Monthly Archives: June 2022

[co-author: Durva Trivedi]*

Last week, the First Circuit issued a decision that could be destined for Supreme Court review, but that nonetheless will immediately impact the course of criminal defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, particularly concerning government video camera surveillance. The split en banc decision centers on whether recordings obtained from a remotely controlled digital video camera mounted on a utility pole across from a private residence that was continuously recording the area immediately in front of that home should be suppressed, and whether the camera's installation was a "search" requiring a warrant. The panel of six judges unanimously agreed that evidence obtained from the camera should not be suppressed and was therefore admissible even though the camera was installed without a warrant. But they were divided three to three in two concurring opinions on whether a warrant should have been obtained to install the surveillance camera in the first instance, and whether prior First Circuit jurisprudence permitting warrantless video camera surveillance should be overruled.

Both opinions relied on the Supreme Court's 2018 Carpenter decision, but the first, 100-page opinion found the eight-month "intensive, long-term surveillance that could expose to a member of the observing public the whole of what visibly transpires in the front of one's home over many months in any practically likely scenario" constituted a search requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. However, the concurrence also concluded that the government was entitled to rely on the "good faith" exception allowing evidence obtained in a warrantless search to be admissible because the existing precedent at the time of the camera's installation disclaimed the need for a warrant.

The second, 30-page opinion found that the surveillance did not constitute a search, and therefore concluded that the government was not required to seek a warrant prior to installing the camera such that the video evidence was admissible as to the defendants surveilled. The second opinion also relied on Carpenter, but cited Carpenter's endorsement of the warrantless use of "conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras," and that "any purported expectation of privacy in observations of a house unshielded from view on a public street is not in the least like the expectation of privacy" that justified the warrant required by Carpenter for historic cell site location information.

The case centers on a criminal investigation into narcotics trafficking and the unlicensed sale of firearms. In January 2017, the ATF began investigating defendant Moore-Bush and "surreptitiously" installed a digital video camera atop a utility pole near where defendant was living at the time, which recorded the exterior of the home. "ATF agents were able to view a live-stream of what the camera recorded through a password-protected website. The agents also could, remotely, pan, tilt, and zoom the camera to better focus on individuals or objects of interest." The camera had within its view "roughly half of the front structure of the residence, including its side entrance and a gardening plot near that entrance, the whole of the home's private driveway, the front of the home's garage, much of the home's front lawn, and the vast majority of the walkway leading from the home's private driveway up to the home's front door (although not the front door itself)." (references to this area are noted in the opinions as the home's "curtilage").

ATF did not seek a warrant prior to installing the camera, and the camera was ultimately in place and continuously recording for eight months. In January 2018, based in part on evidence from the pole camera, Moore-Bush was indicted and arrested for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine.

In April 2019, Moore-Bush moved to suppress evidence collected by the pole camera, arguing that the continued surveillance of the house constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A Massachusetts federal district court granted that motion, finding that a warrantless search occurred, relying on the Supreme Court's Carpenter decision, which held that the government's acquisition of historic cell site location information providing a detailed record of a defendant's physical movements constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment (for further discussion of the Carpenter decision, see here).

The district court's suppression order was appealed and, in 2020, a three-judge panel of the First Circuit reversed, holding that surveillance of the exterior of a house did not constitute a search and consequently that the suppression motion should be denied. Then Circuit Judge Barron concurred, although finding that the installation of the pole camera did require a warrant. The appeal was then reheard en banc on the defendant's motion and while the en banc panel of six judges agreed that the suppression order should be reversed, the Judges disagreed significantly on whether a warrant was required to install the pole-mounted video camera in the first instance.

The first concurring opinion, authored by now Chief Judge Barron and joined by two other judges on the en banc court, concluded that a warrantless search did occur, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They found that Moore-Bush's legitimate expectation of privacy was violated when ATF agents collected eight months of aggregated information that no casual observer would see collectively. This concurring opinion relied on Carpenter and other recent Supreme Court cases concerning the application of various technologies to Fourth Amendment doctrine.

These decisions, according to the concurrence, support the conclusion that prolonged surveillance by the government that is streamlined and made possible by modern technology ("scooping up visual information about all that occurs in front of a residence over a long period of time") can constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, even "when each discrete activity in that totality is itself exposed to public view." The Carpenter case, in particular, was relied on by the concurrence to suggest a need to overturn a prior First Circuit decision that held that eight months of video surveillance from a pole-mounted camera did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Beyond concluding that eight months of video surveillance constituted a search, the concurrence did not provide guidance on a specific threshold or timeframe for determining when continuing video surveillance of curtilage amounts to a search, but quoting Carpenter noted that the Supreme Court's warning that "as '[s]ubtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the [g]overnment,' courts are ' obligated' . . . 'to ensure that the progress of science' does not erode Fourth Amendment protections." Nonetheless, the concurrence agreed that the original suppression order should be reversed because of the "good faith" exception, allowing evidence obtained by warrantless surveillance is admissible if conducted in accordance with the law in effect at the time.

In the separate concurrence, three circuit judges concluded that the surveillance, regardless of whether it was "surreptitious," did not constitute a search, that "the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee that suspects have fair notice that an investigation is ongoing," and that Carpenter endorsed warrantless use of security cameras. Additionally, the separate concurrence argued that it should be left to the Supreme Court to decide whether and to what extent legitimate expectations of privacy are violated by government surveillance that uses modern technology to aggregate and capture what is plainly in the public view but only observable over a length of time with technology like remotely accessed and controlled digital video pole cameras.

Looking forward, it has been reported that the defendant in the case has again sought rehearing, based on her argument that the video evidence should nonetheless be suppressed because the government waived the "good faith" exception. However, this point had been argued in the prior briefing and the three judges who thought there should have been a warrant did not "consider the 'good faith' issue to have been waived," so that rehearing would appear unlikely on that point.

The en banc opinions demonstrate significant discord among federal judges on the application of the Fourth Amendment to lengthy remote surveillance enabled by modern technology. It is likely that the defendants will seek certiorari, as the second concurrence concludes that, "if new constitutional durational limits are to be set on the use of long-used, widely-available technology that detects only what is plainly in the public view, it is for the Supreme Court to set those limits."

Judges Lynch, Howard, and Gelp. Former Chief Judge Howard authored the original panel opinion that reversed the suppression order, and here was joined by Judge Lynch from that panel.

* Durva Trivedi, a rising 2nd-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center, is a 2022 Summer Associate at DWT.

[View source.]

Visit link:
First Circuit Splits on Whether Warrantless Pole-Mounted Video Surveillance Violates Fourth Amendment; District Court Suppression Order Reversed - JD...

In 2015, the death of a 25-year-old Black man, Freddie Gray, while transported in a police van sparked protests in Baltimore.

The protests were deemed The Baltimore Uprising.

Soon after, police enthusiasts noticed strange flight orbits towering over the city of Baltimore. However, what they saw was something completely different.

The city would learn later that the Baltimore Police Department was using powerful cameras that could capture detailed imagery of the city below it. It was part of an evolution of the citys CitiWatch program, initially announced in 2005.

Before Gray, the residents bought into the program, as Baltimore was the seventh most violent city in 2003 before the program came about. After Gray, residents worried about violations of their right to privacy, as the strange flight orbit extension to the program was unknown to residents before its implementation.

Responding to the conundrum between privacy and protection, lawyers at the Policing Project, a non-profit center at New York University School of Law began a project to explore a soft law alternative: a certification system for policing technologies. The project considers the unchecked technologies concerning. Instead, they propose making policing more transparent, equitable and democratically accountable.

The certification schemes the lawyers call for would require policing technologies to meet a particular standard before usage.

A certification scheme could perform a review of a technologys efficacy and an ethical evaluation of its impact on civil rights, civil liberties and racial justice, the lawyers wrote in a study for the Berkley Technology Law Journal.

The report says that Baltimores CitiWatch programs could perhaps achieve approval as a traditional CCTV device but not as an aerial surveillance system, meaning the certification program could impact how the police use the products.

The writers say the program would have to work independently, acknowledging how some certification programs do not work democratically.

They argue for set rules which currently do not exist and say because of the lack of regulation the technology has become innovative in its intrusiveness over the rights of citizens.

For example, a 2016 landmark report on law enforcements use of facial recognition technology estimated that one in four agencies have access to this tool, with over 117 million American adults already in face recognition databases.

Additionally, in 2012, 71 percent of police departments were using automated license plate readers, resulting in scans of hundreds of millions of license plates. A 2020 California state auditor report revealed that the Los Angeles Police Department had stored more than 320 million license plate scans 99.9 percent of which were stored despitenotgenerating a hot list match.

Automated license plate readers and facial recognition technologies have disproportionately targeted minority communities, and people of color, which they argue can sometimes infringe upon the right to privacy.

The Fourth Amendment implemented by judges is the primary constitutional restraint on police power, but under existing doctrine, remarkably few of the emerging police technologies fall within its ambit, they write.

However, some protections are offered against the technologies currently in law. Such as the Privacy Act of 1974 and the E-Government Act of 2002, but some scholars say it does not regulate policing enough.

The writers of the study suggest community and police buy into the certification process and argue with proper compliance and regulation, the technologies can benefit the police without infringing upon the rights of citizens.

They argue the programs will not make the hard choices. Instead, they will give the communities and policymakers room to make the decisions themselves.

The hope is that certification might, rather than displacing community choice, facilitate it, while proving a trusted informational voice in decision making, they write.

The authors of the report were Barry Friedman, New York University School of Law; Farhang Heydari, Policing Project, NYU School of Law; Max Isaacs, New York University School of Law; and Katie Kinsey, NYU Law.

The study can be downloaded here.

James Van Bramer is Associate Editor of The Crime Report.

Follow this link:
Privacy or Protection? Does Policing Technology Need Regulation? - Crime Report

When Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito stand on opposite sides of a criminal justice case, it is safe to assume that criminal justice reform advocates will be cheering for Gorsuch. That maxim certainly held true today in the Court's 72 decision in United States v. Taylor.

At issue was whether a conviction for attempted robbery under one federal law, the Hobbs Act, also qualifies as a "crime of violence" under another federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A). This matters because the additional "crime of violence" designation carries with it a second felony conviction and extra years in prison. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch held that the "crime of violence" designation did not apply.

To qualify as a "crime of violence" under the federal law at issue, the offense must have, according to the statute, "as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another." Justin Taylor was charged with attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act. To secure that conviction, Gorsuch explained in his opinion, "the government must show an intention to take property by force or threat, along with a substantial step toward achieving that object. An intention is just that, no more. And whatever a substantial step requires, it does not require the government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to use, or even threatened to use force against another person or his property." In other words, while an attempted robbery occurred under the Hobbs Act, "no crime of violence" occurred under the terms of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A).

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each dissented from Gorsuch's opinion. Thomas blasted Gorsuch for a soft-on-crime judgment that distorted federal law, is "divorced from reality," and which "threatens public safety." Alito was not exactly complimentary either. "I agree with Justice Thomas that our cases involving 924(c)(3)(A) have veered off into fantasy land," he wrote. Gorsuch's "strict reading of the text," according to Alito, led to an absurd result.

In 2020 I wrote about the growing trend of criminal justice cases dividing the "conservative" judiciary. One of my examples involved Gorsuch and Alito clashing over the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, with Gorsuch advancing an interpretation that would cause the government to lose many more cases than it currently does while Alito countered with a far more deferential stance in favor of prosecutors and police.

Today's dispute over statutory interpretation in a criminal sentencing case represents yet another active front in this ongoing and crucially important judicial battle.

More here:
Gorsuch and Alito Butt Heads in Another Criminal Justice Case - Reason

06.15.22

With the Extremist Supreme Court Poised to Overturn Roe v. Wade, the Need to Protect Location and Health Data is More Crucial than Ever

Data Privacy Expert: Health and Location Data Protection Act would fill one of the largest protection gaps in U.S. privacy law

Washington, D.C. Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, joined Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in introducing the Health and Location Data Protection Act, legislation that bans data brokers from selling some of the most sensitive data available about everyday Americans: their health and location data. The legislation is also cosponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee; Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.); and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. The legislation would reign in largely unregulated data brokers, whose data has been used to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, out LGBTQ+ people, stalk and harass individuals, and jeopardize the safety of people who visit abortion clinics for health care.

As extremist Republican lawmakers work around the clock to criminalize essential health servicesincluding abortionpatients private health and location data must be protected, said Senator Murray. Selling peoples most sensitive data to turn a profit isnt just wrongits dangerous, and risks Americans safety as they seek the care they need. Im proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Health and Location Data Protection Act to protect peoples sensitive health dataparticularly as Republicans attack all of our reproductive rights.

Data brokers profit from the location data of millions of people, posing serious risks to Americans everywhere by selling their most private information, said Senator Warren. With this extremist Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and states seeking to criminalize essential health care, it is more crucial than ever for Congress to protect consumers sensitive data. The Health and Location Data Protection Act will ban brokers from selling Americans location and health data, rein in giant data brokers, and set some long overdue rules of the road for this $200 billion industry.

When abortion is illegal, researching reproductive health care online, updating a period-tracking app, or bringing a phone to the doctors office all could be used to track and prosecute women across the U.S. It amounts touterus surveillance. Congress must protect Americans privacy from abuse by far-right politicians who want to control womens bodies. Im proud to work with Senator Warren to introduce theHealth and Location Data Protection Act,said Senator Wyden.

Americans ought to feel confident that their highly sensitive data isnt hocked to the highest bidder without their consent. We need sensible rules for the handling of personal health and location data, especially in light of recent efforts to ban or even criminalize abortion care and other important health care,said Senator Whitehouse.Im pleased to join Sen. Warren in introducing this important bill.

Data brokers collect and sell intensely personal data from millions of Americans, often without their consent or knowledge, reaping massive profits. Largely unregulated by federal law, the unsavory business practices of data brokers pose real dangers to Americans everywhere.

The Health and Location Data Protection Act would:

The legislation is endorsed by a wide range of data and sexual privacy experts, including experts from Duke University, University of Virginia, and Washington University in St. Louis.

Health and location data are incredibly sensitive and can be used for a range of harms, from profiling and exploiting consumers to spying on citizens without warrants to carrying out stalking and violence. Companies should not be allowed to freely buy and sell Americans health and location data, on the open market, with virtually no restrictions. Imposing strong legal and regulatory controls on this dangerous practice is vital to protecting the privacy of every Americanparticularly women, the LGBTQIA+ community, people of color, the poor, and other vulnerable communities, said Justin Sherman, Fellow and Research Lead, Data Brokerage Project, Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy.

This bill provides crucial protection to the privacy of our intimate lives. Our health and location information should not be sold or shared but rather treated with utmost care. It paints a detailed picture of our close relationships, health conditions, doctor visits, and other aspects of our intimate lives for which we expect and deserve privacy. This bill includes strong and clear rules against the sharing of health and location data and civil penalties and injunctive relief to back them up, said Danielle Citron, Jefferson Scholars Foundation Schenck Distinguished Professor in Law and Caddell and Chapman Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law & Vice President, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.

I am happy to endorse Senator Warrens Health and Location Data Protection Act, said Neil Richards, Koch Distinguished Professor in Law and Director of the Cordell Institute, Washington University in St. Louis. For far too long, shadowy networks of data brokers have engaged in an unregulated and unethical trade in our sensitive data for their own profit. This bill would offer significant protections for everyone in our society at a time when the privacy of our health and our location data is becoming ever-more important to our ability to live our lives without fear of betrayal, manipulation, or coercion. The HLDPA would be a significant step in restoring the balance of power between humans and the corporations who trade in their data for profit.

By sharing peoples sensitive and personal information, data brokers fuel harmful surveillance and endanger the most vulnerable members of our society. The Health and Location Data Protection Act would finally begin to rein in these invasive business practices, offering people long-overdue protection from this notoriously unregulated and reckless industry, said Thomas Kadri, Assistant Professor, University of Georgia School of Law.

This is an important bill that will protect digital privacy, and at an especially sensitive time when location data may be used to track those seeking reproductive health services after the Supreme Court decides the Dobbs case, said Elizabeth E. Joh, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law.

Peoples health and location data leaves them remarkably vulnerable. It can reveal the most intimate aspects of their lives and also opens them up to pervasive tracking, harassment, wrongful discrimination, financial loss, and physical injury. Yet data brokers remain free to sell and share this data in ways that lead to harm and abuse, said Woodrow Hartzog, Professor of Law and Computer Science, Northeastern University. The Health and Location Data Act of 2022 is a desperately needed intervention that would impose substantive limits on the ability of data brokers to trade on our vulnerabilities. This bill wisely avoids ineffective notice and choice approaches and instead draws clear lines prohibiting selling and sharing of our most sensitive data. It would fill one of the largest protection gaps in U.S. privacy law.

Senator Murray has long been a leader in Congress in the fight to protect and expand access to reproductive health care and abortion rights. Since the Supreme Court agreed to hearDobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, Senator Murray hasvowedto fight back and protectRoe v. Wadeand everyones reproductive rightsincluding bybuilding supportand fighting tohold a voteon theWomens Health Protection Act, which would protect the right to abortion nationwide. Since the leaked decision revealed that the Supreme Court was planning to overturnRoe, Senator Murray has been a leader in the Senate pushing back:immediately callingthe decision afive alarm fire,pushingfor a voteon WHPA so every Republican Senator was forced to show the American public where they stood andleadingher colleagues in the fight to protect everyones reproductive rights.

Legislative text is available here. A bill summary is available here.

###

See the rest here:
Murray, Warren, Wyden, Whitehouse, Sanders Introduce Legislation to Ban Data Brokers from Selling Americans' Location Data and Health Data | The U.S....

A majority of independents and Republicans believe red flag gun laws will likely be abused by the government as the Senate works to clear a bipartisan package including such laws, a new poll reveals.

The Trafalgar Group and Convention of States Action conducted a survey and asked participants whether they believe red flag gun control laws designed to temporarily take guns away from individuals has the potential to be abused by local authorities and government officials to disarm their political opponents and/or citizens who disagree with them?

Among all the respondents, 46.7% said yes while 22.5% said they were unsure. Roughly 30% said no.

When broken down along political parties, 16.4% of Democrats said yes, 30.1% said not sure and 53.5% said no.

Republicans overwhelmingly thought the laws were open for abuse, with 72.2% saying yes and just 14.1% saying no. Independents similarly believed the laws have potential for abuse, with 52.3% responding yes and 24.3% saying not sure.

The survey was conducted between June 16 and June 19 amongst 1,084 respondents with a +/- 2.9% margin of error. (RELATED: Law Abiding Folks Shouldnt Have Any Fears, Republican Rep. Fred Upton Claims About Gun Control Bill)

Americans want real, workable solutions to the mass shootings we are seeing in this nation, but its obvious that they dont see the proposed red flag laws as the answer, President of Convention of States Action Mark Meckler said in a statement. Government officials at all levels have spent the last two years demonizing their opponents and using whatever means possible to censor or threaten those who disagree with them, so the idea that we should now trust those same people to not abuse a law that could infringe on basic constitutional rights is laughable.

More and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that the government abuses any power its given, and they are responding accordingly, he continued.

The Senate voted64-34 Tuesday to start debate on a bipartisan gun control package that includes $750 million that would in part help states implement extreme risk protection order programs, also known as red flag laws. These laws allow a court to confiscate a firearm from an individual who is believed to pose a violent threat.

In the Supreme Court case of Canglia v. Strom, the high court ruled seizing a citizens gun violates search and seizure rights protected under the Fourth Amendment.

Read the original:
Republicans, Independents Fear Red Flag Laws Will Be Abused By Government, Poll - Daily Caller

How are you doing today? asked Retired Circuit Judge Susan Whitlock, presiding over the newly formed Culpeper County Circuit Drug Court during the April 12 hearing.

She frequently starts her interactions with drug court participants in this way.

Looks like you had a good week, Whitlock said. 25 days substance-free.

Applause in the galley from the Drug Court Team for participant Brandon, a 21-year-old white male. He was close to moving to phase two of the five-phase structured program focused on providing a variety of services and consistent supervision for individuals battling addictionversus incarceration.

I am excited, Brandon responded. I actually started liking going to classes. Its good to talk about it.

Part of being in drug court is attending regular treatment offerings and meetings through community services and others. Theres a focus on building trust with the drug court team and being honest.

People are also reading

Are you going to the gym? Whitlock asked.

Not this week, responded the young man, saying he played basketball instead. Brandon said he was not going out of his way to talk to people, especially old associates.

I want to focus on myself, he told the judge. A lot of people are still drinking and smokingdont want to be around that crowd right now.

Thats a good decision, the judge said.

Brandon started drug court in early March in connection with a 2020 drug possession charge of sedative and Xanax-like pills.

He admitted to abusing drugs after being found by police slumped over a steering wheel in the parking lot of a local business. Brandon told cops he had used the highly addictive opioid, OxyContin, according to court records.

He met requirements for referral to drug court and was assessed as being at high risk/high need and to having moderate to severe substance abuse disorder. Brandon must abide by 15 requirements including not possessing or being around people with drugs, random drug tests and not owning or using a gun.

Drug court participant William, in the program since February, is a 56-year-old Black man and ex-con in the system for a while, most recently for a drunk in public charge and possessing PCP, back in 2019.

Im fine, he told Judge Whitlock, asked how he was doing at the April 12 hearing.

She said, You have done really well33 days substance-free.

Applause from the galley. The team granted him permission to go on a few-day vacation at a local ski resort with his daughter.

You are close to going on to phase two as well, Whitlock said of the 14-month program.

William said 2022 was going to be his year, that he was starting his own business.

I design mountain bikes, he told the judge, to which she responded, We are really proud of you.

Retired Charlottesville Circuit Judge Edward Hogshire filled in for Whitlock at drug court on May 2 with William and Brandon checking in, and a new participant enrolled, 29-year-old Wayne, a white male with a history of substance use disorder.

Hogshire, who works as a University of Virginia School of Law lecturer, recalled his 16 years presiding over the Charlottesville-Albemarle Drug Treatment Court. He said he was not a believer in the program at first.

But after a year or two or watching people grow and change and have a life, I became a convert, Hogshire said. I am so excited Culpeper has a drug treatment court.

He commended participants, saying it was taking the hard way with all the hassle, testing and accountability drug court involves.

Hogshire said its worth it, especially with access to treatment and care options. He cited 400 graduates of the Charlottesville program.

The majority go on to have productive lives they never would have had without the program, the judge said. I encourage you to stay with it.

Encouragement, support and focus

Brandon told the substitute judge hes trying to help himself, that he was living in Richmond prior to getting enrolled in drug court. He said he talks weekly talks with a mentor and was going to the Outer Banks with his family.

Will you stay away from people, places and things that might be a problem? Hogshire asked.

Yes, Brandon replied. They know my situation and have been supportive, he said of his family.

Hogshire came off the bench in the general district courtroom to present a certificate to the 21-year-old for completing phase one of the program. The judge shook his hand, Congratulations.

Culpeper County Criminal Justice Services Director Andrew Lawson, acting drug court coordinator, stood up in the courtroom to tell Brandon how proud everyone is of him for the progress.

Youve done really wellbeen really honest with people, trying to help yourself and it shows, Lawson said.

Two months ago, Brandon did not think that was possible, commented a social worker part of the drug court team.

He has been responsible and easy to work with, added drug court team member, defense attorney Monica Chernin.

Hogshire encouraged camaraderie among drug court participants, saying they can offer strength when things get tough.

Checking in from vacation via video conference, William addressed Brandon: Im proud of you, man, love you man, be safe.

Looks like you are working hard in the program, and remaining drug and alcohol-free, Hogshire addressed the TV screen.

William responded he was trying to get his life back. The 14-month program will be accomplished together, as a group, he added. He mentioned his young daughter and said he just got his drivers license back.

Trying to be a better father for my kid and member of society, William said. I love church, been in NA for yearsI am just trying to stay focused for the rest of my life.

Hogshire wished him good luck in the program and said he looked forward to his successes.

Last to check in at drug court was the newbie, Wayne. He told the retired judge he wanted to live a sober life and be a productive member of society.

The freedom, being able to see my kids whenever I want is the best thing in the world, said the 29-year-old, who spent time in jail for a heroin possession conviction in 2017, according to court records. Additional charges from 2015 include accepting stolen property and another probation violation for use of opioids, LSD and Fentanyl, according to court records.

Wayne said he was grateful to be in the drug court program and attending recovery classes 12 hours per week. He completed the program at Boxwood Recovery Center in Culpeper, 30 days, following a probation violation in 2021.

It works if you work, Wayne said.

Good for you, Hogshire replied. This program will need for you to help with the others. You will help each other through because its not easy.

The social worker commented if participants commit themselves they will do very well.

All three Culpeper drug court participants remain in compliance with the program as they work toward the next level.

In the final chapter, phase five, participants go to court monthly and continue to engage with treatment, supervision, medical needs and changing people, places and things.

In the final phase, participants continue to review their case plan, with monthly office visits and visits from the team to their home. They are to maintain housing, be subject to random drug testing, engage in a criminal thinking program, develop a continuing care plan and maintain a pro-social activity and sober network, according to the participant handbook developed by the team. Job training, parenting and family support and vocational training are also addressed at this phase prior to graduation.

In addition to recognition from the drug court team, as shown at hearings, other incentives are gift certificates, medallions, movie passes, sobriety coins and early program release. Sanctions include reprimands, writing essays, volunteer hours, curfew restrictions and increased supervision and drug testing.

Drug court participants also waive Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, according to the handbook.

This is the second in an occasional continuing series following the progress of the Culpeper Drug Court and its participants, whose real names are not used.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Continued here:
Getting their lives back: Culpeper Drug Court participants start strong - Culpeper Star-Exponent