Monthly Archives: April 2020

If you are unfortunate enough to be pulled over for suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, are you required to submit to a breath or blood test? What if you refuse? Read People v. Peter Balov.

SUSPECTED DRUNK DRIVING

After Peter Balov was arrested for suspected drunk driving, the arresting officer advised him that per California law he is required to submit to a chemical test, either a breath or a blood test.

Understanding he had to take a test, Balov chose a blood test, which showed a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

Balov argued the results of the blood test should be suppressed in court, arguing his consent was invalid because the officer had not explained the consequences of refusing breath or blood testing as required by Vehicle Code section 23612. That section requires a driver to be told that his or her failure to submit to a test will result in a fine and loss of their drivers license.

CALIFORNIAS IMPLIED CONSENT

A blood draw is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment requiring a search warrant or the drivers voluntary consent to be searched.

To address that dilemma and prevent every driver from refusing to be tested, section 23612 provides that A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood That is the so-called implied consent law. By driving on Californias roads, you consent to be tested if you are lawfully arrested for drunk driving.

LOSS OF LICENSE

NOT EXPLAINED

Most importantly for Balov, section 23612, as noted, also requires that the driver be told that his or her failure to submit to a test will result in a fine, loss of drivers license (one year for first conviction) and mandatory imprisonment if convicted of driving under the influence. The gist of this case is that Balov was not informed of those consequences, he was merely told that he must take a test, either blood or breath.

Is Balov entitled to have the results of his blood test thrown out because he was not told of the consequences of refusing to be tested?

For example, if he had known of the consequences of refusing a test, Balov might have refused to take a test figuring his odds of convincing a jury that he was not driving under the influence would improve if the blood test was not entered into evidence.

COURT RULING

The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial courts finding that the officer correctly told Balov he was required to submit to a breath or blood test, and while the statement was incomplete because Balov was not informed of the consequences of his refusal, the officer did not intend to deceive Balov. To be honest, I find whether the officer intended to deceive Balov irrelevant. He did not tell him of the consequences of refusing to take one of the tests which the law required.

Balovs conviction of driving under the influence is upheld as he did not object to taking a test, even though the officer did not inform him of the consequences of refusing a test required.

Jim Porter is an attorney with Porter Simon licensed in California and Nevada, with offices in Truckee and Tahoe City, California, and Reno, Nevada. Jims practice areas include: real estate, development, construction, business, HOAs, contracts, personal injury, accidents, mediation and other transactional matters. He may be reached at porter@portersimon.com or http://www.portersimon.com.

See more here:
Law Review: Police fail to inform drunk driver of loss of license for refusing blood test - Sierra Sun

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that Boston police officers did nothing wrong when they walked through an open door into a boisterous party at East 6th and O streets on St. Patrick's Day in 2013 in response to a noise complaint - and wound up arresting several partygoers after a shoving match broke out.

The decision overturns a lower-court ruling that Boston police officers Harry Jean, Keith Kaplan and Daran Edwards, who initially walked into Christopher Castagna's apartment should not have done so - and means the Castagna and his brother Gavin won't get the settlement ordered by that judge: $1.

At issue was whether three officers - the Castagnas initially sued some 20 officers, but the suits against most were dismissed - should have just walked into Christopher Castagna's apartment without a warrant or his permission after responding to a noise complaint, spotting one seemingly underage lad come outside whirl around and vomit and seeing other apparent pre-21ers through a window. Castagna was not in a position to grant permission since he was, according to the court's summary of the case - in a rear bedroom, drinking and possibly toking up, while his guests grooved to the loud music in the living room, which made it impossible for him to hear the cops shouting "Boston Police!" as they approached and then entered his open apartment door.

In its ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said that the officers were protected by "qualified immunity" - basically, they were doing their job, and more specifically by a "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment that lets police take certain actions to safeguard the public even in the absence of the sort of serious crime that is normally required for warrantless searches - in this case, the loud music blaring from the apartment and the apparent presence of several underage drinkers, at least one of them literally sick to his stomach.

According to the court summary of the case, Boston officers arrived at East 6th and O shortly after 7:30 p.m. on March 17, 2013 - roughly 90 minutes after somebody called 911 to complain about a loud party.

By early evening, many of the guests at the Castagnas' party were intoxicated. Different guests estimated that they drank "between [twelve] and [fifteen] beers," eleven to thirteen beers, "ten beers," and "seven or eight beers" that day, respectively. ...

Jean arrived slightly after his fellow officers. He also heard music, saw that the front door was open, and noticed through the window that the people inside were drinking. He, too, believed that some of the guests were underage. As he approached the apartment, Jean "saw a young male come stumbling outside" onto the public sidewalk. Jean testified that the young man "walked around like -- you know, like a circle or half-circle, and then he hurled over, vomiting, and he did that twice. And then he stumbled back into the address that we were looking at."

Kaplan reached the apartment door and yelled "hello" several times and then "Boston Police." No one answered. According to Kaplan, "[w]hen no one answered, we kind of walked in."

At that point, none of the officers were intending to arrest anyone at the party, for underage drinking or any other crime. Kaplan explained that this response was in line with the police department's normal practice for responding to noise complaints: "Typically, we would just knock on the door, try to see who the owners are and tenants and have them turn the music down, shut the doors, keep the windows up and keep everything inside." Indeed, several of the officers did not have their handcuffs on them, which would have been necessary to make an arrest, explaining that they left them behind to lighten their load during a long day walking the parade route.

The officers explained at trial that there were two reasons for entering the home that evening: (1) to respond to the noise complaint by finding the homeowners and having them lower the volume of their music and (2) to make sure that any underage drinkers were safe, including the young-looking man who had vomited outside the home and returned inside.

The guests were in the middle of a dance competition when the police entered through the open door, and they did not immediately respond. Eventually, when they noticed the officers, the guests turned off the music. Kaplan explained that there had been a complaint of underage drinking and asked for the homeowners. There was a lull in which no one answered. Eventually some of the guests told the police that the owner's name was "Chris," but he was not in the room and was "in the back or the bathroom or something to that effect." Jean and another officer went to look for Christopher while the others stayed in the kitchen with most of the guests. ...

The court continued that the officers eventually found the Castagnas in a rear bedroom, that Christopher Castagna opened the door but that when he saw one of the cops eyeing some pot in the room, he tried to slam the door shut, only the officer's foot was right there, preventing him from closing the door all the way.

In the bedroom, Christopher shoved Jean a second time and the conflict between the officers and the party guests escalated. Other officers were called as back-up. Eventually, several of the guests and both brothers were arrested on various charges.

The brothers eventually sued all the cops who responded in federal court, on a variety of charges, including false imprisonment, assault and battery and malicious prosecution - and violation of their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful entry and their First Amendment rights.

The case came to trial in 2018. The judge declined to tell the jury about the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment, but the jury found for the officers under the "exigent circumstances" exception, which is the one normally used for serious criminal activities - that the officers had probable cause to know they had to act immediately to stop something serious.

The Castagnas' attorney filed for a new trial, calling the entry into the apartment and then Christopher Castagna's bedroom "a miscarriage of justice." Instead of a new trial, however, the judge amended the decision to find that the three specific officers were, in fact, guilty of "unlawful entry" because they had neither a warrant nor Christopher Castagna's permission to enter the apartment.

The court awarded the two brothers one dollar in nominal damages from each of the three officers. The court did not disturb any of the other jury verdicts.

The officers then appealed. In its ruling, the appeals court allowed as how there is some ambiguity about community caretaking - in fact, the appeals court did not directly address it until a case after the officers' trial - but not so much that the trial judge, Indira Talwani, shouldn't have told the jury about it:

The officers' entry into the home was in fact constitutional under the community caretaking exception and it was not clearly established at the time of their entry that the community caretaking exception would not give them an immunity defense.

The court continued:

Here, the function being performed by Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan was a community caretaking one. When the officers arrived at the scene, they saw intoxicated guests who appeared to be underage entering and exiting a party freely through an open door. Jean saw a guest that looked underage leave the house, throw up twice outside, and then reenter the apartment. The party was loud enough to be heard from the street. In their efforts to have the music turned down and make sure any underage guests were safe, they were aiding people who were potentially in distress, preventing hazards from materializing, and protecting community safety. ...

The officers acted reasonably. The officers had an implicit invitation to go up on the porch and knock on the apartment's door. See Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013). The officers did not enter the home until announcing themselves and failing to get the guests' attention. They needed to get the attention of the homeowner because he is the person ultimately responsible for the impact of the party on the neighborhood. Because they were responding to a 911 call reporting a noise complaint, the officers knew that people in the neighborhood were disturbed by the party. In addition, underage drinkers pose a safety risk. This is especially true on a holiday known for drinking and one that requires extra police officers to be deployed throughout the city.

Given the open front door, the people coming in and out of that open door at will, the evident lack of supervision by the owner of who entered, and the owner's failure to respond, any expectation of privacy was greatly diminished. It was objectively reasonable for an officer to have on-going concerns about noise complaints and underage drinking and determine that they might be easily resolved by entering through an open door (the same one the guests were coming and going through freely) to bring these complaints to the owner's attention.

See the rest here:
Ain't no party like a South Boston St. Patrick's party, cuz it don't stop, no, it don't stop - at least until the cops show up, and sometimes not even...

As most of us look to avoid Zoom Bombings, whether by some hacker with a hoodie on the Web or your dog or cat wanting your attention, the challenges of working from home are perhaps the greatest obstacles that the vast majority of Americans face as we navigate the COVID-19 pandemic. These concepts bring to light the idea of how safe we are on these electronic devices in terms of our privacy, both at a personal level and for corporations and their clients. As the U.S. Senate considers a new piece of legislation called the EARN IT Act, many are concerned the bill would kill end-to-end encryption, an element of technology that allows for private communication. This concern comes at a time when staying at home is the only option.

null

For one company in the blockchain industry, remote working is nothing new - prior to, during, and after COVID-19, all employees at this company have always worked remotely. In speaking with Corey Petty, Chief Security Officer of Status, a company offering an open-source Ethereum-based app that includes a private chat messenger, crypto-wallet and Web 3 browser, I learned some important lessons on how to work from home as an organization and as an individual. Additionally, I was able to understand the importance of end-to-end encryption and the backlash against new legislation in Congress that may force companies to stop using this type of cryptography.

In discussing the keys to success in remote working, Petty commented, It starts with understanding communication within the organization and using the available tooling that are online today...Especially for a company like status, where we are distributed across the globe, time zones become increasingly a part of that communication overhead and dealing with asynchronous communication has to be something that you are used to. Its establishing a digital workplace.

It must be hard if you are used to just asking a friend or colleague to come over and ask a quick question, and Petty notes establishing a digital workplace is really hard to do depending on how a company is set up and can be unique to the individual processes businesses go through. Leadership is key, and Petty notes, Having a very good COO who knows what they are doing and how to communicate is pivotal...[a company] has to have the ability to adapt and change how they operate very quickly or they are not going to be able to survive.

He notes it is important to manage the work-life balance as well and separate yourself from your work and living space. Additionally, organizational time management such as setting up regular meetings with the groups you need to be talking to and using all available videoconferencing applications for that type of thing is critical so that as an individual, you have a better idea of how to organize your time and get work done. However, dont ask Petty to talk to him in a Zoom chat. Based on his expertise in security, this is something that he notes, I would not use Zoom. Petty also does note that with companies like Status, this is really easy because they do not make physical products. Most of what we do is software development or protocol development so the digital aspect of our company is almost 100% whereas a lot of companies who dont have that opportunity need to be creative on who they can send home and who they cant and organize those processes accordingly.

Policy Of Ending End-To-End Encryption Policy In the United States

In terms of surviving, Status as well as other blockchain companies who see encryption as essential not only to their business models, but also on the principles of maintaining anonymity and privacy in a digital workplace, concerns of new legislation in the Senate has them concerned. The EARN IT Act, introduced by the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), stands for earning immunity that would end internet platforms such as Facebook or Twitter from having automatic immunity from lawsuits with respect to what is posted on their platform.

The bill makes an exception to the Communications Decency Act, which under Section 230 normally provides immunity, in cases of child sexual abuse, requires a list of best practices to be established by companies that a Commission headed up by the U.S. Attorney General would help oversee the development of.

Many organizations are not taking the proposal lightly and are pushing back. The Electronic Frontier Foundation stated that the EARN IT Act is unconstitutional and violates our First and Fourth Amendment rights. The EFF is urging people to call their Senators to vote No on this legislation.

Petty said he ...sees the exception to Section 230 as an enforcement tool for whatever leverage the EARN IT Act provides, and quite frankly, an underhanded one. It essentially turns a voluntary list of best practices to be mandatory, for operating a tech company in the U.S. without the legal protections of Section 230 is infeasible.

Encryption probably faces its most challenging fight ever and blockchain companies should take heed, because with the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with 10 Co-Sponsors, voting to recommend the bills passage, combined with both the previous President and the current one actually agreeing on a topic, this bill may just be as strong in politics as end-to-end encryption is in technology. As former President Obama noted at a SXSW Conference in 2016, if the government cannot crack encryption, it is like everyone walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket.

Obama comments at SXSW in 2016 on encryption

Petty notes encryption is the last bastion of a strong defense and weakening encryption usually comes at the expense of the defender, not the attacker...The process of introducing backdoors and selective access to encryption schemes is not one that is not should be rushed...There is an overwhelming consensus that this is a wrong move to take and its moving in the wrong direction.

Although the verdict on end-to-end encryption is not out yet, one thing does appear certain: that decentralized companies from the blockchain space have a lot to offer in the way of offering protection for company security as well as tips for working from home.

Original post:
How Working Remote And Protecting Encryption Is Natural For This Blockchain Company - Forbes

It has long been too easy for police to stop motorists on the highway - even without sufficient reason to believe that the driver committed a crime. On April 6, the Supreme Court made such stops even easier, ruling 8 to 1 that police may pull over a vehicle because its owner's driver's license has been revoked - notwithstanding the fact that it's common for the driver of a car to be the owner's spouse, child, neighbor or friend.

The lopsided outcome of the case underscores the fact that liberal and conservative justices have colluded in diluting the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures." It's an invasion of privacy far beyond the inconvenience of being stopped. Once a car has been stopped, an officer can seize illegal drugs in the passenger compartment if they are in "plain view."

This ruling stems from an incident in 2016 in which a sheriff's deputy in Douglas County, Kan., spotted a pickup truck and decided to run the vehicle's license plate through a state registration database. The search turned up the information that Charles Glover Jr., the owner, had had his license revoked. The deputy stopped the truck, which Glover was driving. He was charged with being a "habitual violator" of traffic laws.

Glover challenged the stop on the grounds that the deputy lacked "reasonable suspicion" that he had committed a crime - a legal standard looser than the "probable cause" required for a search warrant. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed, holding that the deputy had stopped the truck on a "hunch" that the driver was also the owner (whose license had been revoked).

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion" must be interpreted in light of "common sense." Besides, he suggested - a point also made by Justice Elena Kagan in a concurring opinion - that things might be different if an officer stopped a vehicle owned by an elderly man knowing that the driver was a young woman.

But as Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent: "The consequence of the majority's approach is to absolve officers from any responsibility to investigate the identity of a driver where feasible." Indeed, it gives police an incentive to be incurious about such details.

Most law enforcement officers are conscientious and respectful of constitutional rights. But too many abuse their power to stop cars - and pedestrians, as with New York City's infamous "stop-and-frisk" policy - on the basis of hunches or as part of a fishing expedition. The court has made it easier for them to misbehave.

Continued here:
Editorial: The US Supreme Court makes it easier for police to pull you over - Newsbug.info

Posted Wed, April 8th, 2020 9:50 am by Andrew Hamm

This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether a local ordinance that discriminates against interstate commerce, and was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, must discriminate exclusively against nonresidents to be subject to heightened scrutiny under the dormant commerce clause; whether a claim for violation of a prisoner-patients 14th Amendment right to informed consent requires a showing of deliberate indifference and proof of refusal; and whether the defenses of qualified immunity or good faith allow a defendant who takes another persons money or property in violation of the Constitutionbut in reliance on a statute or court ruling that is later declared unconstitutionalto keep that money or property when the owner sues for its return.

Thepetitions of the weekare below the jump:

Center for Biological Diversity v. Wolf19-975Issue: Whether Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996which grants the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security unfettered discretion to waive all federal, and related state, local, and tribal laws, regulations and legal requirements, and sets forth no standards or criteria to apply in determining whether such waiver is necessary for expeditious border-wall constructionviolates the separation of powers, the nondelegation doctrine and the presentment clause of the Constitution.

Jessop v. City of Fresno, California19-1021Issue: Whether it is clearly established that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from stealing property listed in a search warrant.

Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, California19-1081Issues: (1) Whether a local ordinance that discriminates against interstate commerce, and was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, must additionally discriminate exclusively against nonresidents to be subject to heightened scrutiny under the dormant commerce clause; and (2) whether a local ordinance that purports to ban advertisements for interstate services made over the internet, and is enforced in that extraterritorial manner, can be saved from dormant commerce clause scrutiny based on an irrebuttable presumption that the legislature did not intend for the ordinance to apply in the extraterritorial manner in which the ordinance is being enforced.

Deasey v. Slater19-1085Issue: Whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, a merely sufficiently analogous case is enough to show that the law is clearly established, or whether something more is required, i.e., a closely analogous case finding the alleged violation unlawful.

Sharp v. Harris19-1105Issues: (1) Whether, in holding that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals made an unreasonable determination of the facts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit contravened the Supreme Courts repeated admonition that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt, as inCullen v. PinholsterandWoodford v. Visciotti; and (2) whether the OCCA was objectively unreasonable in crediting the testimony of three experts who opined that the respondent, Jimmy Dean Harris, was not intellectually disabled and in not crediting the testimony of the one dissenting doctor, who has been censured, used an outdated test, made no assessment of adaptive functioning and disregarded the influence of factors he acknowledged could influence IQ test scores.

Sharp v. Smith19-1106Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in concluding thatMoore v. Texas IandMoore v. Texas IIwere mere applications ofAtkins v. Virginiathat could be applied retroactively on collateral review, contrary toShoop v. Hilland the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit; (2) whether, in sua sponte holding that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not rule on the adaptive-functioning prong because its analysis was too cursory, the 10th Circuit violated the Supreme Courts precedent that forbids the imposition of opinion-writing standards,Johnson v. Williams; and (3) whether, reviewed de novo or with deference, the 10th Circuit erred in granting habeas relief on the respondent Roderick Smiths claim of adaptive-functioning deficits when Smiths only expert to opine on this prong improperly administered the adaptive-functioning assessment directly to Smith, contemporaneously administered other tests to Smith that showed malingering and relied on information that was disputed by other witnesses.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemens Association19-1114Issues: (1) Whether a party was wrongfully enjoined underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)when the district court confirmed via the grant of a permanent injunction that its entry of a temporary restraining order was correct under then-applicable law; and (2) whether a district court retains its full equitable discretion to deny recovery on a Rule 65(c) injunction bond.

Mooney v. Illinois Education Association19-1126Issues: (1) Whether42 U.S.C. 1983provides a good-faith defense to private entities who violate anothers constitutional rights before the courts have clearly established the illegality of their conduct; and (2) whether the defenses of qualified immunity or good faith allow a defendant who takes another persons money or property in violation of the Constitutionbut in reliance on a statute or court ruling that purported to authorize its conduct and is only later declared unconstitutionalto keep that money or property when the owner sues for its return.

Danielson v. Inslee19-1130Issues: (1) Whether42 U.S.C. 1983provides a good-faith defense to private entities who violate anothers constitutional rights before the courts have clearly established the illegality of their conduct; and (2) whether the defenses of qualified immunity or good faith allow a defendant who takes another persons money or property in violation of the Constitutionbut in reliance on a statute or court ruling that purported to authorize its conduct and is only later declared unconstitutionalto keep that money or property when the owner sues for its return.

Knight v. Grossman19-1138Issue: Whether a claim for violation of a prisoner-patients 14th Amendment right to informed consent requires a showing of deliberate indifference and proof of refusal or whether the approach adopted by a majority of circuits, which applies a balancing test weighing, on one hand, the states interests in providing for the basic needs of prisoners and, on the other hand, the prisoners right to such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed decision to accept or reject proposed treatment as well as a reasonable explanation of the viable alternative treatments available, should control.

Posted in Center for Biological Diversity v. Wolf, Jessop v. City of Fresno, California, Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, California, Deasey v. Slater, Sharp v. Harris, Sharp v. Smith, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemens Association, Mooney v. Illinois Education Association, Danielson v. Inslee, Knight v. Grossman, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the week, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 8, 2020, 9:50 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/petitions-of-the-week-90/

Originally posted here:
Petitions of the week - SCOTUSblog

Today, April 10, is Good Friday, which means Sunday, April 12, is Easter Sunday.

Easter Sunday marks the day Jesus Christ arose from the grave, following his crucifixion. The crucifixion is marked with Good Friday.

Jesus Christ was sacrificed to take the punishment for the sins of the world. It is only through Him that one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Traditionally, churches would be filled with their usually parishioners and a number of family members, guests, and occasional attendees. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 situation, groups of 10 or more are prohibited from gathering.

Pastor Ethan Book reminded Marion County during the Friday afternoon press conference that there have been many times in human history when it has been difficult for people to gather to express their faith. He is thankful for the technology which has enabled many to be with their church families in some way.

We can still worship together, he said. Everyone should plug into services this weekend in some way.

It is troubling that houses of worship can be considered non-essential by our government. I understand the public health emergency, I understand that most churchgoers (older adults) are among the most vulnerable to COVID-19, but nonetheless, its hard for me to reconcile the First Amendments protection of the free exercise of religion with these restrictions. It is a Constitutional violation to threaten people with possible citation just for gathering to celebrate one of the most holy days of the year.

I am not recommending people ignore the warnings, but as I have previously said, we are a free people who have the right from God, not government to worship as we please even if it is at our own peril. The bottom line is no one has the right to tell a church it cannot be open for Easter.

Christianity teaches us that God has a plan for all of us, so if that means I go to church to worship my Lord and Savior and I catch a virus, thats the plan. Its a risk I run and I know I put others at risk by my actions, but there is also such a thing as prayer for the health and well-being of our brothers and sisters. But Gods top commandment has always been Thou shalt not have any other gods before me and Im pretty sure that includes government.

This pandemic, in my opinion, shows that too much of everyones faith now lies with government and not God. Its not really the individuals fault. The government has usurped too much power from the individual not just individual liberty, but the ability to survive.

So many of us are dependent upon our jobs that when the government shuts down many of them, more of us switch our dependency to government to keep our bills paid. The first question I have about this is, what gives them the power to deem your business to be non-essential? Im pretty sure that every business is essential to their owners and employees. Why cant bosses and workers be trusted to proceed with their operations as they see fit?

It is nice that locally we seem to be pulling together to help each other out. In my experience, thats what Marion County, and Iowans, do. Not everywhere is so fortunate, I know, but as everyone become more dependent on each other, stop and think who is behind the places we depend upon? Food banks and hospitals typically have roots in Christianity. If government handouts did not exist, do you not believe that churches and religious organizations would work to help those in need? God kind of calls us as believers to do so.

Ill admit that my faith in humanity remains strong and I might be naive about the good in people, but I am much more comfortable believing in Gods work through my fellow man than trusting government to meet my every need. God teaches us to put our faith in Him and He will see us through anything. This includes health emergencies.

But too often through this pandemic, there has been a great deal of reverence given to government. We need help; what is Trump going to do for us? What does the Governor say we should do? Will Dr. Fauci give us permission to come out and worship together?

Im sure there are many Christians praying for guidance. It would just be nice if God got more attention because nobody else is going to save this country or defeat the disease. Not to discredit doctors or health professionals through whom God works, but ultimately, God provides us with solutions.

Im troubled because I believe if were not careful, government will happily continue to eat away at our God-given rights. Lets look at the Bill of Rights; as I mentioned, with the First Amendment, our religious freedom is being eroded much like our freedom of speech and peaceable assembly.

The Second Amendment is always under attack. The Third Amendment (housing soldiers) may not be applicable to todays world, but you never know. The Fourth Amendment, securing us from improper searches and seizures, has been eroded with the Patriot Act. The Fifth Amendment is threatened with eminent domain and other land seizure legislation. Most criminal defendants willingly waive their Sixth Amendment rights, according to all my years following the court system. The same can be said for the Seventh, which ensures our right to a fair trial.

The Ninth Amendment reads, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. To me, that means if the government isnt expressly granted the ability to oversee some aspect of your life, the decision is yours. How much life-controlling bureaucracy exists now? Even so much as trying to hunt or fish?

The Tenth Amendment reads, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. States have been willfully surrendering their rights and ability to make decisions to the federal government for years, simply by accepting taxpayer dollars confiscated at the federal level with strings and conditions attached.

We need to draw the line sometime against government overreach, and there is nothing more sacred than the ability to worship God and praise Him together on an Easter Sunday. Churches should be allowed to open to their congregations, should believers so choose to gather. Being a Christian has always been a matter of faith, and I believe He deserves the benefit of the doubt that He will see all of His people through any illness regardless of what the outcome may be.

Take care of yourself and thank you for reading.

More here:
Don't let COVID-19 stop you from celebrating the Resurrection - Marion County Tribune