Monthly Archives: March 2021

This weeks IABs conference got off on a consumer-centric start Monday morning as a top Google executive and a U.S. Senator made cases for giving consumers even more control over theirpersonal data.

Citing Pew Research Center data that 81% of Americans dont believe the benefits of having their data tracked outweigh the risks, Google Vice President-GeneralManager for Ads Jerry Dischler reaffirmed the companys decision to abandon personal data tracking for advertising, but also unveiled a new initiative to leverage aggregated anonymized data tohelp the ad industry identify cohorts whose behaviors -- and performance -- could be lumped together in a way that helps advertisers measure and improve their advertising results.

He said the initiative, dubbed FLoC -- an acronym for federated learning of cohorts -- is already working with big advertisers and agencies, including Mondelez, Nestle,Unilever, Omnicon, PMG, S4 Capital and others, to begin identifying patterns that improve advertising performance in a 100% privacy-compliant way that also ensures a free and openinternet.

advertisement

advertisement

He described FLoC as a community where advertisers and agencies can test and iterate together to hep develop privacy-compliant ways of ensuring thatadvertising continues to perform as cookies go away.

Were deeplycommitted to getting this right, he concluded.

Importantly, he said the law wouldensure that corporate executives are "held personally responsible when they lie about our information."

He cited a number of recent consumer data transgressions in which companies apologized,but then did nothing about it.

Separately, Wyden said he was working to "close a loophole" allowing federal agencies to utilize personal tracking data gathered by mobile app platforms tosurveil American citizens without a court order, effectively, violating their Fourth Amendment rights.

Read the rest here:
Google Touts Cohort Targeting, Hopes Advertisers Will FLoC To It 03/09/2021 - MediaPost Communications

The Karnataka High Court on Monday said it would on April 5 hear two petitions challenging the State amendment to the Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, which came into force on July 10, 2020 and the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Fourth Amendment) Act KTCP Amendment Act which came into force on July 31, 2020.

The BDA Amendment Act seeks to inter alia, legalize the illegal occupation and construction on lands owned by the Bengaluru Development Authority. A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty was informed that the state government has not filed its statement of objections to the petition. To which the court orally said "One more instance of Covid-legislation. Ultimately the state will have to defend it. Amendment is by the state government. So it will have to respond."

During the hearing the bench pointed to few provisions and raised its objection. It said "One provision goes to the extent of saying that even land if acquired and not needed can be given back to the owner."

Senior Advocate Harish Narasappa appearing for the petitioner submitted "Not only that even if someone is in unauthorized occupation even he can be given. That is the egregious portion of the amendment. "While the party in person K B Vijayakumar submitted that "Even occupier of the property can apply for regularization." However, the state government advocate informed the court that safeguards are put in place.

The petition filed by Vijayan Menon states that "The BDA Amendment Act, like the Akrama Sakrama Scheme, is prima facie violative of Articles 14, 21 and 243ZE of the Constitution of India and is also contrary to the existing provisions of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976."

"The implementation of the BDA Amendment Act would render infructuous the current challenge to the Akrama Sakrama Scheme. The BDA Amendment Act detrimentally affects the residents of Bengaluru as the said Amendment Act incentivises land grabbers to illegally occupy government lands as the said illegal occupation would later on be legalized and regularized as a result of the said Amendment Act. The KTCP Amendment Act seeks to allow an increase in the floor area ratio for buildings by mere payment of premium charges to the Government."

It is further said that "The BDA Amendment Act, prospectively penalizes jurisdictional officers for their failure to prevent unauthorised constructions/occupations on BDA land from the date of the commencement of the BDA Amendment Act. In effect, the same amounts to excusing the jurisdictional officers for failure to prevent the unauthorized constructions/occupations on BDA lands prior to the date of the commencement of the BDA Amendment Act."

It is also claimed that The BDA Amendment Act has been enacted without due public consultation and the BDA Amendment Act has been enacted without having been brought to the notice of the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning BMPC which is a constitutional body set up under Section 503-B of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 in accordance with Article 243ZE of the Constitution of India.

The plea says that if urgent interim reliefs and / or measures are not passed, it would result in irreversible damage to the urban landscape of the Bengaluru Metropolitan Area as several unauthorised constructions will be rendered legal.

The petition prays for a declaration that the BDA Amendment Act, the KTCP Amendment Act and the KTCP Amended Rules Notification as violative of Articles 14, 21 and 243ZE of the Constitution of India

See more here:
Karnataka HC To Hear Petition Challenging Amendment To BDA Act On April 5 - Live Law - Indian Legal News

Relist Watch ByJohn Elwood on Mar 5, 2021 at 9:46 am

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

The Supreme Court has about 120 cases scheduled for resolution at Fridays conference. The court will be reviewing only two of them for the second time. Both raise the same basic issue, involving when people can sue the government for violating their rights when the suit might call into question the validity of a criminal conviction.

In Heck v. Humphrey, a 1994 decision of the Supreme Court, prisoner Roy Heck, who was serving a manslaughter sentence for killing his wife, sued police and prosecutors for federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they had knowingly destroyed exculpatory evidence and engaged in other misconduct to convict him. Because Hecks claims would undermine the validity of his conviction, the court reasoned that letting his claim go forward would allow prisoners to circumvent the restrictions Congress had placed on habeas corpus proceedings. Moreover, common-law malicious prosecution claims required plaintiffs to prove that criminal proceedings had terminated in favor of the accused. Accordingly, the court held that in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal courts issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. This is known as the favorable termination rule. This week, the court has relisted two cases testing the limits of that rule.

First up is Thompson v. Clark, 20-659, coming out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Petitioner Larry Thompson was arrested for resisting arrest and obstructing government administration after bad diaper rash mistakenly led to a police visit for suspected child abuse. Prosecutors soon dismissed Thompsons obstruction case in the interests of justice. The 2nd Circuit held that dismissal wasnt enough to show favorable termination under circuit precedent requiring that a proceeding must end[] in a manner that affirmatively indicates [a defendants] innocence. Thompson alleges a circuit split between courts like the 2nd Circuit and other appellate courts that hold that Section 1983 suits can proceed if the criminal prosecution ended in a manner not inconsistent with the defendants innocence. (Thompsons case also raises a claim about which party in a Section 1983 suit against police has to prove exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless search.)

City of Fairbanks, Alaska v. Roberts, 20-711, approaches the issue from the other direction. Respondents Marvin Roberts, George Frese, Kevin Pease and Eugene Vent were convicted of murder for the beating death of a teenager. But years later, someone else confessed to the crime and implicated others; during a court hearing, significant evidence was developed that this other group had committed the crime and the original defendants were innocent. The prosecution entered into an agreement with the four original defendants: The prosecution would move to vacate the conviction, and the four men would stipulate that their original convictions had been based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and would release the state of Alaska and the city of Fairbanks from liability for their convictions. After their release from prison, the four men sued. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the settlement satisfied the favorable termination rule. Judge Lawrence VanDyke and Judge Sandra Ikuta dissented from denial of rehearing en banc.

The favorable termination rule has confused courts for years. On Monday, well have a better idea what the court plans to do about it.

Thats all for this week. Stay safe!

Thompson v. Clark, 20-659Issues: (1) Whether the rule that a plaintiff must await favorable termination before bringing aSection 1983action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process requires the plaintiff to show that the criminal proceeding against him has formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit decided inLaskar v. Hurd, or that the proceeding ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit decided inLanning v. City of Glens Falls; and (2) whether, when a Section 1983 plaintiff brings a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful warrantless entry of his home and the government pursues a justification of exigent circumstances, the government has the burden to prove exigency existed (as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 10th Circuits have held), or whether the plaintiff has to prove its non-existence (as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th and 8th Circuits have held) .(relisted after the Feb. 26 conference)

City of Fairbanks, Alaska v. Roberts, 20-711Issue: Whether vacatur of a conviction by settlement qualifies as a favorable termination under Heck v. Humphrey when the vacatur was merely the ministerial recognition of a settlement agreement between respondents and the state.(relisted after the Feb. 26 conference)

Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, 20-197Issue: Whether the First Amendment deprives a government official of his right to control his personal Twitter account by blocking third-party accounts if he uses that personal account in part to announce official actions and policies.(relisted after the Dec. 4, Dec. 11, Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Jan. 22, Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Chipotle Mexican Grill v. Scott, 20-257Issue: Whether a district court may consider factors other than the presence of a single material question of law or fact common to a group of employees when assessing whether the employees are similarly situated for purposes of the collective-action provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.(relisted after the Dec. 4, Dec. 11, Jan. 8, Jan. 15 and Jan. 22 conferences) [NB: the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle and the court now appears to be holding the case]

Texas v. California, 220153Issue: Whether Californias sanctions against Texas and Texans prohibiting state-funded or state-sponsored travel to Texas because Texas protects the religious freedom of faith-based child welfare providers within its borders are born of religious animus and violate the Constitutions privileges and immunities clause, interstate commerce clause and guarantee of equal protection. CVSG: 12/4/2020.(relisted after the Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Jan. 22, Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, 19-1392Issues: (1) Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional; (2) whether the validity of a pre-viability law that protects womens health, the dignity of unborn children and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed underPlanned Parenthood v. Caseys undue burden standard orWhole Womans Health v. Hellerstedts balancing of benefits and burdens; and (3) whether abortion providers have third-party standing to invalidate a law that protects womens health from the dangers of late-term abortions.(rescheduled before the Oct. 9, Oct. 16, Oct. 30, Nov. 6, Nov. 13, Nov. 20, Dec. 4 and Dec. 11, conferences; relisted after the Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Jan. 22, Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Massachusetts Lobstermens Association v. Coggins, 20-97Issues: (1) Whether, in conflict with the holdings of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th and 11th Circuits and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Antiquities Act applies to ocean areas beyond United States sovereignty where the federal government has only limited regulatory authority; and (2) whether the president can evade the Antiquities Acts smallest area requirement, including designating ocean monuments larger than most states, by vaguely referencing resources or an ecosystem as the objects to be protected.(relisted after the Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Jan. 22, Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Harris v. Maryland, 20-101Issue: Whether, when preindictment delay has caused actual prejudice to the accuseds ability to defend himself, the due process clause requires that the defendant prove that the delay was driven by an improper prosecutorial motive, or that courts balance the particular prejudice to the defendant against the particular reasons (or lack thereof) for the delay.(relisted after the Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Jan. 22, Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Johnson v. Precythe, 20-287Issues: (1) WhetherBucklew v. Precytheestablished a categorical rule that a state may obtain dismissal of an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim by proffering a reason for rejecting the plaintiffs opposed alternative method of execution that is legitimate in the abstract, regardless of whether the plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the states proffered reason is not legitimate or sufficient on the facts of the case; and (2) whether, in the alternative, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuits refusal to permit Ernest Johnson, after the Supreme Courts decision inBucklewwas issued, to amend his complaint to propose a previously-used alternative method of execution warrants summary reversal.(relisted after the Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Jan. 22, Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

United States v. Tsarnaev, 20-443Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit erred in concluding that Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs capital sentences must be vacated on the ground that the district court, during its 21-day voir dire, did not ask each prospective juror for a specific accounting of the pretrial media coverage that he or she had read, heard or seen about Tsarnaevs case; and (2) whether the district court committed reversible error at the penalty phase of Tsarnaevs trial by excluding evidence that Tsarnaevs older brother was allegedly involved in different crimes two years before the offenses for which Tsarnaev was convicted.(relisted after the Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Jan. 22, Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 19-1388Issue: Whether Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison, which stated that employers suffer an undue hardship in accommodating an employees religious exercise whenever doing so would require them to bear more than a de minimis cost, misinterprets42 U.S.C. 2000e(j) which specifies that religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employees or prospective employees religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employers business and should be overruled.(rescheduled before the Nov. 20, Dec. 4, Dec. 11, Jan. 8, Jan. 15 and Jan. 22 conferences; relisted after the Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Dalberiste v. GLE Associates, Inc., 19-1461Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison and set a proper legal standard for determining what constitutes an undue hardship under Title VII.(rescheduled before the Oct. 9, Nov. 20, Dec. 4, Dec. 11, Jan. 8, Jan. 15 and Jan. 22 conferences; relisted after the Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Chavis v. Delaware, 20-317Issue: Whether the confrontation clause permits DNA evidence obtained as the result of a multi-analyst testing process to be introduced against the defendant at trial through one of the testing analysts who has no personal knowledge of the basis for the out-of-court testimonial statements made by the other nontestifying analysts who participated in the testing.(relisted after the Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Smith v. Titus, 20-633Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendments public trial guarantee, within the review apparatus imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, applies (1) to all phases of a defendants criminal trial; or (2) only to pretrial suppression hearings and juror voir dire.(relisted after the Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Taylor v. Illinois, 20-5344Issue: Whether a defendant is denied his Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him when a court admits into evidence a certified autopsy report, without requiring the state to present the testimony of the author, and the state then relies on the authors observations, not just to show cause of death, but as the sole evidence supporting its argument that the defendant fired two shots, when the defendant consistently denies firing two shots, when his denial is supported by each eyewitness and the physical evidence and when the states two-shot theory is crucial to its argument that the defendant committed knowing murder and not a lesser offense.(relisted after the Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences)

Read the rest here:
A pair of petitions on the favorable termination rule - SCOTUSblog

I really didnt want to write about drama surrounding local homelessness issues again this week. After all, theres a much better homelessness story on the front page, and unlike what Im about to write here, that story focuses on people who are actually homeless.

But considering recent events, I feel obliged to deliver the following.

Simply put, things have taken a sharp turn from Your run-of-the-mill Chico drama into So weird, this is Annie Bidwell-through-the-looking-glass territory. Id say You cant make this stuff up, but we rounded that jagged corner a long time ago.

First, Im going to point out some things that may sound shocking and maybe even give everyone pause: Chico, each of you with roofs over your heads have a lot to be happy about today.

First, for Chico First and Citizens For A Safe Chico folks: Seen our parks lately? Arent most of them nice and clean? Generally free of homeless encampments and mounds of garbage? Be happy. The new city council is doing exactly what most of the voters wanted them to do, and its made progress down that avenue in a big hurry.

Next, for groups in the homeless-advocacy category: Look! CHAT got $300,000 for shelter help, following a motion made by Sean Morgan (whether you like that part or not). Safe Space found some churches to help with shelter and medical care this winter. The new Jesus Center opens soon and Torres has taken in some people. Its actual progress the likes of which we havent seen in a while, and everyone involved with this is working hard to somehow fix a statewide and national problem that never should have created such a burden on the shoulders of small communities in the first place.

Yet almost nobody in this big tent seems happy. Why? Because nobodys winning. It seems half the town is mad because the homeless people havent gone away, regardless of how many times the city plays whack-a-mole with the encampments; and the other half is mad because unsheltered people are constantly being told go somewhere else without having anyplace they can actually go and who can blame them?

So nobodys completely getting their way, and a few are doubling down in hopes of picking up the pace.

Which leads us to the past 10 days.

First, local attorney Rob Berry drafted a letter to the Chico city manager, city attorney and chief of police saying he intended to use his legal authority to place people under citizens arrest if he saw them breaking laws. In particular, he mentioned Councilor Scott Huber and other local homeless advocates because theyd helped move people out of illegal camping sites and driven them elsewhere where, one can assume, they illegally camped again.

Full disclosure: Berry is a contributor to our Pro vs. Con series and a frequent writer of letters to the editor. Ive had several discussions with him the past couple of years, just as Ive had discussions with people of every political stripe, including everyone mentioned in this column. Sometimes I agree with these people and sometimes I dont, and vice-versa. But we keep communicating, which I think is always a good thing.

Not surprisingly, Berrys letter quickly made the rounds. Stand Up For Chico, the PAC fronted by Angela McLaughlin, issued a response expressing their horror especially the possibility that citizens could be detained by another citizen in the middle of helping homeless people move, and how exactly was that going to work, given the high levels of animosity that already exist between the various parties? The group urged the city to step in with some guidelines, calling Berry everything from a pettifogger to a vigilante in the process.

Thus, the powder keg was lit, and nothing short of a perfectly worded response from a city official could defuse it. Enter Chief of Police Matt Madden, who wrote a response so sublime, I wish I could call it my own.

Among the highlights from Maddens release on the topic of citizens arrests:

If a citizen sees a crime that has occurred, is occurring, or about to occur, law enforcement should be contacted immediately, and the citizen should avoid taking matters into their own hands.

The citizen making the arrest takes on the civil liability of making potential false arrests and could be held criminally responsible for rights violations, such as the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

And finally, Due to the potentially high level of danger to the public, we encourage citizens to contact the Chico Police Department and allow our staff to investigate crimes in progress.

The statement didnt include any provisions like Unless, of course, you see a member of the city council loading a homeless persons tent into the back of his truck, in which case you should follow him, so the message seemed clear: Let the police do their jobs.

What a concept. So, lets take a big-picture look here.

For all the assaults, burglaries, stabbings, shootings, robberies and other crimes that keep our police busy involving the unsheltered and yes, even people with a front door that locks its clear theyd much rather respond to a call themselves than end up in the middle of any citizen-arrest dramas in this particular arena, especially if those catch on and become the new thing to do.

Honestly, thats the biggest worry here. Its not the thought that an attorney whos not shy about insisting laws are followed is threatening citizens arrest on a councilor who isnt shy about his feelings that the homeless need some place to actually be.

A bigger concern for me, in this age of oft-dangerous political extremism, is what happens next? Who else will decide they want to follow people around town in hopes they catch them in an illegal act? Whos itching to one-up the dreaded other side with threats of arrest? What happens if someone places someone else under citizens arrest and the other person doesnt feel like being citizen-arrested? What if that person citizen-arrests the first person back? Howd you like to write up that police report, and does any of this sound like a good use of our police departments time?

Bottom line, dont police have more important things to worry about than whether or not someone is giving a homeless person a ride across town? Cant people who are rightly proud to say I support the police at least agree on that, especially since our district attorney, Mike Ramsey, told Action News that theres no crime here unless aid was given in physically setting up camp in a new illegal place? Hasnt it occurred to anyone that if a homeless person gets kicked out of a park and doesnt have a ride, hes going to end up someplace else anyway probably someplace many people in this town wont approve of? And where are they supposed to go, anyway?

I wish I had all of the answers. Its exasperating that I even have to ask some of these questions.

But, if I may dish out some advice that I expect absolutely no one will follow, I think we all need to take a deep breath here. Be happy about any progress that is made. This is a huge statewide and even national problem and there is no easy fix. Keep doing everything you can for what you believe and, just for the weirdness of it, try looking at things from another point of view once in a while. I may stand alone with this thought, but many of you are not as far apart in your beliefs as youve convinced yourselves that you are.

Anyway, lets see if we can un-torque the tension meter a few notches and enjoy this Sunday. Ill do my part by promising never to touch this particular subject in this particular space again until the thermometer hits triple digits, regardless of how heated the rhetoric gets in the meantime.

Finally, if you havent already done so, please read the story on the front page. As I said at the beginning, its a heck of a lot more important than this one.

Mike Wolcott is editor of the Enterprise-Record. You can reach him at mwolcott@chicoer.com.

Read more:
The (homeless) road goes on forever, and the drama never ends | Editors notes - Chico Enterprise-Record

The mayor of Lansing has been added to afederal lawsuit that alleges excessive force by city police caused the death of a 54-year-old man last year in the city's jail.

Mayor Andy Schor was named as a defendant in the lawsuit filed last Octoberin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan by the Southfield law firm of Buckfire & Buckfire.

The lawsuit states Schor"pursuant to the Charter, at all times relevant, was granted final decision-making authority concerning the supervision of the LPD."

The complaint alleges that Schor and police chief Daryl Green"knew or reasonably should have known, that the force used by the Defendant officers was excessive and in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the LPDs policies and procedures regarding the use of handcuffs and restraint devices."

Lansing city attorney Jim Smiertka, who is representing the mayor and others named in the lawsuit, said Wednesday, "We're going to file a motion to dismiss." He saidthe city has "tons" of video and bodycam video footage that dispute the allegations in the lawsuit.

"(The lawsuit) doesn't have any base or fact in law," added Smiertka. He said videos in the lawsuit have been forwarded to the Michigan Attorney General's Office for an investigation.

Anthony Hulon(Photo: Buckfire Law Firm)

The lawsuitalleges that officers used "excessive force" and the department permitted "collusive statements" by the officers in the death of Anthony Hulon of Lansing.

Hulondied April 11 while restrained face-down in police custody in the Lansing jail aftertelling officers, "I can't breathe." Hulon was handcuffed behind his back and pinned to the ground by Lansing police in a cell, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Hulon's family members, names as defendants the mayor, police chief and officersGary Worden, Charles Wright, Trevor Allman, Bill Windom and Edgar Guerra, plusthe city of Lansing.

Wordenhad written in an incident report that Hulon "was visibly under the influence of narcotics believed to be meth.Hulon was escorted to cell 6-3 without any issues. Hulon then started taking clothes off and was pacing the cell and yelling. Hulons behavior continued for approx. 8 hrs at which point Hulon stated he was very sweaty and hot. Sgt.Windham [sic] notified dispatch to have LFD and an Ofc transport Hulon formedical evaluation.

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/03/03/lansing-mayor-added-suit-against-police-over-man-death/6910054002/

Read more from the original source:
Lansing mayor added to suit against police over man's death - The Detroit News