the right to be left alone was written expressly to prohibit what British police are doing to the British public and what American police and the National Security Agency are doing to the American public commencing investigations of the innocent without suspicion. The Fourth Amendment is an intentional obstacle to government, an obstacle shown necessary by history to curtail tyrants. Could the British model happen here? Digitally, it has. Could the ubiquitous cameras be far behind? Morehere.

PLAY-BY-PLAYCongress agrees to short-term spending deal, avoids Oct. 1 shutdown-Bloomberg

Erstwhile blackface enthusiastJustin Trudeaufaces campaign firestorm-The [Toronto] Star

Pergram:Cokie Roberts' important lesson-Fox News

Dems launch longshot bid for DC statehood at rare hearing-Fox News

Nebraska dumps populist Bryans statue in favor of Ponca ChiefStanding Bear-Roll Call

AUDIBLE: NAH, BROI can tell you one thing: Beto ORourkes not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that, OK? Sen.Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., quoted by theWSJ.

Share your color commentary:Email us atHALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COMand please make sure to include your name and hometown.

ARRRRRRRRRR YOU READY, KIDS?Asbury Park [N.J.] Press: It's Sept. 19 International Talk Like A Pirate Day, and we have your guide to five phrases we think should make their way back into the everyday lexicon. Try them around the office today and let us know how it goes! HORNSWAGGLE To trick, deceive, scam. I'm tired of Pam always hornswaggling everyone out of the last donut! CACKLE FRUIT Chicken eggs, a rare treat for pirates at sea. Hi, I'd like a sausage, pepper and cackle fruit sub for delivery, please. LICK-SPITTLER A kiss-up, self-promoter. Jack picked up the boss' dry cleaning AGAIN, that lick-spittler! CAPE HORN FEVER An imaginary disease used to get out of responsibilities. It's awfully coincidental Jane is sick the same time that big report is due. Must be Cape Horn Fever. BILGE RAT A rodent living in the darkest, dankest part of a ship; an insult. Ugggh. Howard cooked his fish in the microwave, that bilge rat!

AND NOW, A WORD FROM CHARLESThis is a gift that we intrinsically have this sense of reverence for the Constitution. And its important to remember that it is a gift from the past. It is not something that we can in any way credit to ourselves. Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018)in an excerpt from his posthumous book, The Point of It All. This excerpt was published on Nov. 29, 2018 in the Washington Post.

Chris Stirewaltis the politics editor for Fox News.Brianna McClellandcontributed to this report. Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign uphere.

Read the original:

Voters fired up, but Dems keep the edge - Fox News

Exiled NSA Contractor Edward Snowden: ‘I Haven’t And I Won’t’ Cooperate With Russia – Public Radio Tulsa

In 2013, Edward Snowden was an IT systems expert working under contract for the National Security Agency when he traveled to Hong Kong to provide three journalists with thousands of top-secret documents about U.S. intelligence agencies' surveillance of American citizens.

To Snowden, the classified information he shared with the journalists exposed privacy abuses by government intelligence agencies. He saw himself as a whistleblower. But the U.S. government considered him a traitor in violation of the Espionage Act.

After meeting with the journalists, Snowden intended to leave Hong Kong and travel via Russia to Ecuador, where he would seek asylum. But when his plane landed at Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport, things didn't go according to plan.

"What I wasn't expecting was that the United States government itself ... would cancel my passport," he says.

Snowden was directed to a room where Russian intelligence agents offered to assist him in return for access to any secrets he harbored. Snowden says he refused.

"I didn't cooperate with the Russian intelligence services I haven't and I won't," he says. "I destroyed my access to the archive. ... I had no material with me before I left Hong Kong, because I knew I was going to have to go through this complex multi-jurisdictional route."

Snowden spent 40 days in the Moscow airport, trying to negotiate asylum in various countries. After being denied asylum by 27 nations, he settled in Russia, where he remains today.

"People look at me now and they think I'm this crazy guy, I'm this extremist or whatever. Some people have a misconception that [I] set out to burn down the NSA," he says. "But that's not what this was about. In many ways, 2013 wasn't about surveillance at all. What it was about was a violation of the Constitution."

Snowden's 2013 revelations led to changes in the laws and standards governing American intelligence agencies and the practices of U.S. technology companies, which now encrypt much of their Web traffic for security. He reflects on his life and his experience in the intelligence community in the memoir Permanent Record.

On Sept. 17, the U.S. Justice Department filed suit to recover all proceeds from the book, alleging that Snowden violated nondisclosure agreements by not letting the government review the manuscript before publication; Snowden's attorney, Ben Wizner, said in a statement that the book contains no government secrets that have not been previously published by respected news organizations, and that the government's prepublication review system is under court challenge.

On how researching China's surveillance capabilities for a CIA presentation got him thinking about the potential for domestic surveillance within the U.S.

I'm invited to give a presentation about how China is hacking the United States intelligence services, defense contractors, anything that we have available in the network, which I know a little bit about but not that much about, because they have the person who is supposed to be giving the presentation drop out. So I go looking ... seeing what exactly is it that China is doing? What are their capabilities? Are they hacking? Are they doing domestic surveillance? Are they doing international surveillance? What is occurring?

And I'm just shocked by the extent of their capabilities. I'm appalled by the aggression with which they use them. But also, in a strange way, surprised by the openness with which they use them. They're not hiding it. They're just open and out there, saying, "Yeah, we're doing this. Yeah, we're hacking you. What are you going to do about it?"

And I think this is a distinction: I think, yes, the NSA is spying of course they're spying but we're only spying overseas, we're not spying on our guys at home. We wouldn't do that. We have firewalls, we have trip wires for people to hit. But surely these are only affecting terrorists, because we're not like China. But this plants the first seeds of doubt where I see if the capability is there.

On what he discovered about U.S. domestic surveillance

Over the final years of my career ... I see that we have the same capabilities as the Chinese government, and we are applying them domestically just as they are. We have an internal strategy at the NSA, which was never publicly avowed, but it was all over their top-secret internal slides, that said the aspiration was to "collect it all." What this means was they were not just collecting and intercepting communications from criminals, spies, terrorists, people of intelligence value they were collecting on everyone, everywhere, all of the time, just in case, because you never know what's going to be interesting. And if you miss it when it's passing by, you might not get another chance.

And so what happened was every time we wrote an email, every time you typed something into that Google search box, every time your phone moved, you sent a text message, you made a phone call ... the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment were being changed. This was without even the vast majority of members of Congress knowing about it. And this is when I start to think about maybe we need to know about this, maybe if Congress knew about this, maybe if the courts knew about this, we would not have the same policies as the Chinese government.

On feeling like he was breaking an oath by keeping quiet about the extent of government surveillance

... when I realize we have been violating, in secret, the Fourth Amendment of that Constitution for the better part of a decade ... that we are committing felonies in the United States under a direct mandate from the White House billions of times a day honestly, I fell into depression. - Edward Snowden

My very first day entering into duty for the CIA, I was required to pledge an oath of service. Now, a lot of people are confused, they think there's an oath of secrecy, but this is important to understand. There's a secrecy agreement. This is a civil agreement with the government, a nondisclosure agreement called Standard Form 312. ... It says you won't talk to journalists, you won't write books as I have now done, but when you give this oath of service it's something very different. It's a pledge of allegiance, not to the agency, not to a government, not to a president, but to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

And so when I realize we have been violating, in secret, the Fourth Amendment of that Constitution for the better part of a decade, the rate of violation is increasing, the scope of the violation is increasing with every day, that we are committing felonies in the United States under a direct mandate from the White House billions of times a day honestly, I fell into depression. And I tried to think, how can I just get by? And this leads to a period where I resign from what would be considered direct mission-related work out in Japan, in the foreign field, as we call it, and I returned to ... a purely corporate position for Dell as a sales official at CIA headquarters.

On deciding to share classified material with journalists and setting conditions for the publication of the material

I tried to reconstruct the system of checks and balances by using myself to provide documents to the journalists, but never to publish them myself. People don't realize this, but I never made public a single document. I trusted that role to the journalists to decide what the public did and did not need to know. Before the journalists published these stories, they had to go to the government, and this was a condition that I required them to do, and tell the government, warn them they're about to run this story about this program and the government could argue against publication and say, "You've got it wrong," or "You've got it right." But if you publish this is going to hurt somebody. In every case I'm aware of, that process was followed, and that's why in 2019 we've never seen any evidence at all presented by the government that someone's been harmed as a result of these stories. (Editor's note: A 2016 report by the House intelligence committee cited more than 20 examples of which, it said, Snowden damaged national security. The details of those instances were redacted.)

On being detained in the Moscow airport for 40 days before being granted temporary asylum in Russia

Had I cooperated with the Russian government right if you think I'm a Russian spy I would have been in that airport for five minutes before they drove me out in a limo to the palace where I'd be living for the rest of my days, before they throw the parade where they call me a hero of Russia. Instead I was trapped in this airport for 40 days. ...

The U.S. government worked quite hard to make sure I didn't leave Russia. ... Why did the U.S. government work so hard to keep me in Russia? We don't have a clear answer, and we may never have that until more people in the Obama administration start writing memoirs, but it's either they panicked or they realized this would be an evergreen political attack where they could just use guilt by association, people's suspicion of the Russian government to try to taint me by proxy.

On his life in Russia and whether he receives any kind of financial support from the Russian government

I have my own apartment. I have my own income. I live a fully independent life. I have never and will never accept money or housing or any other assistance from the Russian government. ...

People ask how I make my living, and I give lectures. I speak publicly for the American Program Bureau and places book me to speak about the future of cybersecurity, what's happening with surveillance, and about conscience and whistleblowing. I've never been the nightclub type. I'm a little bit of an indoor cat. Whether I lived in Maryland or New York or Geneva or Tokyo or Moscow, I always spend the majority of my time looking into a screen, because I think the thing that's on the other side of it is beautiful. It has the promise of human connection. And although the Internet is very much a troubled place ... I think it is something worth fighting for, and something that they can improve.

On how he secures his personal cellphone

I try not to use one as much as possible, and when I do use one, I use a cellphone that I have myself modified. [I've] performed a kind of surgery on it. I open it up with special tools and I use a soldering iron to remove the microphone and I disconnect the camera so that the phone can't simply listen to me when it's sitting there. It physically has no microphone in it. And when I need to make a call I just connect an external microphone through the headphone jack. And this way the phone works for you rather than you working for the phone.

We need to be regulating the collection of data, because our phones, our devices, our laptops even just driving down the street with all of these systems that surround us today is producing records about our lives. It's the modern pollution. - Edward Snowden

You need to be careful about the software you put on your phone, you need to be careful about the connections it's making, because today most people have got a thousand apps on their phones; it's sitting there on your desk right now or in your hand and the screen can be off but it's connecting hundreds or thousands of times a second. ... And this is this core problem of the data issue that we're dealing with today. We're passing laws that are trying to regulate the use of data. We're trying to regulate the protection of data, but all of these things presume that the data has already been collected. ... We need to be regulating the collection of data, because our phones, our devices, our laptops even just driving down the street with all of these systems that surround us today is producing records about our lives. It's the modern pollution.

On coming back to the U.S. to face trial

My ultimate goal will always be to return to the United States. And I've actually had conversations with the government, last in the Obama administration, about what that would look like, and they said, "You should come and face trial." I said, "Sure. Sign me up. Under one condition: I have to be able to tell the jury why I did what I did, and the jury has to decide: Was this justified or unjustified." This is called a public interest defense and is allowed under pretty much every crime someone can be charged for. Even murder, for example, has defenses. It can be self-defense and so on so forth, it could be manslaughter instead of first-degree murder. But in the case of telling a journalist the truth about how the government was breaking the law, the government says there can be no defense. There can be no justification for why you did it. The only thing the jury gets to consider is did you tell the journalists something you were not allowed to tell them. If yes, it doesn't matter why you did it. You go to jail. And I have said, as soon as you guys say for whistleblowers it is the jury who decides if it was right or wrong to expose the government's own lawbreaking, I'll be in court the next day.

Sam Briger and Thea Chaloner produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the Web.

Original post:

Exiled NSA Contractor Edward Snowden: 'I Haven't And I Won't' Cooperate With Russia - Public Radio Tulsa

Prosecutors failure to disclose evidence leads to dropped drug charges – Journal & Courier

Possession of meth charges were dropped against Donald Hytrek of Lafayette after evidence was suppressed and Hytrek's argument of Fourth Amendment violations were presented to the court.(Photo: ImageDB, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

LAFAYETTE The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches is alive and well in Tippecanoe County.

Donald E. Hytrek's charges of two counts of possession of meth and one count of unlawful possession of a syringe recently were dismissed because prosecutor's evidence against Hytrek was not properly attained during a November 2018 search, according to court records.

Hytrek was on community correction at his home when community corrections officers and a police officer showed up and announced they were going to search the home.

Court documents indicate that Hytrek had signed the community correction's waiver to searches, but Hytrek's lawyer, Shay Hughes, filed a motion to suppress because Hytrek was never told why the officers searched his house. And, according to Hughes' motion, a signed waiver does not mean officers can search withoutprobable cause.

The reason for the search, according to Hughes' filing, was a drug screen from late October 2018, which might have indicated Hytrek had used amphetamines. However, the officers never communicated that before or during the search.

In fact, the prosecutor didn't even communicate that to Hughes when he asked for the prosecutor's disclosure of evidence, which is required by law.

When prosecutors produced the information about drug screen in June, Hughes filed to suppress the evidence because it was disclosed in a timely manner and was not mentioned in any police reports.

Tippecanoe Superior 1 Judge Randy Williams ruled on Aug. 29 that Hytrek waived his Fourth Amendment rights when there is probable cause. In Hytrek's case, the reason for the search a possible dirty drug screen was never mentioned at the time of the search and not disclosed to Hughes until June.

Without the probable cause, the evidence was suppressed. Without the evidence, prosecutors have no case.

Prosecutors filed to dismiss the case, and the case was closed Sept. 4, according to court documents.

Reach Ron Wilkins at 765-420-5231 or at rwilkins@jconline.com. Follow on Twitter: @RonWilkins2.

McCutcheon's new coach: Tristan McIntyre named baseball coach

In case you missed it: I-65 reopens after fatal crash snarls traffic for nine hours south of Lafayette

2-year-old found wandering near busy streets

Read or Share this story: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/crime/2019/09/13/unlawful-search-gets-drug-charges-dismissed-against-lafayette-man/2311272001/

Continued here:

Prosecutors failure to disclose evidence leads to dropped drug charges - Journal & Courier

A YJI reporter asked: Which Amendment is your favorite? – Youth Journalism International

Auburn, Maine, U.S.A. In the town of Auburn, Maine, the local community is putting together a promising concert that looks at the Bill of Rights the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution in a new and musical way.

But if asked which amendment in the Bill of Rights (and following amendments) was the most important to you, how would you answer? Would you be able to list more than three amendments?

I asked some of the people rehearsing for the Sept. 22 performance which was their favorite amendment and here is what they said.

Kathy Bidwell (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Kathy Bidwell First Amendment. Bidwell, who lives in Lewiston, Maine, believes the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press and Assembly) is the most important feature in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, she said that taking part in the upcoming concert was a good thing for her as she needed a review of the amendments.

Shelley Rau (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Shelley Rau Fourth Amendment. For Rau, of Turner, Maine, the 4th Amendment, which says Americans have the right to be secure in their houses from unlawful searches, is the amendment that she believes is the most critical.

Yunkyo Kim First Amendment. Kim, a Youth Journalism International student from Lexington, Mass., who was in Maine interviewing singers, agreed that the First Amendment takes the prize as the most important.

Yunkyo Kim (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Dwight Hines 14th Amendment. Hines, of Livermore, Maine, takes a different perspective and tells us that the amendment he sees the most value in is the 14th, which offers equal protection to all citizens.

Dwight Hines (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Rita Moran First Amendment. Another advocate for the First Amendment, Moran, who lives in Winthrop, Maine, believes that the First Amendment is largely ignored in the U.S., which she says is a Christian nation. She would like to see that change.

Rita Moran (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Carrie Jadud The Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights takes top place as the chosen favorite of Jadud, who lives in Lewiston, Maine.

Carrie Jadud (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Stephanie Hughes All of them. Hughes, who lives in Auburn, believes that every amendment is equally important and that the Bill of Rights is important to learn about. Before rehearsing for the show, she said, I couldnt rattle off 10!

Stephanie Hughes (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Bets Mallette First Amendment. The First Amendment is a collection of basic human rights according to Mallette, which clearly makes it the most important one.

Bets Mallette (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Richard Rau None of them. Rau said no single amendment is above another and that the finished product as a whole is the most important feature.

Rick Rau (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

Jackie Majerus First Amendment. Majerus said the most important amendment to her as an American is the first one. She states that it is a fundamental right and is critical not just for journalists, but everyone in the United States.

Jackie Majerus (Owen Ferguson/YJI)

So what conclusion can be gathered from these decisions? Clearly the most commonly chosen amendment is the First Amendment. Thats not surprising, considering that it covers a wide variety of what many refer to as the basic human rights.

But a few other amendments were also selected from this small sample, and this goes to show the variety of rights inherently given to the American people and how they can mean different things to different people.

And with an increase of potential threats on rights such as freedom of the press, it is more crucial than ever to learn and truly understand your rights.

Check out the upcoming Bill of Rights concert in Auburn, which is a benefit for Youth Journalism International. It will be held at 3 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 22 at the First Universalist Church at 169 Pleasant St. It is open to the public and admission is by freewill donation. More information is available here.

Owen Ferguson is a Senior Reporter with Youth Journalism International.

More:

A YJI reporter asked: Which Amendment is your favorite? - Youth Journalism International

Celebrating Constitution Week – Journal Advocate

Since this week has been declared Constitution Week I thought I might share why the Constitution is so important to me.

In my opinion, there are two areas of the U.S. Constitution that make it the greatest document ever written.

The first area is the Bill of Rights. The Bill Of Rights gave us the First Amendment, which protects free speech. It protects freedom of the press, our right to peaceably assemble, and freedom of religion. Its the Second Amendment that protects our right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Then there is the Tenth Amendment, which was the founders way of humbly saying that they werent right all the time. They knew that the federal government didnt always know what was best for the country, and that it should be up to the states to decide what is in their best interest.

The second part of the constitution that is brilliant, again came from the founders. They knew that as our great country grew, developed, and changed, we would need to change the Constitution with Amendments. Perfect examples of those Amendments are the 13th, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime; and the 19th amendment, which prohibits the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex.

This Divine Document is, and always will be defined as the Peoples Document. Not because the constitution GIVES you your rights, but because it PROTECTS your rights from a tyrannical, out-of-control government.

At the time the Constitution was written, someone asked Benjamin Franklin, What did you give us? and he replied, A Republic, if you can keep it. In the 1960s, it was Ronald Reagan who said in his Time for Choosing speech, This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of mans relation to man.

The 17th day of September, marks 232 years since the most influential set of American laws were enacted. As we celebrate the U.S. Constitution, every day we are fortunate to be guided by such a remarkable document.

Byron H. Pelton

Logan County Commissioner

Visit link:

Celebrating Constitution Week - Journal Advocate

Janison: One rough week for the Constitution – Newsday

During this Constitution Week, members of Congress traded sharp words with presidential loyalists over the stonewalling of a House committee's legal inquiries.

In the meantime, a presidential push to suppress California's separate air regulations underscored a historic role reversal in which progressives now invoke the constitutional rights of states.

Also, the Trump administration publicized plans to raid $3.6 billion in military funds for a border wall that lawmakers declined to fund in their formal budgetary role.

So you may say the Constitution is having a rough Constitution Week a commemoration begun in 1955 at the behest of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Apart from whether he's read it by now, flag-hugging President Donald Trump makes no effort to get the public to revere the founding document he's sworn to uphold.

If anything he treats it blithely.

Last week, Trump joked at a rally that he'd still be in office in 2026, when the United States co-hosts the World Cup. The 22nd Amendment bars him from the third term this would require.

Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment. To no effect, Trump has said the right could be taken away without a constitutional amendment. Nobody in his entourage makes a supporting case.

Go ahead and bump some MS-13 suspects' heads on cars, he once joked to police gathered on Long Island.

Reasonable searches per the Fourth Amendment? Trump pardoned a former Arizona sheriff who defied federal court orders to stop abusing his office in pursuit of people in the country illegally.

Trump said falsely that Democrats would kill the Second Amendment. They can't: Constitutional changes require a rigorous congressional process and must be ratified by three quarters of the states.

Trump's professed ignorance, or cynicism, apparently goes deeper. In July, he dropped this gem: "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."

Wrong. That article prescribes executive powers, but Articles I and III empower the Congress and the judiciary, offsetting his ability to "do whatever" he wants.

Not that the Trump camp creates all the constitutional conflagration. Far from it.

Marginal Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke drew criticism in the name of the Second Amendment when he emotionally declared in the last debate: "Hell, yes, were going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. Were not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore."

Until 2004, the U.S. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 barred the manufacture for civilians of specified semiautomatic firearms and certain large-capacity magazines.

The law survived court challenges, but Congress declined to renew it.

Some Democrats are talking about abolishing the Electoral College that put Trump in the presidency even though he lost the popular vote. That, too, could not skirt a rigorous ratification process.

The highest-stakes constitutional embroilment is the Trump administration's efforts to finesse or crush hostile inquiries from the Democratic-controlled House. These could lead to impeachment, possibly for obstruction of justice in the Russia probe.

As a practical matter, it remains to be seen whether and for how long the White House can keep key Trump allies who factored in the Mueller probe from testifying as requested before the Judiciary Committee.

Will the Constitution, signed this week in 1787, prevail? That's a perennial question.

Read the original here:

Janison: One rough week for the Constitution - Newsday

Federal Court: Cops Accused Of Stealing Over $225,000 Have Legal Immunity – Forbes

In a baffling decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, earlier this month, a panel of judges unanimously ruled that Fresno police officers accused of stealing over $225,000 were entitled to qualified immunity and cant be sued. Thanks to this doctrine, police officers, sheriffs deputies, and other public functionaries are shielded from civil rights lawsuits.

While exercising a search warrant in 2013, Fresno police raided and seized $50,000 from Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian, two businessmen suspected of illegal gambling (neither was ever criminally charged). Worse, the two claimed that police actually grabbed $151,000 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins, and stole the difference above what was reported on the inventory sheet. Critically, the $225,000 that was allegedly stolen wasnt included on the inventory report for seized property or booked into evidence.

Arguing that the alleged stealing violated their constitutional rights, Jessop and Ashjian sued. After all, the Fourth Amendment was a direct response to the infamous general warrants that let British officers ransack homes, which is why it specifically protects against unreasonable searches and seizures; police stealing for their own gain is hardly reasonable.

But under the U.S. Supreme Courts precedents for qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show that their constitutional rights were violated and that their rights were clearly established at the time. According to the court, a right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful.

Getty

The High Court has, however, made an exception for cases where the violation was so obvious that a general constitutional rule already identified in the decisional law may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question, even though the very action in question has [not] previously been held unlawful.

For the Fresno case, since there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant, the Ninth Circuit briskly concluded that the city officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Incredibly, even though the judges conceded that virtually every human society teaches that theft generally is morally wrong, the Ninth Circuit flatly denied it was obvious the officers were in the wrong legally.

This is not one of those rare cases in which the constitutional right at issue is defined by a standard that is so obvious that we must conclude . . . that qualified immunity is inapplicable, even without a case directly on point, Judge Milan Smith wrote for the majority in Jessop v. Fresno. According to Smith, it wouldnt be clear to a reasonable officer that stealing $225,000 would violate the Constitution theyve sworn to uphold.

Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and the officers declined to comment.

Further rubbing salt into the wound, the court declined to decide whether or not the alleged stealing by the Fresno officers actually violated Jessop and Ashjians rights. As a result, if cops are again accused of stealing seized property, they most likely would be shielded by qualified immunity, since it still wouldnt be clearly established that their actions are unconstitutional.

Jessop has set a damaging precedent for the Ninth Circuit, which governs not only the entire state of California, but Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington as well.

Outraged, several civil liberties and government accountability organizations, including the Institute for Justice, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and the Reason Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the Jessop case en banc.

(Rather unusually, the Ninth Circuit panel previously issued a ruling in March that also upheld qualified immunity for the Fresno officers. But in September, the panel decided to withdraw that decision and file a superseding opinion. A decision on rehearing the case en banc is still pending.)

Calling the ruling wrong, both under existing case law and as a matter of common sense, the joint amicus argues that the panels decision allows police officers to steal from suspects with impunity, and without any concern that they might be subject to civil liability. The brief connects the allegations to civil forfeiture, which lets law enforcement agencies seize and keep cash, cars, real estate, and other forms of valuable property, often without ever filing criminal charges against the owner.

Given the abuse that already exists when the government is permitted to seize property for the governments own use, the joint amicus warned, further immunizing officers who commit outright theft for their own personal profit will make it even easier for government officials to abuse their authority and escape any liability.

View original post here:

Federal Court: Cops Accused Of Stealing Over $225,000 Have Legal Immunity - Forbes

Court of Appeals finishes Constitution Day at K-State with two cases – Manhattan Mercury

The Kansas Court of Appeals heard cases on a drug arrest and teacher pay dispute Tuesday afternoon as part of its Constitution Day celebration at K-States Forum Hall.

The traveling court hears cases across the state but makes a special effort to hear cases at schools during September and particularly on Constitution Day. Tuesdays three-judge panel consisted of Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger and judges Henry Green Jr. and Michael Buser. The panel heard two cases in the morning and two cases in the afternoon.

The third case of the day, State of Kansas v. Erika Yazmin Arceo-Rojas, involved a Fourth Amendment question relating to a drug-enforcement traffic stop on I-70 in Geary County in 2016.

Arceo-Rojas and a passenger were driving in the left-hand lane of the highway for approximately three miles when Geary County Sheriffs Department Lt. Justin Stopper stopped her for driving in the passing lane too long.

At the traffic stop, Stopper issued Arceo-Rojas a warning, but he claimed to have noticed that Arceo-Rojas was acting nervous and that a strong fragrance was coming from the car. Arceo-Rojas also claimed to have been traveling from Washington state to Columbus, Ohio, and Stopper said he found those travel plans inconsistent, especially since they were traveling in a five-day rental car.

After he issued the warning, Stopper took a few steps back to his car before turning around and explaining that he was a drug interdiction officer, and he asked Arceo-Rojas if he could search her car. Arceo-Rojas refused but was detained anyway, and a drug dog found marijuana in the car. She was later convicted of two felonies, despite her motion to suppress the evidence.

Arceo-Rojas lawyer, Randall Hodgkinson, argued that the stop was unconstitutional and amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure. He said Stoppers reason for pulling Arceo-Rojas over driving too long in the passing lane was a not a legitimate reason to start questioning her.

Hodgkinsons second point of contention was that even though Arceo-Rojas had declined to Hoppers search, he continued to detain her after he had already told her she was free to go. Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger called Hoppers actions a Columbo pivot referring to the titular character of the 1970s police procedural Columbo.

Tony Cruz, representing the state, argued that Hopper had both reasonable grounds to initiate the stop and continue it based on his observations in speaking with Arceo-Rojas. Cruz said that it didnt matter that Hopper had already told Arceo-Rojas she could leave, as he was lying and had already established reasonable enough suspicion to search her car even without her consent.

The fourth case the court heard centered around a contractual dispute between the Geary County Board of Education and the Junction City Education Association.

In 2017, administrators at Junction City High School required several English teachers to teach a remedial reading class twice per week during their seminar periods, which teachers Dustin Delehanty and William Gies Jr. believed entitled them to additional compensation per their contracts.

Vincent Cox, appearing on behalf of Delehanty, Gies and the Junction City Education Association, argued that the reading assignment amounted to duties beyond their agreed upon responsibilities. He said that although the teachers were English teachers, they were not reading specialists and had to take additional training to prepare for the work. The teachers initially appealed through the contract-mandated hearing process with the school board, then appealed to district court, which sided with the school board.

The school board, represented by Mark Edwards, argued that since the teachers were only given the additional responsibilities twice a week, that didnt amount to a regular, additional and daily class as defined in the contracts definition of circumstances, which result in additional compensation.

Additionally, the board argued that the board properly acted as a quasi-judicial entity in reviewing the case, and that the district court should not have heard the original appeal because the appellants abandoned their original reason for appeal.

The panel will deliberate on all four cases from Tuesday and will likely issue opinions in the next few weeks.

Read the original:

Court of Appeals finishes Constitution Day at K-State with two cases - Manhattan Mercury

Woman Claims Sacramento Police Conducted Illegal Probation Search at Her Home – KTXL FOX 40 Sacramento

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

SACRAMENTO -- A mother of six claims officers harassed her children and ransacked her Sacramento home without cause and it was all recorded by one of the woman's children.

Nacole Jones says armed officers stormed into her home earlier this year during an illegal probation search organized by the Sacramento Police Department.

I was like, I can't believe this is happening," Jones said.

On Wednesday, Jones recalled what she says happened the morning of May 6. FOX40 sat down with her in person and her lawyer, Kellie Walters, spoke via FaceTime from her offices in Chicago.

The probation search was supposedly for Jones' husband, James Kenney. He has never lived at the address that was raided.

Walters says he was not eligible for a probation check because James Kenney was incarcerated at the time, and still is.

Kenney has a long history of arrests and convictions in Sacramento County spanning more than 15 years.

Declining to answer questions on camera but responding in writing, the Sacramento Police Department says when they headed out that morning around 5, the department "Records Management System as well as the Sacramento County Database showed the felony narcotics arrest warrant for Mr. Kenney as 'active.'"

Meaning Kenney needed to be picked up.

However, during the raid, officers on scene said something very different. It was all recorded by one of Jones' children.

I told you we have probation status on him, an officer is heard telling Jones.

Who's on probation? she asks.

He responds by saying, I don't have to tell you.

Jones maintains the scene only spun out of control after officers reached through an open window and let themselves in when she refused them entry.

"Do you know that I told them not to come in my house and they unlocked my f------ door and came in my house?" she asks an officer.

"Correct. They did," the officer says to Jones.

When asked about letting themselves in, the police department representatives did not address the issue directly, writing only that "officers observed a subject they could not identify fleeing from the residence towards the back of the house."

That subject was supposedly Jones' 17-year-old son.

They concocted a story that someone had run out the back door, which would have been physically impossible," Walters told FOX40.

Jones herself is seen in the video being tossed against a dryer when she asked police to leave.

"The most blatant unreasonable search is in one's home where privacy exists at its ultimate. This is a clear, clear violation of her right to be safe from unreasonable search," her lawyer said.

It's the Fourth Amendment that protects against illegal search and seizure.

Jones and her lawyer are working to file a civil rights lawsuit against the Sacramento Police Department based on the search. They say since May, the city has delayed their access to documents needed to complete their complaint.

According to the Sacramento Police Department, the four officers who participated in the search only learned Kenney was in custody after the fact.

Despite statements by Jones and Walters to the contrary, the department also says the warrant in their system listed Kenney's address of record as the home they visited.

After Jones said Sacramento police allegedly illegally entered her home, she reached out to community activist Tanya Faison for support.

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

Commenting about the incident Jones plans to sue over, Faison said, "This, basically, looks like another instance of when Sac PD is violating their own rules and feeling empowered enough to do it because there are no repercussions when they do things like this."

Although Jones said the department has since told her the officers involved have received additional training about what to do during a search of someone's home, a spokesman would not confirm or deny that.

Sgt. Sabrina Briggs told FOX40 in writing, "The Internal Affairs Division conducted their investigation and the findings of that investigation is part of the Officers involved Personnel file."

Link:

Woman Claims Sacramento Police Conducted Illegal Probation Search at Her Home - KTXL FOX 40 Sacramento

Lawsuit against Jackson police officer who shot dog will continue – MLive.com

JACKSON, MI A lawsuit against a Jackson police officer who fatally shot a dog in 2014 can proceed, a federal appeals court ruled this week.

Officer Matthew Peters fatally shot Kane, a pit bull, on Nov. 28, 2014 in the 500 block of S. Blackstone Street in Jackson, according to court documents. The dogs owners Dashuna Richards and Eddie Harris filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Fourth Amendment rights.

Peters walked through the front door of the apartment without knocking and without a warrant, according to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

When he announced himself, the dog ran down the stairs and started to growl, according to court documents. Peters said the dog was biting at him, while Harris said the dog was just growling, according to the court ruling.

Peters was at the house trying to locate a man who failed to pick up his prescription medicine from Henry Ford Allegiance Health. Police were supposed to take the man into protective custody. The man did not live at the S. Blackstone Street address, according to court documents.

Peters claims he thought he was in a common area, not an apartment, but the court rejected that in a decision dated Tuesday, Sept. 17.

In light of all the considerations ... the lack of aggression beyond the common dog behaviors of running down the stairs and growling at a stranger in the home; the absence of high-risk criminal activity that might require seizing the dog to safely sweep the premises; Peterss unlawful entry into the home where he shot the dog; the material disputes in the record regarding the distance between Peters and the dog; and the lack of any record facts regarding Kanes size or weightwe conclude that the plaintiffs have created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Kane posed an imminent threat that justified Peterss decision to shoot, the court ruled.

The appeals court affirmed the federal district courts decision the deny Peters motion to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds of qualified immunity and Michigan governmental immunity.

No disciplinary action was taken against Peters.

The lawsuit will proceed and a jury could decide whether the dog posed an imminent threat.

See the rest here:

Lawsuit against Jackson police officer who shot dog will continue - MLive.com

This year’s state constitutional amendments detailed by PAR – WWL News, Talk, Sports Radio Station

Four constitutional amendments will be on Louisiana ballots on October 12th.

The first would create a property tax exemption for certain goods for oil and gas companies. Public Affairs Research Council Policy Director Steven Procopio says it would clear up a federal constitutional debate for local companies.

This is about property taxes which are local taxes, so one way to look at it is this is giving a tax break to companies, said Procopio. Another way is, this is interstate commerce which is not normally taxed.

Opponents say its another tax giveaway to big oil.

The second option deals with allowing Louisiana Public Broadcasting and three alternative schools access to Education Excellence fund money.

The third option would allow the Governor-appointed Board of Tax Appeals to rule on questions of constitutionality for tax questions. Procopio says proponents want the change to speed up the process.

This would be more efficient and quicker and because the people on the board have more tax expertise, they think they would make better decisions, said Procopio.

Opponents say it would give too much legal authority to a non-elected board of decision-makers.

The fourth amendment option may surprise people: it deals with allowing the City of New Orleans to give property tax exemptions for affordable housing. So why is it up for a statewide vote?

In the constitution, it is set up that the exemptions to property taxes are listed in the constitution and that is it. You cannot put one in statute, if you want to add an exemption you need a constitutional amendment.

Supporters say it would give the city another tool to fight exploding housing costs, opponents say it could lead to waste fraud and abuse.

View post:

This year's state constitutional amendments detailed by PAR - WWL News, Talk, Sports Radio Station

Savannah-Chatham County students get dose of Constitution – Savannah Morning News

The rights bestowed on Americans by the founding fathers fit in a booklet about the size of a smartphone, but increasingly the two are competing forces in the lives of youth.

How best to balance technologys growingcapabilities with theBill of Rights' protectionsfor individualagainst searches, seizures and mishandling of sensitive personal information wasnt talked about much on Monday when State Superintendent Richard Woods visited Savannah-Chatham County public school system. He handed out The Words that Built America, a booklet thatcontains the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights and otheramendments and other documents important to this nation and its citizens.

The visit was timely -- September 17 is recognized nationally as Constitution Day to commemorate the signing of the document in 1787.

Woods and several school board members discussed what the Constitution and its amendments mean to Chatham County.

No one else in the world lives like we do in the United States. Ive had the privilege to visit different countries around the world and I can tell you, theres no place like home, no place to visit like Georgia, no place like the United States and the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have throughout the nation, he told students and teachers at Gadsden Elementary School Monday.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and Woods acknowledged to a reporter the Georgia Department of Education must protect students privacy as data is collected. Its paramount we protect student data because of the implications it can have on an individual, Woods said.

Consider the impact on an individuals life if someone gets hold of their credit cards and Social Security numbers, he said. The Georgia Department of Education protects students information in a similar vein. Woods also talked about the importance of the First Amendment'sfreedom of speech and why citizens must feel free to express themselves without fear of retaliation. That privilege is what has separated the United States of America from other countries, he said.

Savannah Mayor Eddie DeLoach attendeda Constitutionevent at Gadsden Elementary Monday, where he told a reporter the Constitution isnt as staid as some might think. We need to realize it is a document that is alive and always in flux. If you go to the 13th Amendment, in 1865 it was changed to make sure we did away with slavery.

The 13th Amendment states, Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Woods said the Constitutions preamble, We the people includes all U.S. citizens, including women. If you are a citizen of the United States, it does not discriminate or segregate or separate anyone, he said.

Gadsden Principal Renee Bryant-Evans said students begin civics as early as pre-kindergarten when they learn the pledge. The big talk about civics is as early as kindergarten, she said. In fourth grade, they begin to talk about the Constitution.

Woods and his wife Lisha, who retired from teaching after 30 years, toured five Savannah-Chatham County schools Monday. At Hodge Elementary, his visit included naming the school a Family-Friendly Partnership School for its efforts to provide a welcoming environment to parents and the community. It really came down to the past two years, theyve been working hard to get there, he said.

Originally posted here:

Savannah-Chatham County students get dose of Constitution - Savannah Morning News

CPS: Strip-Searching Kids is OK. Um, No! – Home School Legal Defense Association

by Darren Jones September 10, 2019

HSLDA is responding to a major challenge in our quest to deliver justice for Kentucky homeschool mom Holly Curry in her federal lawsuit.

When the CPS investigator we sued on Hollys behalf argued to the federal court that strip-searching the Curry kids during a nonemergency investigation did not violate the familys constitutional rights, we replied with a legal brief laying out and adamantly defending those rights.

The investigators motion for summary judgment is a big hurdle in what could be a long march to the United States Supreme Court.

The ordeal began on a cool morning when Holly left her children locked in a car for less than 10 minutes while she dashed into a cafe to buy muffins.

Police arrived, questioned Holly, and then reported her to CPS.

Later, an investigator with Kentuckys child protective services arrived at the Currys house, demanding entry (but not identifying herself or providing credentials). Holly invoked her constitutional rights and refused to let the investigator inside. A short while later, the investigator returned with a sheriffs deputybut still without a warrant.

The investigator and officer demanded that Holly let them in, threatening to obtain an order to remove all six children from the home.

Only when the officials repeated their aggressive and intimidating threats did Holly acquiesce to letting them enter her home, fearful that they would otherwise take away her kids, two of whom were infants.

Once inside, the investigator not only privately interviewed Hollys oldest daughter but then proceeded to strip-search all six children (including her daughters) in front of the male police officer.

After officials found no signs of neglect, the investigation was closed. However, because of the injustice done to the Curry family, HSLDA filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Holly and her children.

The particulars of Hollys case should secure her victory, but this is not a foregone conclusion. The investigator and the officer who stood by during the home invasion and strip search have asked the judge to dismiss our lawsuit and legitimize their invasive actions.

As a result, we intend to put every effort into getting justice for Holly and her family. This is not only an important fight for them, but also for every loving family.

There are real situations where government intervention is needed to protect children from harm. Sadly, in the case of the Curry family, the government officials were the source of harmnot the solution.

On Tuesday, September 17, HSLDA responded to the governments motion, pointing out that Fourth Amendment law protecting families from unwarranted government intrusion was clearly affirmed in the 1990s, when the Calabretta family, represented by HSLDA, stood up for freedom and won.

We hopeand anticipatethat the court agrees with the Currys and holds the government officials accountable for their actions. Realistically, though, no matter which side wins this motion, we expect that the next step will be an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then possibly to the Supreme Court.

Homeschoolers around the country have helped us defend the rights of the Currys and families like them. Please click here if you would like to help.

Read more here:

CPS: Strip-Searching Kids is OK. Um, No! - Home School Legal Defense Association

US allocates $10m grant for family planning in Egypt – Middle East Monitor

The Egyptian cabinet yesterday approved a presidential bill to amend the aid grant agreement signed between Egypt and the United States on improving health outcomes for target groups.

The amendment aims to provide $10,050,000, as a contribution from the US Agency for International Development(USAID)to enhance the quality of family planning services and reproductive health, according to local media.

The Egyptian Cabinet headed by Mostafa Madbouly also approved the presidential resolution on the fourth amendment of the grant aid agreement signed betweenWashington and Cairoregarding Egyptian-American Cooperation in science and technology.

READ: Sisi is damaging the lives of ordinary Egyptians

The amendment aims to provide a sum of $4 million as a contribution from USAID to consolidate the scientific and technological capabilities of the Egyptian and American sides.

It provides for the promotion of scientific and technological cooperation for peaceful purposes, providing opportunities for the exchange of ideas, information, skills and techniques of common interest between the two countries, developing systems for the dissemination and expansion of technology, while providing an appropriate role for the private sector in this respect.

USAIDs program in Egypt, which has seen over $30 billion spent in the country since 1978, backs the countrys development effortstowards promoting health, education as well as achieving economic growth and reducing poverty. It came as part of an agreement which saw Egypt sign a peace treaty with Israel at Camp David.

See original here:

US allocates $10m grant for family planning in Egypt - Middle East Monitor

DeKalb police break down, explain Terry stop before arrest of McDowell – DeKalb Daily Chronicle

DeKALB Newly obtained dispatch audio from the Aug. 24 arrest of an Aurora man includes a DeKalb police officer calling the incident a drug-related traffic stop, as he coordinates getting the DeKalb County Sherrifs Offices K-9 unit to assist.

The 50-second audio clip from 10:57 a.m. Aug. 24, obtained by the Daily Chronicle through a Freedom of Information Act request, the DeKalb officer asks dispatch if the dog is available, to which the sheriffs dispatcher replies yes, although the unit is on another call. The DeKalb Police Department does not have a K-9 unit.

TheAug. 24 arrest of Aurora man Elonte McDowell gained national media attention, after DeKalb police pulled McDowell over in the parking lot of Lincoln Tower, 1100 W. Lincoln Highway, but did not answer his frequent questions about why he was being pulled over. While arresting McDowell, DeKalb police wrestled McDowell to the ground and one officer appeared to wrap his arms around McDowells neck. A DeKalb County Sheriffs deputy then fired a taser at McDowell while he was on the ground.

Well we dont need him right this second, but we may need him soon, the DeKalb officer is heard saying. Because we possibly have a very drug-related traffic stop in just a little bit here.

DeKalb interim Police Chief John Petragallo called the type of stop a Terry stop, a special type of stop where police search someone suspected of an impending crime.

What is a Terry stop, and what are the rights for those who find themselves in such situations with police?

Ed Yohnka, director of communications and public policy for the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Terry stops became a frequent police procedure after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a 1968 case known as Terry v. Ohio.

The case involved a police officer detaining three Cleveland men who they said were behaving suspiciously, seemingly to prepare for an armed robbery. The police did a pat-down search of the men, which found a revolver, which then led to two of the men being charged (and convicted) of carrying a concealed weapon. The men appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the revolver only was found after what they said was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, which grants people the right to be protected from unreasonable searches on their person.

The court ruled the searches were legal however, because the officer had a reasonable, explainable suspicion that the three men could be armed and dangerous.

Under the Terry holding, a police officer can stop you and can then conduct a search of your physical person, Yohnka said. They dont have to explain why, but the trade-off for that, the theory, is that the police officer has to be able to articulate some reason that the officer felt that he or she was in danger.

Petragallo has said the officers who stopped McDowell were acting on reports that McDowell was seen advertising on Snapchat that he was coming to DeKalb with a load of drugs, court records show.

In this particular case, we got a telephone call into our dispatch center from a person that described a lot of what was happening, Petragallo said in a community meeting Sept. 4. The date, time that this vehicle would be coming into town. There was a lot of information as part of this tip. So the DeKalb police coming upon Mr. McDowell was based on the info we received and was corroborated, so we have records of this information coming in.

Petragallo said law enforcement officers engage in Terry stops frequently, and he described the stops as when an officer believes a crime is being committed, about to be committed, or was committed.

If they have one of those three things, they have the authority to stop a vehicle or person for a brief amount or reasonable amount of time to establish whether or not crime is occurring, Petragallo said.

Petragallo also has said he believes better communication could have occurred between DeKalb police and McDowell.

An independent and external investigation of the incident conducted by the Illinois State Police at the joint request of Petragallo and DeKalb County Sheriff Roger Scott is expected to take weeks.

McDowell next will be in DeKalb County court Oct. 11 for a status hearing, as he faces charges of unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, criminal trespass to property and resisting a police officer. If convicted of the most serious charge of unlawful possession with intent to deliver, McDowell could face up to five years in prison.

See the original post here:

DeKalb police break down, explain Terry stop before arrest of McDowell - DeKalb Daily Chronicle

Letters: Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting – The Advocate

I have read several letters to the newspaper on gun control in the past weeks. The Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment as No. 2 in the Bill of Rights for a reason. They thought of it as the second-most important freedom. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed," Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Cartwright on June 5, 1824.

In the United Kingdom, homicide rates were at an all-time high in 2018. They are now looking at banning knives of certain lengths. Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control in the world, and it is on pace to break the record for homicides in 2019. Criminals don't care what laws are passed.

In 2017, according to FBI statistics, there were more people killed with blunt objects in the United States than with any type of rifle. The FBI reports that over the last 10 years, on average, all rifles make up just 3.2 percent of homicides per year.

Mass shootings are terrible and are heart-breaking. Banning assault rifles will not stop them. The right to bear arms is granted to the people of the United States by our Constitution. I ask my fellow countrymen and women, what other right are you willing to give up? Maybe the Fourth Amendment or perhaps the First?

James L. Peay II

software executive

Zachary

Read this article:

Letters: Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting - The Advocate

Federal appeals court ruling sets precedent in ‘unreasonable’ search case – Richmond Free Press

Can police officers stop and search a random group of people found near a location where the officers believe gunshots have been fired?

And even if the shooter is not among them, can they arrest an uninvolved person who turns out to be carrying a gun illegally as the result of a felony record?

Yes to both questions, a divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided last week in a precedent-setting Fourth Amendment case that grew out of an incident two years ago in Richmonds crime-ridden Creighton Court.

The majority decision overturned a lower courts decision to suppress evidence the gun that led to the arrest of Richmonder Billy Curry Jr., even though authorities confirmed he had not fired any of the gunshots.

In a vigorous dissent, Judge Henry F. Floyd of South Carolina wrote that the decision completely cripples a fundamental Fourth Amendment protection and creates a dangerous precedent.

In his view, the majority opinion means that the sounds of gunshots, or even something that police perceive as gunshots, ... creates an emergency situation and allows police to stop and frisk anyone in the area without individualized suspicion.

The case began Sept. 8, 2017, when four detectives from the Richmond Police Departments Focus Mission Team heard gunfire within Creighton Court and responded to Walcott Place where it was believed the shots originated no more than 35 seconds earlier.

According to a recital of the facts, the detectives spotted and stopped six to eight men who, though clearly not together, were walking away from the area. The detectives asked the men to lift their shirts. The detectives shined flashlights on the mens waists to determine if they had guns.

All complied and showed they did not have weapons, except Mr. Curry, who did not pull up his shirt. He turned out to have a weapon after he was wrestled to the ground and searched.

Writing for the appeals court majority, Judge Julius N. Richardson, also of South Carolina, found that the de- tectives were operating in an emergency circumstance affecting the public interest, thus triggering an exception to the U.S. Constitutions Fourth Amendmentprohibitionagainst unreasonable government searches.

The officers were not investigating a shooting that occurred days or even hours earlier, he stated. They were rushing to respond to shots fired just seconds earlier in a densely populated residential neighborhood where there had been two homicides and six other shootings in the previous 90 days.

While Judge Richardson acknowledged that the officers did not have any reasonable suspicion that the men they stopped were involved in the gunfire, he found the primary purpose of the stop and flashlight search was the need to protect the public and (themselves) from a shooter and the potential for retaliatory gunfire.

The officers reacted quickly ... with a measured response to address the very real threat of further violence, he wrote in an opinion supported by Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of Maryland.

An unobtrusive flashlight search of the waistbands of those stopped to determine if they had weapons represented an intrusion on the mens liberty (that) was minimal both in scope and duration, Judge Richardson concluded.

View post:

Federal appeals court ruling sets precedent in 'unreasonable' search case - Richmond Free Press

Progress reported on Little Rock police use of no-knock searches – Arkansas Times

Radley Balko, the investigative opinion writer for the Washington Post, posted an update on Twitter last night to his article last year about the (over)use of no-knock warrants by Little Rock SWAT officers in drug raids. The reduction in over-the-top drug raids under the departments new leadership is welcome.

The past tactics Balko described remain under challenge in litigation.

Balkos original article made these key criticism of the police.

There are three main areas of concern. First, the narcotics unit appears to be routinely violating the Fourth Amendment by serving nearly all of its warrants with no-knock raids. Its asking for no-knock warrants without demonstrating why each suspect merits a no-knock entry, as required by federal law. Worse yet, Little Rock judges are then signing off on these warrants.

Second, the LRPD is serving many of these warrants by using explosives that SWAT veterans Ive interviewed say are reckless, dangerous and wholly inappropriate for use in drug raids. Ive also spoken to at least two people who say there were children in the home when the explosives were used.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, theres clear evidence that one informant whom LRPD drug cops have been using the informant used to obtain probable cause against Talley and others has been lying to police about his drug buys. At minimum, the detectives who worked with him have been inexcusably sloppy in their handling of him. But theres also evidence that raises questions about their own truthfulness.

The Arkansas Times sought permission to publish the entire Balko article in the Post, but the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a subscriber to the news service, wouldnt allow it, presumably because it might publish it. It didnt.

PS: While the Little Rock police have declared a more careful review themselves, a defense lawyer also credits new Criminal District Court Judge Melanie Martin with a more rigorous review of warrant requests than in past practice. Shes been judge of the court since the first of this year. (Shes a former prosecutor and no soft touch on the criminal class.)

More:

Progress reported on Little Rock police use of no-knock searches - Arkansas Times

Trump Judge Affirms Dismissal of Claims That FBI Agents Lied and Fabricated Evidence: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears – People For the American Way

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trumps judges on Americans rights and liberties.

Trump 5th Circuit judge Andrew Oldham wrote an August opinion in Cantu v. Moody that affirmed the dismissal of Daniel Cantus lawsuit for damages against two FBI agents for lying, thus fabricating evidence that resulted in his prosecution on drug charges, from which he was eventually found not guilty, but caused him to spend more than two years in jail. Judge James Graves strongly dissented and maintained that under Supreme Court case law, Cantu should have been able to sue the agents for damages.

Daniel Cantu received a phone call from someone who turned out to be an FBI informant, asking to meet in a parking lot in his car. When Cantu arrived, the informant placed a cooler on the passenger seat of Cantus car with no explanation. Almost immediately, 45 law enforcement agents approached Cantus car, immediately arrested him and seized the cooler, which they discovered contained heroin. Two FBI agents, James Moody and Erin LaBuz, falsely claimed that Cantu had emerged from his car and himself took the cooler and put in his car. Cantu was charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, but a federal jury eventually acquitted him. By that time, he had spent more than two years in jail.

Cantu then sued several of the FBI agents and police involved for damages. Among other charges, his complaint maintained that the actions of Moody and LaBuz in lying and fabricating evidence against him violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, under which he should be able to recover damages. This was based on the so-called Bivens doctrine, named after a case in 1971 where the Supreme Court ruled that damages lawsuits could sometimes be brought against federal law enforcement officers who violate the Constitution and cause harm to individuals. (Unlike state police, federal officials generally cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983). Cantus theory was that he was not the person who the informant had originally intended to provide drugs to and lead the FBI to capture, but after the drugs were put in his car, the FBI agents doubled down, fabricating facts leading to his prosecution and imprisonment.

The district court dismissed Cantus Bivens claims, as well as his other charges, and Oldham wrote a 2-1 opinion affirming the lower court decision. Oldham noted that although the Supreme Court had accepted Bivens-type claims in three cases, it had not done so since 1980. In a 2017 case, Oldham pointed out, the Court referred to recognition of a direct cause of action for damages as a disfavored judicial activity and suggested caution in extending Bivens to other situations. Oldham thus refused to do so in this case, pointing out that federal law enforcement officers can be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

Judge James Graves strongly dissented. As even the majority recognized, the 2017 Court decision specifically recognized that the three Bivens cases remain good law. Unlike the 2017 case, Graves explained, there were no special factors suggesting that Congress did not want a damages remedy to help in enforcing the law and correcting a wrong. Instead, Cantus case concerned standard law enforcement operations, Graves went on, and the claim that FBI agents fabrication of evidence led to prosecution and an improper two years behind bars was exactly the type of law enforcement overreach that the Court has emphasized can still be pursued under Bivens. The FTCA would not help, Graves noted, since it specifically does not provide remedies for constitutional violations.

As Judge Graves pointed out, an injunction against the FBI would not help Cantu, and it was damages or nothing if the agents were to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. But as a result of Oldhams decision, there will be no accountability and no remedy for improper law enforcement action in this case, and quite possibly many others in the 5th Circuit as well.

Follow this link:

Trump Judge Affirms Dismissal of Claims That FBI Agents Lied and Fabricated Evidence: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears - People For the American Way