Daily Archives: March 31, 2021

Virginia Beach Police Chief Paul Neudigate told city council members the technology doesn't fit on the officers' current gun holsters.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. Virginia Beach Police Chief Paul Neudigate says the police department doesnt have body camera video, city camera video, or business camera video of the moment an officer shot and killed Donovon Lynch at the Oceanfront.

The officer's body camera was deactivated for unknown reasons, Neudigate said, and Virginia State Police will now investigate why the officer's camera wasn't recording.

Even if the officer who shot Lynch forgot to activate their body camera, the police department bought cameras that have the capacity to turn on and record as soon as an officer pulls out a gun.

However, Neudigate said the technology doesn't fit on officers' current holsters, so VBPD isn't using it.

We were forced as an agency to go with a different holster the single sidearm is not fit for, so even though weve acquired it and weve paid for it, it has never been functional," Neudigate said in an update to Virginia Beach City Council members Tuesday.

Neudigate said there are backorder and shipment issues with the holsters and screws that work with the body camera technology.

Lacking video of the shooting, Neudigate said the investigation of Lynch's death is unique.

I can tell you Ive worked a lot of [officer-involved shootings] in 32 years of policing, this is the first time Ive encountered a situation where weve had no body-worn camera footage, no independent video footage, no immediate independent witnesses, and we did not have a more timely statement from involved parties," Neudigate said. "So as much as we want to be transparent to our community and they deserve it, its hard to be transparent when we have very little information to guide our response in our investigation.

Chief Neudigate said his department didnt interview the officer who shot Lynch for days because they couldnt violate the officers Fifth Amendment rights. He told city council the Virginia Beach Commonwealths Attorney's Office will decide if the shooting was justified.

We are used to being scrutinized and as we should," Neudigate said.

Virginia Beach Police will increase the number of officers working near the Oceanfront, and Neudigate asked council members to find a "holistic" approach to curbing gun violence.

We have to be very careful because we dont want to be seen as oppressive and discouraging people from coming to the Oceanfront," he said.

After 25 years patrolling the Oceanfront, Virginia Beach Police Benevolent Association President Brian Luciano wrote a fiery letter to city council asking for more support.

Quite honestly, it is any given weekend that someone is injured or someone is shot, Luciano said.

Neudigate also told council members hes short-staffed by about 100 officers. He said he would like 150 to 200.

Those 100 officers could field a precinct dedicated solely to Oceanfront Operations, Neudigate said.

He said they will pull officers from other areas for the summer season. Luciano believes they need to focus on recruitment.

Until we solve the manpower issue, what we are doing is sacrificing services in the rest of the city, Luciano said.

Read more:
Virginia Beach police bought the technology to automatically turn on body cameras when a gun is drawn, but it doesn't work - 13newsnow.com WVEC

Narendra Modi was in Bangladesh to attend the countrys Golden Jubilee celebrations of independence.

At least 11 people were killed in Bangladesh over the weekend as protesters clashes with police during demonstrations called by Islamist groups against Prime Minister Narendra Modis Dhaka visit. Mr. Modi was in Bangladesh to attend the countrys Golden Jubilee celebrations of independence. After Mr. Modis visit, violence spread across the country with protesters attacking a train in the eastern district of Brahmanbaria and targeting several Hindu temples. The main group behind the violent protests was Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh, an umbrella organisation of radical Islamists that had in the past clashed with the Awami League government.

Hefazat-e-Islam, literally protector of Islam, was formed in 2010 when the country was taking gradual measures to undo the Islamisation of its polity by the military rulers in the late 1970s and 1980s. In 2008, the military-backed caretaker government had proposed the Draft National Womens Development Policy Bill, promising equal rights to women in property through earnings, inheritance, loan, land and market management. In the December 2008 election, the secular Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, Sheikh Mujibur Rahmans daughter, was brought to power. The secualrists had demanded repealing the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which had made sweeping changes to the countrys original secular Constitution during the years of military rule (Later in the year the Supreme Court ruled the amendment was illegal). The Islamist groups saw these developments, along with the shrinking space of clergy politics, as a threat to their core interests, and came together on one platform to form Hefazat-e-Islam. In February 2010, Hefazat called a demonstration in Chittagong against the Womens Bill and the bid to cancel the Fifth Amendment. They clashed with police, injuring over a dozen, and announcing the arrival of a new Islamist group in Bangladeshs political landscape.

Headquartered in Chittagong, Hefazat is a platform of the Sunni clerics of the countrys vast Quami madrassa network and their students. The Economist reported in 2017 that Hefazat madrassas were financed by the Salafi-Wahabi Islamists in Saudi Arabia. If in 2010, they demonstrated their street power by staging the anti-Womens Bill protests, in 2013, they would expand their demands to a 13-point agenda and hold massive rallies in the capital Dhaka. Their demands included enactment of an anti-blasphemy law with provision for death penalty, cancellation of the womens development law (which Ms. Hasinas government passed), a ban on erecting statues in public places (because thats idolatry), a ban on mixing man and woman in public and declaration of Bangladeshs Ahmadiyas, a persecuted minority in Islam, as non-Muslims (like in Pakistan).

The Awami League government initially ignored the protests. But Hefazat members organised many marches to the capital, in what they called the siege of Dhaka, to push for their demands. When the pressure mounted, the government acted swiftly and ruthlessly. In the early hours of May 6, 2013, security forces launched a crackdown on Hefazat activists to oust them from Dhaka. At least 11 people were estimated to have been killed in the operation.

Since the failed Dhaka siege, Hefazat was careful not to run into a direct showdown with the government or the ruling party. But it remained an important hardline voice that often put pressure on the government with its Islamist agenda. For example, when the Fifth Amendment was repealed, the government restored secularism and some other articles of the original Constitution but Islam continued to remain the state religion. Hefazet had threatened violent struggle against the government if Islam is removed as the state religion. The government had also made changes in school texts under pressure from Hefazat and other Islamists. In 2015-16, when Bangladesh was gripped by violence against secular bloggers and activists, Hefazet had demanded action against the writers who insult Islam. In 2017, giving in to Hefazats demands, the government removed the statue of the Greek Goddess Themis from the premises of the Supreme Court. In 2018, the Hasina government passed a Bill recognising DawraeHadith, a top degree of Hefazat-controlled Quami madrassas, as equivalent to a Masters degree in Islamic studies and Arabic, a long-pending demand of Hefazat clerics.

Ms. Hasinas government may have found Hefazat a lesser problem than Jamaat e Islami, the militant religious party whose leaders were put on trial for war crimes committed in 1971 by the war tribunal. The government did not give in to Hefazats key demands that would alter the secular character of the state, but offered small concessions to the group to avoid trouble. These concessions, however, appeared to have made them stronger over the years. And the protests they carried out against the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, at a time when both India and Bangladesh are trying to deepen their ties, pose a new challenge to both Dhaka and New Delhi.

See the original post:
Analysis | Hefazat-e Islam, the group behind anti-Modi protests in Bangladesh - The Hindu

Was the December 2018 shooting death of a Lawton teen predicated on fear or vengeance?

That is the question a Comanche County jury will decide following the first day of testimony in the trial of David Keith Winbush for the charge of first-degree murder. The crime is punishable by life in prison, life without parole or death.

Represented by public attorney Lawrence Corrales, Winbush, 37, took intermittent notes but primarily kept his eyes focused on the table before him during Tuesday's testimony. He is on trial for the shooting and killing of Marques Brown Jr., 15, who was a Lawton High School freshman when he died.

It began with the theft of Winbushs white 2003 Chevrolet Silverado the night of Dec. 8, 2018. Former Lawton Police Officer Austin Mahsetky testified to taking the stolen truck report from Winbush at his home at 502 SW Jefferson. He was told two males had stolen the truck.

Winbush and his friends had been a bar and arrived home to find the truck missing. After checking his home video surveillance system, he told Mahsetky the truck had been stolen about three to five minutes before hed arrived home.

He said that if hed caught them in the act, he wouldve filled the truck with lead, Mahsetky testified Tuesday.

Mahsetkysoon heard the 911 call made by Jessie Burk reporting the truck was found in the 1200 to 1300 block of Southwest Bishop Road. Mahsetky said he arrived to find Winbush standing in the street near his truck. Winbush's neighbor, Geronimo Martinezs truck was parked blocking it. It was shortly before 12:30 a.m. Dec. 9, 2018.

Winbush told Mahsetky that hed shot the driver twice. He turned over his handgun that was in his hip holster and was taken into custody. He told the officer the teen had pulled out a large knife and tried to stick him like a pig and he shot the (expletive).

Police never reported recovering a knife in the area of the incident nor was one collected when Brown was discovered.

Still upset about the truck, Winbush described its theft as a breaking point for him, according to Mahsetky. Hed recently been at the center of a story that caught a large amount of media attention when his dog was beaten and severely injured. That assault was also captured on Winbushs home security video.

He said he was tired of everything, tired of being messed with, Mahsetky said. He was tired of being a target.

Winbush later told investigators he ran up to the male on the ground who then jumped up while placing one of his hands into his jacket/hoodie pocket and that he freaked out. Mahsetky said Winbush described hearing a distinct gasp sound from Brown after the first gunshot.

He said he would never forget hearing that sound, Mashetky said. He said he'd thought he wouldnt feel so bad for using his gun.

Brown died as a result of two gunshot wounds fired from behind, according to the State Medical Examiners autopsy report.

Another friend of Winbush's, Kendall Jirtle, testified to driving Winbush to the site where Martinez had stopped the pickup. After leaving the bar, Jirtle said all were meeting at Winbushs home so they could drop their vehicles off and go to another bar. When he got there, Winbush told him the truck had been stolen. He and Jessie Burk watched the security video of the trucks theft.

When Mahsetky left from taking the theft report, Jirtle said Winbush spoke with Martinez, who was following the stolen pickup. Thats when Winbush said to go get it. Neither Jirtle nor Burk knew Winbush was armed.

Once at the scene, Winbush was the first out of the vehicle. He said Martinez was standing in the roadway and was looking down at Brown, who was lying face down on the ground.

Everything else happened after that, he said.

Jirtle said Winbush asked the teen if he was the one who stole his pickup. He saw Brown jump up and turn to run away and the first shot was fired. The second shot followed a moment later. He testified Winbush pulled the trigger and said he knew Brown had been hit by the first gunshot.

I heard the kid say oh, he said.

In the 911 recording played in court, Jirtle said it was his voice telling Winbush Dont shoot. Assistant District Attorney Jill Oliver asked him why he made that statement.

I didnt think he needed to shoot, he said. I know the first shot hit him.

Winbush told Jirtle the teen had a knife. Jirtle said he wasnt close enough to see if he did or didnt and, at first, believed his friend.

At that point and time, it was really hard to tell, he said. He had to have a reason to pull the gun.

Brown was able to run away for a short distance. Footprints in the snow led emergency personnel to him in the roadway on Southwest 13th Street near Oklahoma Avenue. The teen was taken to Comanche County Memorial Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Jirtle testified no one chased after Brown or the three other teens seen running away from the truck.

During cross-examination, Jirtle told Corrales he didnt hear anything about a knife from Winbush until after the two shots were fired. He confirmed he saw Winbush fire the weapon.

He fired the first shot when he (Brown) turned and went to run and one after that, he said. It was just one after another. Everything just happened so fast.

During Martinezs testimony, he confirmed hed been looking for the truck for his neighbor. When he got behind it and began to follow, he said the teens sped up.

When asked if he sped up to keep up with them, Martinez looked to his lawyer at the back of the courtroom, and then invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. District Judge Emmit Tayloe asked the witness for clarity and determined he didnt want to admit to speeding. After Tayloe requested immunity for his exceeding the posted speed limit, and Oliver accepting it, Martinez confirmed he sped up in pursuit.

The teens driving the pickup made a turn from Southwest 11th Street onto Bishop Road at the northern boundary of the Lawton-Fort Sill Municipal Airport, struck a curb and went off the road to the right. Martinez said he pulled his vehicle in front of it and the doors opened with the teens bailing out. The truck continued and struck his truck.

Brown, who was unable to get away, was ordered to lie on the ground by Martinez and he complied. Winbush arrived moments later. When a knife was mentioned, thats when everything set off, he said.

He said knife, knife then the shots happened, Martinez said.

Martinez heard the first shot and saw the second burst from the handgun. He couldnt state for a fact that it was Winbush who fired the weapon, however.

Oliver then asked Martinez, Did you shoot the kid on the ground?

I plead the Fifth Amendment, Martinez replied.

Tayloe interjected and, again, asked Martinez if he pulled the trigger. This time, the witness answered: No.

I think you answered the question, Tayloe said.

Earlier testimony from one of the teens who had been in the pickup with Brown described the fear felt as they were pursued. The four had been riding around in the pickup, listening to music and smoking marijuana when a vehicle dropped in behind them, according to Warren Dennis.

When Martinezs truck blocked the truck, Dennis said they all tried to flee the stolen truck but Browns jacket was hung up on the door and the next time he looked, he was lying on the ground. As he ran, the sound of the gunshots scared him.

Dennis said he fled to his friends house. While on the run there, he said there was a truck that was circling the block and, he thought, looking for them. He said he wouldnt know Browns fate until seeing an Instagram post the next morning.

I just started crying and stuff, he said. Im scared to think about it. I got PTSD about it.

Testimony will resume at 9 a.m. today.

Read this article:
Question of fear or vengeance at core of Lawton murder trial - The Lawton Constitution

UAB Skyroad Leasing v. OJSC Tajik Air, No. 20-cv-00763 (D.D.C. Jan. 26, 2021) [click for opinion]

Petitioner UAB Skyroad Leasing ("Skyroad") brought an arbitration against Respondent OJSC Tajik Air ("Tajik Air"), before the Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration in Vilnius, Lithuania, for violating an agreement to lease two Boeing aircraft. In 2018, a $20 million award was issued in favor of Skyroad. It brought this action to enforce the award.

Tajik Air argued that the petition should be dismissed because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. Specifically, Tajik Air argued that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the United States for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Skyroad argued in response that a minimum contacts analysis was not required because Tajik Air qualified as a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the "FSIA"); therefore, Tajik Air had no Fifth Amendment due process rights. Skyroad's argument was based on the fact that Tajik Air was incorporated under the laws of Tajikistan and fully owned by the state.

Because Skyroad conceded that Tajik Air lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the United States to satisfy the Due Process Clause, the court only addressed whether Tajik Air qualified as a foreign state. The court noted that, underSection 1330(b)of the FSIA, personal jurisdiction over a foreign state exists as to every claim for relief over which the district court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, the court explained that this only applies to "an actual foreign government."

When a case involves an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign sovereign, the court affords the instrumentality a "presumption of separateness" from the foreign sovereign. For purposes of personal jurisdiction, that presumption means that, unless rebutted, the instrumentality is entitled to due process protection under the Fifth Amendment. And such protection means that, unless the instrumentality has sufficient minimum contacts with the United States, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.

Skyroad's case thus rested on rebutting this presumption of separateness. Skyroad asserted that Tajikistan maintained such extensive control over Tajik Air that the company lacked a distinct identity. Skyroad argued that this lack of a distinct identity was clearly shown through (i) Tajikistan's owning 100% of Tajik Air's voting shares, (ii) the government's making decisions on disbursements and appointment of the company's Director General, the Supervisory Board including senior government officials, and (iii) the government's funding Tajik Air, and the reducing of Tajik Air's debts through tax offsets.

The court rejected most of these arguments, stating that the facts presented "are relevant but as a matter of law do not by themselves establish the required control" and "such government action to prop up a wholly owned instrumentality's financial position is not at all unusual, however, and does not constitute excessive control by the state."Further, the court identified features of Tajik Air that "are the hallmark of separateness from a sovereign". First, Tajik Air was restructured from a state enterprise to an open joint stock company by government resolution in 2009. Second, Tajik Air is "authorized to open bank accounts, operate on an independent balance sheet, and may acquire and exercise its proprietary rights and personal non-property rights, incur obligations and litigate."

Under these circumstances, the court ruled that Skyroad did not sufficiently rebut the presumption of separateness; therefore, the court deemed Tajik Air a "person" for Fifth Amendment due process purposes. Because Skyroad conceded that Tajik Air lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the United States, the court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Tajik Air and could not enforce the $20 million award against the company.

Will Shields of the Washington, DC office contributed to this summary.

Continue reading here:
Arbitration. Enforcement of Award. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Personal Jurisdiction. District court refuses to enforce $20 million award...

As debates about policing pervade the public conversation, professorRachel Harmonof the University of Virginia School of Law has written the first casebook to look at the laws that govern police conduct in the United States.

The Law of the Police, published by Wolters Kluwer, takes on the question of how the law shapes police-citizen encounters and how the law might be leveraged to make policing serve the public better.

Harmon, a former federal prosecutor who directs the Law SchoolsCenter for Criminal Justice, has taught a course on the laws governing police for 15 years. She came to UVA Law in 2006 after spending eight years as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justices Civil Rights Division.

Throughout her time in academia, she has wrestled with what role, if any, policing should have in peoples lives, and how best to prevent misconduct.

I came to the Law School from practice, where I spent years prosecuting civil rights cases, including against police officers, she said. Over time, I got frustrated with criminal prosecution as a response to police misconduct. Prosecuting illegal police violence can be important, but I knew there had to be better ways to prevent problems in policing.

Among her goals for the book, she said, was to look at how different laws and legal rules make policing more or less harmful.

The book is a reaction to the traditional approach to policing the police, which is rights-focused. For example, a common police practice she considers problematic is selectively asking drivers, based on a gut feeling, to open their trunks during a traffic stop with all of the officers conscious and unconscious biases in tow.

Lawyers have typically looked at such problems and argued that they violate Fourth Amendment doctrine or, if they dont, that the doctrine should be changed, she said. I see things differently.

In the evolution of her thoughts, Harmon first looked at how existing rights and remedies might be applied to curb policing that works against the public interest.

I spent my first couple of years as an academic looking at legal remedies to see whether they could be used to prevent problems in policing and tossing them over my shoulder, Harmon said. So civil rights damages actions, is that going to work? No, thats not going to work a lot of the time. Justice Department investigations of police departments, is that going to work? No, that wont work well enough either.

She then suggested enhancements to these existing tools, before going another way.

I wrote a couple of articles trying to improve rights and remedies before I started to write about how to think more broadly about police misconduct as a regulatory problem, Harmon said. The question is not only how to remedy police misconduct, but how to use law to get the public safety we want, both through policing and through other means.

Focusing on that question led Harmon to study the harms of policing and how the law overlooks them or contributes to them.

Moreover, studying the vast array of legal rules that shape policing and police departments led Harmon to realize how little of it lawyers and law students may know, she said.

Hopefully, the book can be a resource, not just for law students, but for academics, lawyers, police chiefs, journalists, activists, judges or just about anyone interested in how the law actually governs policing and how it might do so differently whether thats reforming police departments or turning public safety over to nonpolice actors, she said.

She noted that the book is different than a criminal procedure textbook, which specifically prepares lawyers for the concepts they will need to know as future prosecutors or defenders. Her book is organized by police practices, such as stopping traffic, using force, maintaining order, and policing resistance and protests, rather than legal categories dictated by Fourth and Fifth Amendment law. The book covers departmental policies and local and state law, as well as federal statutes and cases. It also addresses topics law students rarely study and on which there are few resources for lawyers and commentators, such as asset forfeiture, protest policing, video recording the police, and criminal investigations and prosecutions of police officers.

Even so, that hasnt stopped some professors who have given her book a test run from using it in their criminal procedure courses. Harmon said that the book was not conceived with that purpose in mind, but she has grown more comfortable with the idea that it can be used to teach an alternative version of criminal procedure, one in which the police are front and center.

Harmon is a member of the American Law Institute and serves as an associate reporter for its project on Principles of the Law of Policing. She advises nonprofits and government actors on issues of policing and the law, and served as a policing expert for the independent review of the white supremacist events of Aug. 11-12, 2017, in Charlottesville.

In December she wasco-author of a report, Policing Priorities for the New Administration, advocating for a stronger regulatory approach. The report, produced in collaboration with Barry Friedman and the Policing Project at the New York University School of Law, urged the White House to appoint a policing czar and require that all of the more than 80 federal law enforcement agencies meet basic standards for transparency, among other clear and actionable measures.

Read more from the original source:
Professor's New Casebook Is First to Look at Law of the Police - UVA Today

Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. (the "Company") announced that certain of itssubsidiaries have entered into the Fifth Amendment to Amended and RestatedCredit Agreement, dated as of March 23, 2021 (the "Fifth Amendment"), by andamong SiteOne Landscape Supply Holding, LLC ("Holding") and SiteOne LandscapeSupply, LLC, as borrowers (collectively, the "Borrowers"), JPMorgan Chase Bank,N.A. (the "New Agent"), as administrative agent and collateral agent, theseveral banks and other financial institutions party thereto and certain otherparties party thereto from time to time. The Fifth Amendment amends and restatesthe Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2016, among theBorrowers, the lenders from time to time party thereto and UBS AG, StamfordBranch (the "Existing Agent") as administrative agent and collateral agent (asamended prior to March 23, 2021, the "Existing Credit Agreement" and, as soamended and restated pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, the "Second Amended andRestated Credit Agreement") in order to, among other things, (i) incur $325million of term loans (the "New Term Loans"), (ii) replace the Existing Agent asadministrative and collateral agent with the New Agent and (iii) make such otherchanges in the Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement as agreed among theBorrowers and the lenders. Proceeds of the New Term Loans were used to, amongother things, (i) repay in full the Tranche E Term Loans outstanding under theExisting Credit Agreement immediately prior to effectiveness of the FifthAmendment (the "Existing Term Loans"), (ii) to pay fees and expenses related tothe Fifth Amendment and the Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement and(iii) for working capital and other general corporate purposes.

The New Term Loans bear interest, at Holding's option, at either (i) an adjustedLIBOR rate plus an applicable margin equal to 2.00% (with a LIBOR floor of0.50%) or (ii) an alternative base rate plus an applicable margin equal to1.00%. Voluntary prepayments of the New Term Loans are permitted at any time, inminimum principal amounts, without premium or penalty, subject to a 1.00%premium payable in connection with certain repricing transactions within thefirst twelve months after the date of the initial funding of the New Term Loans.The New Term Loans will mature on March 23, 2028.

The foregoing summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the text ofthe Fifth Amendment and the Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, whichare filed as Exhibit 10.1 hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.

Item 2.03. Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an

The information contained in Item 1.01 concerning the Company's direct financialobligations under the Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement is herebyincorporated herein by reference.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

See the original post:
SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an...

The city of Columbus announced Thursday thatit is ordering six officers to answer questions about potential criminal misconduct by other officers during summer racial injustice protests Downtown.

But the police unionsays those officers do not have to comply under the terms of the contract with the city, and that threats of insubordination charges are empty.

More: Complaint alleges investigators hired by Columbus using unconstitutional tactics to force officer interviews in police probe

On Thursday morning, the city Department of Public Safety said independent investigator Richard Wozniak, a retired FBI agent, issued "Garrity notices" to six police officers "compelling the officers to answer questions."

If officers don't cooperate, the announcement said, they could face departmental charges of insubordination. The announcement said the six officers are "strictly witness officers" and not the focus of criminal investigation.

"Information they can provide is essential to the ability to identify officers who may have committed a crime, and necessary for any prosecution of those who might be charged with crimes," the announcement said.

More: Cost of probe into possible Columbus police crimes during protests passes $50,000

The city's contract with Fraternal Order of Police Capitol City Lodge No. 9 says that no member officer regardless of whether they are the focus of the investigation or not is required to give evidence if the investigation could result in criminal charges.

"If a member has been advised that the investigation may result in criminal charges, the member's refusal to answer questions or to participate in the investigation shall not be considered insubordination or like offense," the contract says.

Glenn McEntyre, assistant director of public safety, said the city disagrees "with that interpretation of the contract."

The independent investigation, which was announced in June by Mayor Andrew J. Ginther, seeks to determine whether Columbus police officers committed any crimes while responding to civil unrest here that began on May 28, three days after the death of George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police.

More: City seeks public's help in investigation of criminal misconduct during summer protests

Wozniak and former Franklin County assistant prosecutor Kathleen Garber were hired as an independent investigator and special prosecutor, respectively, to conduct the investigation.

Chapter 1903.01 of the city's ordinances requires police to investigate "whenever any person is physically injured or any property is damaged or destroyed by an employee of the city, or when city property is damaged or destroyed as a result of criminal action or a traffic accident."

Last week, Garber and Wozniak issued investigative subpoenas to five officers using a rarely, if ever, used section of Columbus City Code. Attorneys for the officers filed a complaint and motion for a restraining order, saying the subpoenas violated the union contract, Ohio's constitution and Ohio's rules for criminal procedure.

Garber withdrew the subpoenas shortly after the complaint was filed.

In Thursday's announcement, the city said Garber has determined that "there is probable cause to believe that someofficers committed misdemeanor crimes" and that other officers witnessed those crimes.

More: Pepper spray used as protests over death of George Floyd spread to Columbus

"Extensive efforts have been made to elicit the cooperation of those witness officers, including assurances of immunity from prosecution or administrative sanctions," the city said. "To date, only five witness officers have agreed to be interviewed, only after receiving a guarantee that they would not be criminally prosecuted. The other identified witness officers have refused to be interviewed or provide information on other officers who appear to have committed illegal acts."

The city said officers also have been provided an internal website to provide information anonymously.

"The only investigative means left to determine if a witness officer has information is by Garrity interview," the city said.

Garrity rights protect public employees from beingcompelled to incriminatethemselves during investigatory interviews conducted by their employers. The protection is provided under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states employeescannot be compelled by the government (their employer) to be a witness against themselves, and the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause that covers public employees of municipal, county and state governments.

The protections are named Garrity rights after Edward Garrity, police chief of Bellmawr Township, New Jersey, who along with five other employees was told they must answer questions in a 1961state attorney general's investigation into whether they were involved in fixing traffic tickets in Bellmawr and Barrington Township or lose their jobs. Their statements were later used to prosecute and convict them.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned their convictions in 1967, ruling in Garrity v. New Jersey that the statements of Garrity and the other employees,made under threat of termination, were unconstitutional because they were compelledby the state in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court ruled the option to lose their means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak or to remain silent.

The city said Wozniak has asked 60 officers to be a part of the investigation and55 have refused, 44 of them through attorneys.

In a statement, Garber said the focus of the investigation is accountability.

"If laws were broken, we will hold those responsibleaccountable," Garber said."It is concerning and disappointing that the people standing in the way of that accountability are fellow officers."

Mark Collins, who represents the officers who have been given the Garrity notices, said they will be pursuing legal options "to prevent the city from violating these officers constitutional and contractual rights."

"In Ohio, individuals cannot be forced to give interviews on misdemeanor crimes. That's the law," Collins said. "The contract requires the city to follow the law, so by ordering them to do something against the law, it not only violates the law but it also violates the contract."

Collins also said Garber's statement would imply the officers who are "strictly witness officers" could face criminal charges.

"If what she claims she believes is true, and if the officer doesn't respond to a crime they witnessed, it could be dereliction of duty," Collins said.

Collins also said if Wozniak and Garber have evidence, they could file the charges in Franklin County Municipal Court.

"If they have the probable cause, file the charges," Collins said. "File the charges and we'll see you in court."

Collins added that information provided in a press release from the city including an example of how Garrity works is incorrect, showing a lack of understanding by those leading the investigation.

"If an officer is given Garrity, they have to talk," Collins said. "If they don't, they can get fired for insubordination. They don't have Fifth Amendment rights at that point, but the information can't be used in criminal prosecutions. That's the whole point of having Garrity."

To date, Wozniak and Garber have been paid more than $100,000 combined for the investigation.

The city also hired BakerHostetler, a local law firm whose partners have previously donated to Ginther's campaigns, in a no-bid contract to investigate any administrative wrongdoing. That contract was for $500,000.

The city has not yet provided a dollar amount as to how much that administrative investigation has cost to date, citing the potential for more investigations to take place after Wozniak and Garber have finished their work.

The BakerHostetler investigation resulted in 49 reports, some of which involved multiple complaints. Of the 49 reports, only eight involved sustained allegations and only one of the eight resulted in discipline. That officer was given documented counseling for not filing the proper paperwork.

Three allegations were withdrawn, 28 were not sustained, 19 were unfounded and five were exonerated.

bbruner@dispatch.com

@bethany_bruner

See the original post:
City issues order to force Columbus police officers to give evidence in protest probe - The Columbus Dispatch

The separation of the judiciary from other organs of the state remains elusive even after 50 years of Bangladeshs independence as successive governments have amended the constitution to control the judiciary.

Legal experts said that Article 96 of the constitution on the removal of Supreme Court judges for misbehaviour or incapacity was amended on eight occasions between January 1975 and September 2014 while Article 116 on the control and discipline of the lower judiciary was amended on three occasions in 1975, 1979 and 2011.

It is painful that we are deprived of getting full independence of the judiciary from the executive, even though the establishment of an independent judiciary was one of the core objectives of our 1972 constitution, Dhaka University law professor Md Mizanur Rahman told New Age.

Although the law ministry is consulting with the Supreme Court to deal with administrative affairs in the subordinate judiciary, questions can be raised on how much the consultation is effective, he added.

He said that it is not a good sign for a democracy and such deviations bring no blessings for a country and a nation. When the judiciary is kept under the executive, democracy the first casualty, he pointed out.

The power to remove SC judges was vested in the president through the parliament in 1972, then in January 1975, through the Fourth Amendment to the constitution, the president became the sole arbiter.

Later in 1977, the president and the chief martial law administrator were authorised to exercise the power through the chief justice-led Supreme Judicial Council and the system of Supreme Judicial Council was ratified by the fifth amendment to the constitution in 1979, and the power was again vested in the chief martial law administrator in 1983.

All the martial law proclamations, including the Supreme Judicial Council of the fifth amendment, were revived through martial law proclamation in 1986 with the power vested in the chief martial law administrator.

All the martial law proclamations were declared unconstitutional by the High Court on August 29, 2005 in a Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd case, but the Appellate Division in February 2010 retained the Supreme Judicial Council until December 31, 2012 with the observation that the parliament would make necessary amendment to the constitution regarding issues related to the Article 96.

On June 30, 2011, the parliament upheld the Supreme Judicial Council by amending the constitution through the 15th amendment.

In 2014, the government through the 16th amendment vested the power again in the parliament but the High Court on May 5, 2016 declared 16th amendment unconstitutional and restored the Supreme Judicial Council and the Appellate Division to upheld the HC verdict on July 3, 2017.

Jurist Shahdeen Malik told New Age that though the government has yet to amend the constitution to restore the Supreme Judicial Council on the ground that its appeal against the Supreme Courts ruling awaits a hearing, the online version of the constitution incorporated the parliaments authority to remove SC judges.

He said that the separation of the lower judiciary from the law ministry on November 1, 2007 remained on paper because the ministry continued influencing the subordinate judiciary.

He said that the process of recruitments of SC judges was not transparent and partisanship became the norm since early 2000 as no law has been framed yet to set up the qualifications of the judges as per Article 95 of the constitution.

Consequently, there are always some doubts in independent functioning of the higher judiciary, he said.

There is dual control of subordinate judges by the law ministry and the Supreme Court, said Shahdeen, who also added that the law ministry should not have any control over the judiciary as per the constitution.

Although the judiciary has been developed on paper, the independence of the judiciary could not be achieved in reality, SC lawyer and right activist Md Asaduzzaman said.

He said that the judiciary became relatively weaker and more affected since former chief justice Surendra Kumar Sinha was removed as it is him who penned the 16th amendment verdict in 2017.

Judges have been appointed on the political choice of the governments in absence of any law or rules and this is why the higher judiciary has become questionable sometimes, he said.

Asaduzzaman said that the partisan judgements on this occasion come from the judges.

He said that the government wanted to control the judges without making any law for setting out qualifications for Supreme Court judges.

The Appellate Division in the 16th amendment case also restored Articles 115 and 116 from the 1972 constitution.

The governments petition seeking a review of the 16th amendment verdict still awaits a hearing.

The authority of control and discipline of judges and magistrates shall vest in the Supreme Court as per Article 116 of the 1972 constitution.

The Supreme Court lost the authority as the government vested the authority in the president amending the constitution through the fourth amendment.

The Supreme Court lost its authority over lower court judges after the Appellate Division upheld the High Courts verdict that had declared the fifth amendment unconstitutional.

On June 30, 2011, the government restored the fifth amendment provision relating to Article 115 and 116 paying no heed to the Appellate Divisions observation in its verdict on the fifth amendment to reinstate original Articles 115 and 116.

Article 115(1) of the 1972 constitution empowered the president to appoint district judges on the recommendations of the Supreme Court and other persons after consultation of the Public Service Commission and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also lost the authority to appoint district judges and magistrates as the government through the fourth amendment empowered the president to exercise the power in accordance with rules made by him.

The president still retained the power.

Read more here:
Separation of judiciary still elusive in Bangladesh - newagebd.net

While the COVID-19 relief bill brought the $15 an hour minimum wage.

Looking back in history, the fight for a minimum wage has been full of political struggle and labor conflict. Here are some notable developments in U.S. history.

The first state-level minimum wage law was passed by Massachusetts in 1912. Soon, other states followed suit over the next two decades. But the state laws were reversed by the Supreme Court in a case called Adkins v. Childrens Hospital of D.C., which ruled that a minimum wage violated employers and workers rights to liberty of contracts under the Fifth Amendment.

In 1938, at the height of the Great Depression, the first federal minimum wage was passed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act to improve workers living condition and boost their purchasing power amid the colossal disruption in the American economy. The rate was set at 25 cents per hour, which is worth about $4 today.

Since then, Congress has raised the minimum wage 22 times under 12 different presidents. Most times, Democrats held a majority when Congress approved a minimum wage increase. The current level is at $7.25 an hour, set in 2009.

States and cities have the right to set their own minimum wage standards. Now, 29 states and D.C. have minimum wages above the federal level.

Since 1938, the federal minimum wage went up bit by bit every few years. However, the increase stopped in the 1980s, mostly under the Reagan administration. At the time, America ushered in a wave of conservative thinking that bolstered the idea of the free market. The argument against increasing minimum wage is that it would result in a decrease in jobs, because businesses would be less inclined to hire more workers.

The minimum wage has caused more misery and unemployment than anything since the Great Depression, Ronald Reagan said in 1980 about the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reagan also suggested that employers should be able to pay young people at a rate lower than the federal minimum wage. He said that teenaged workers tend to be unskilled and a lower-than-minimum wage would help relieve the high youth employment rate, which was more than 18% in 1980.

In 1989, Congress passed an amendment to the 1938 law so that it applies only to businesses with a $500,000 annual revenue. It also mandates small retail businesses to pay its workers the minimum wage and overtime pay in any work week in which they either engage in commerce or make products that will be sold in another state.

The increase of federal minimum wage picked up again in the 1990s, rising from $3.35 an hour in 1989 to $5.15 an hour in 2007. That year, President George W. Bush signed into law the Fair Minimum Wage Act to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three stages over two years. It marked a victory for the Democrats who had been pushing for a change for the past decade. However, since 2009, the federal minimum wage has stagnated at $7.25 an hour, while the cost of living has become higher and higher.

In November 2012, a couple hundred fast food workers, backed by Service Employee International Union (SEIU), demonstrated under the banner of $15 in New York City. It marked the beginning of the Fight for $15 grassroots movement to demand a $15 hourly wage, a wage that people can live on.

At first, the demand to almost double the federal minimum wage was a fringe idea in Washington, even within the Democratic party. President Barack Obama endorsed a raise to $10.10 an hour in 2014. Hillary Clinton said that she favored a $12 an hour minimum wage in 2015, before endorsing the Fight for $15 effort shortly after.

The movement mainly focused at the state and city level. Seattle became the first city to adopt the $15 standard in 2014, following the victory of Ed Murray, a mayoral candidate backed by SEIU. New York and California, two large progressive states home to many of the members in the Fight for $15, also followed suit. Progressive activists then moved to moderate and conservative states like Illinois and Arizona. Since January 2014, 28 states and D.C. have raised their minimum wages.

Besides fighting on a local level, Fight for $15 also targeted big businesses like McDonalds, Walmart, and Target.

Now, the movement has long extended beyond fast food and retail. A $15 an hour minimum wage nationwide has become a mainstream idea widely embraced by the Democrats.

The most recent debate about federal minimum wage sees a divide among three camps, not conforming expected ideological or business groupings.

As for the long-held belief that a raise in minimum wage would kill jobs, the Congressional Budget Office said in February that a rise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour would result in 1.4 million job losses by 2025. Other studies have shown mixed results. Some even indicate that higher minimum wages increase employment.

That Congressional Budget Office assessment also estimated that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.

Since the beginning of 2021, 20 states have raised minimum wages. Many fast-food and retail giants, including McDonalds, Amazon, Target, and Costco have committed to paying workers at least a $15 minimum wage.

But the fight for higher pay and labor rights continues. Experts say the new battlegrounds could lie in hero pay, tipped minimum wage, and joint employment.

The pandemic has highlighted how many people in America are living close to the financial edge. For years, working one full-time job has not been enough for many minimum wage workers to get by. Should a full-time job in America guarantee a living wage? NBCLX storyteller Cody Broadway explores how the system is working against our essential workers.

The rest is here:
The Fight Over Minimum Wage Has a Long History in the US. Here's What to Know About It - NBC 6 South Florida