Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

By PTI

NEW DELHI: A total of 175 mineral blocks have been auctioned across nine states in the country since 2015-16.

During last month, 20 mineral blocks were auctioned, which included three iron ore, three limestone, three bauxite and 10 manganese mines, according to mines ministry.

"Since the amendment to MMDR Act, 1957, a total of 175 mineral blocks have been auctioned so far across 9 states," the ministry said in its major highlights for the month of April.

While 10 mines were auctioned in Madhya Pradesh, eight blocks were auctioned in Andhra Pradesh and two in Andhra Pradesh.

Twenty-three notices inviting tenders were issued in Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Maharashtra.

The government had earlier said that amendment in mineral auction rules will encourage competition that will ensure more participation in the sale of blocks.

The ministry of mines had earlier notified the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Second Amendment Rules, 2021 and the Mineral (Auction) Fourth Amendment Rules, 2021 to amend the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Rules, 2015 (MEMC Rules) and the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 (Auction Rules), respectively.

See the original post here:
175 mineral blocks auctioned since 2015-16: Government - The New Indian Express

Members of the House of Keys can now be absent from prayers at the beginning of sittings if they dont wish to take part.

The change came last week when members voted through new recommendations to Daphne Caines motion on chaplaincy and prayers.

Following a debate in Keys in February on whether members should have to pray or not, Mrs Caine moved a report containing five recommendations on behalf of the House of Keys Management and Members Standards Committee that responded to the debate.

These recommendations were passed but with some concern.

Mrs Caine said in the sitting: Those proposals to modernise proceedings in this House by removing prayers were a step too far for some.

Previously, no nominations for chaplain were made, but nominations subsequently were received. The first recommendation sought approval to the appointment of the Reverend Irene Cowell for a term ending six months beyond the next general election in 2027.

The next recommendation enabled the length of appointment to be determined by the committee in future as appropriate to the circumstances of the chaplains appointment, and the third recommendation removed consideration of an honorarium, which has not been paid to the House of Keys chaplain for some years.

The fourth amendment would let the Speaker lead prayers in the chaplains absence and have the power to delegate to another member, which means an atheist could potentially be asked to lead prayers.

In response to members responding that absence from prayers should be permitted, recommendation five clarified that the service shall not be interpreted as including prayers.

Douglas East MHK Joney Faragher said she believed the outcome was a great shame and a missed opportunity to modernise the House.

Tradition is no excuse, she said. Traditions adapt with society. This, as a solution, is exclusionary and divisive.

MHK for Ramsey Lawrie Hooper agreed and added: I am quite nervous about the suggestions being made here.

I am quite happy to support them as they are, because in principle they make sense, but I think the problem is going to be in the implementation.

Mrs Caine said: We have tried to find a compromise to support the majority and to be as inclusive as possible. I would support a fundamental rewrite of Standing Orders, and I think that is something that would be on the cards.

Go here to read the rest:
No longer have to take part in prayers | iomtoday.co.im - Isle of Man Today

Do Americans have a right to privacy? Should the government allow individuals to use their own bodies as they wish? While there is no such right granted by the Constitution, it has been traditionally assumed that such a right exists, even if only implicitly. But the upcoming Supreme Court ruling, in the draft released byPoliticoin aleaked opinionby Justice Samuel Alito, would erase the right of privacy. According to Alito himself, if such a right to a private life does indeed exist, it includes the right to consume drugs.

These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define ones concepts of existence prove too much, Justice Alito wrote in the document that aims to kill abortion and privacy rights in the U.S. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.

Perhaps by accident, Justice Alito madean interestingpoint. If a right to privacy exists, it stands to reason to assume it includes the right to consume marijuana. Other drugs, too, but this column concerns itself with marijuana, which is by far the favorite illicit drug of Americans and, despite the fact it is non-addictive and entirely harmless, accounts for more arrests every year thanall violent crime.

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights include a right to privacy. The assumption that such a right exists relies on two elements: Such a right is assumed to be derived from other rights which are explicitly granted in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled in favor of the existence of such a right.

The 14th Amendment guarantees that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The First Amendment gives a right to free assembly, and the Fourth Amendment protects individuals and their property from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Adding these pieces together, some have concluded that a right to privacy ought to exist. Especially since the Ninth Amendment explicitly says that there are rights not mentioned in the document but that exist nonetheless: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But in truth, the real nature of the American right to privacy emanated from the Supreme Court itself, as it ruled on cases that implied its existence. In 1965, theGriswold v. Connecticutruling made federally legal the use of contraceptives, and it first established that there is a right to privacy in regard to sexual practicesand only sexual practices. This ruling was the basis ofRoe v. Wade(1973), which granted the right to end pregnancies, but alsoLawrence v. Texas(2003), which ended anti-sodomy laws and thus decriminalized homosexuality, as well asObergefell v. Hodges(2015), which gave same-sex couples the right to get married.

The right to use contraceptives, the right for gay people to be married or even the right to exist as a gay person; all of those are unenumerated rights, like the right to privacy, and they all only exist insofar as a right to privacy is assumed to exist. Indeed, Justice Alito mentions all of these cases by name in his leaked opinion, indicating that they all exist on shaky foundations and could, like the right to abortion, be overturned by a simple ruling of the Supreme Court.

Overturning precedent, in itself, is a very slippery slope when it causes the loss of well-established human rights. Once this dam breaks, the damage cannot be undone, as it will prove that whoever owns partisan Supreme Court Justices can do away with any number of unenumerated rights regardless of precedent. A staggering number of rights that Americans enjoy are not spelled out in the Constitution but are assumed to exist under the provisions of the Ninth Amendment.

What matters is that the Supreme Court consistently found that a right to privacy exists, and it protects the private lives of Americans from government interference. That is to say, the court ruled that way consistently until it was packed by three Trump appointees, who have an incontrovertible majority alongside thetwoBush43appointees. No matter what the current partisan court decides, in the words of Justice William Douglas (a Roosevelt appointee) in theGriswold v. Connecticutruling about the government violating the privacy of American bedrooms, the very idea is repulsive.

What is liberty? Liberty as in no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, the very vague right that is granted to Americans by the 14th Amendment. Its never explained, and therefore left to interpretation. It has often been understood as a right to bodily autonomy, the freedom to use your body in any way you wish. This is the unenumerated right that every cannabis activist believes should grant them the right to consume marijuana.

There is no explicit right to bodily autonomy in the United States. Most Americans might assume they do have the right to govern their own bodies, but in truth, only unenumerated rights protect the average person from being forced by the government to utilize their bodies without the individuals consent.

What comes closest to a ruling on bodily autonomy is the 1891Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsfordcase, which granted the right for a plaintiff to refuse a medical examination ahead of a trial. The ruling itself is narrow, but the Justices opinion includes the claim that no right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. This is not in accordance with future rulings, but it provides a strong argument to claim the existence of a right to bodily autonomy that is fundamental despite going unmentioned in the founding documents of the United States. TheBotsfordruling was used as a basis forRoe v. Wade, and that implicit right has been recognized time and time again by the court since.

Supreme Court-backed unenumerated rights tend to be related to sex, procreation and healthcare. The Court has had a tendency to avoid having to speak on cases where they might need to rule that criminalizing drug use is unconstitutional. As such, the right to privacy as codified by the Supreme Court explicitly exists only within the boundaries of sexual and reproductive acts. Therefore, it could be argued this right does not automatically extend to drug use because the court simply didn't talk about it.

One notable drug-related right emanating from the Supreme Court is the 1962Robinson v. Californiaruling, which established that it is legal for an individual to be a drug addict, but it does not protect anyone for the act of possessing drugs if that act is criminalizedwhich it is, at the federal level, under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

So, there is not much help to be found regarding drug usage in precedents. But one more Supreme Court ruling comments on the nature of the unenumerated right to privacy as applied to drug use: the 2022 opinion by Justice Samuel Alito overturningRoe v. Wade.

These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define ones concepts of existence prove too much. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.

The phrase concepts of existence refers toCasey v. Planned Parenthood, a Supreme Court ruling that upheldRoe v. Wadein 1992 and that will also be overturned by the upcoming ruling. InCasey, the court had found that the government should not be empowered to make intimate choices for American citizens: At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, it reads. Justice Alito strongly rebuked this belief, saying instead, While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about existence, [...], they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts. An odd liberty, one that allows thoughts and words but forbids acts.

The phrase a broader right to autonomy refers to the concept of bodily autonomy that has been found by the Supreme Court to exist implicitly. And at a high level of generality is a convoluted way for Alito to say if we take this constitutional right to its logical conclusion.

So, seemingly without meaning to, Justice Alito has brought up the best defense of constitutionally protected drug use from a Supreme Court ruling yet. He doesnt understand what he said, because his point is that a right to autonomy does not exist, but that if it did exist it would include drug consumption. As evidenced by all the previous Supreme Court rulings, Alito is only wrong on one point: The right to bodily autonomy does exist.

Alito is not alone in thinking that bodily autonomy necessarily includes drug usage, although his stance that bodily autonomy does not exist is more unique. According to ananalysisby Tim Weber, who represented the State of Indiana in the medical field asDeputy Attorney General, the case allowing the consumption of alcohol and tobacco under the unenumerated right to privacy directly applies to marijuana as well.

Marijuanas history in the United States, and in human history in a broader sense, parallels the history of tobacco and alcohol. For instance, both tobacco and hemp were cash crops in the early United States, and both alcohol and marijuana have been the object of a government prohibition that has given criminal entities revenue through the black-market sale of the substances during the prohibition. These similarities suggest that the law should treat alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana similarly, he wrote. Furthermore, as alcohol and tobaccowhich are proven to be generally more harmful to health and more addictive than marijuana when consumedare legal for individuals to choose to consume, it is reasonable to think that a bodily autonomy right would protect marijuana consumption in the same way. He concludes that, In all likelihood, the current federal prohibition of marijuana would fail both requirements for constitutionality under a strict scrutiny analysis.

One final point in Alitos opinion reinforces the pro-marijuana message of it: He claims that only unenumerated rights deeply rooted in the nation's history in tradition are real, and more modern interpretations are not constitutionally protected. It is a bogus argument in more ways than one, but it becomes particularly ridiculous as it applies to marijuana. The criminalization of marijuana is barely older than 50 years. It is less than three years older thanRoe v. Wade. IfRoeis too young to be rooted in history, so is the criminalization of marijuana.

On the other hand, it is easy to make a case for the fact that marijuana itself is deeply rooted in American history and traditions. Cannabis was a major crop of the early United States, and it was legal tender for a portion of history. Cannabis was perfectly acceptable, even as a psychoactive drug, up until a wave of Mexican immigration in the 1900s led to its criminalization by association with Mexicans.Hear Harry Anslinger, architect of marijuana prohibition, educate the great American public on the reasons why they should support the criminalization of cannabis:

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.

Given that marijuana is deeply rooted in history but its prohibition is not, and given that the criminalization of marijuana goes against the well-established right to bodily autonomy according to Justice Alito himself, one can only conclude that, if a fair Supreme Court examined it, the right to consume drugs would have to be granted. All that we are missing now is a fair Supreme Court.

See more here:
While Overturning Abortion Rights, the Supreme Court Accidentally Recognizes a Right to Use Drugs - Shepherd Express

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read the original here:
Enforce the Fourth Amendment | Editorials | gjsentinel.com - The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

SCHENECTADY A city man whose arrest two years ago sparked controversy and led to a number of protests after a video surfaced showing a police officer kneeling in the area of his head and neck just weeks after the murder of George Floyd is now suing the city.

Yugeshwar Gaindarpersaud filed a lawsuit against the city, Schenectady Police Department and Patrol Officer Brian Pommer on Jan. 27 in Schenectady County Supreme Court seeking damages stemming from his arrest on July 6, 2020 outside his home on Brandywine Avenue.

The lawsuit, first reported by the Times Union, has since been moved to U.S. District Court in Albany.

Video of the incident showing Gaindarpersaud fleeing Pommer when the officer questioned him about slashing his neighbors tires surfaced days later. The video showed Pommer kneeling on the head and neck area of Gaindarpersaud and striking him several times in the ribs as he attempted to detain him.

Gainderpersaud claims to have suffered physical, emotional and reputational injuries as a result of his arrest and is suing for excessive force, false arrest, assault and battery and negligent hiring, supervision and training, according to the lawsuit.

The incident inflamed tensions between the police department and Black Lives Matter activists in the wake of Floyds death, and led to a number of protests throughout that summer.

A report released by the Schenectady County district Attorneys Office concluded that the officer was kneeling on Gainderpersauds head. The report also found that Pommers actions werent criminal, but that the officer should have engaged in a more thorough investigation before approaching Gainderpersaud.

The report found that both men made unhelpful assumptions and mistakes, which contributed to a chaotic situation that endangered their safety and that of nearby citizens.

A resolution agreement signed by the county district Attorneys Office, Gaindarpersuad and his attorney Derek Andrews, agreed upon a list of 13 baseline concepts that would promote better understanding and cooperation between our citizens and the police officers assigned to serve and protect them.

Gaindarpersuad also acknowledged heshould have complied with the officers orders to submit to being detained and handcuffed, should not have run and should not have continued to resist handcuffing once the officer caught him as part of the resolution.

Andrews, who is representing Gaindarpersuad in the lawsuit, did not return a request seeking comment Monday.

Pommer was suspended for six days and ordered to complete additional training, and charges filed against Gainderpersaud, including criminal mischief and resisting arrest, were ultimately dropped.

Defendant Brian Pommers grabbing and slamming of Plaintiff caused him to make forceful impact on the concrete pad, coupled with the subsequent punching and placement of his knee on Plaintiffs neck, violated plaintiffs constitutional right to be free from excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, the lawsuit reads.

Pommer and the city have denied any claims filed in the lawsuit in responses filed by their attorneys.

Contact reporter Chad Arnold at: 518-410-5117 or [emailprotected]. Follow him on Twitter: @ChadGArnold.

Categories: News, Schenectady, Schenectady County

Read more from the original source:
Schenectady, police department facing lawsuit over 2020 arrest The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette

Item 1.01 Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On April 18, 2022, American Campus Communities, Inc. a Maryland corporation (the"Company"), American Campus Communities Operating Partnership LP, a Marylandlimited partnership and the operating partnership of the Company (the"Partnership" and, together with the Company, the "Company Parties"), AbacusParent LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), Abacus Merger Sub ILLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Merger Sub I"), and Abacus MergerSub II LLC, a Maryland limited liability company ("Merger Sub II" and, togetherwith Parent and Merger Sub I, the "Parent Parties") entered into an Agreementand Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the terms and subject to theconditions of the Merger Agreement, at the closing of the Mergers (the"Closing"), first, Merger Sub II will merge with and into the Partnership (the"Partnership Merger"), and second, immediately following the Partnership Merger,the Company will merge with and into Merger Sub I (the "Company Merger" and,together with the Partnership Merger, the "Mergers").

Upon completion of the Partnership Merger, the Partnership will survive and theseparate existence of Merger Sub II will cease. Upon completion of the CompanyMerger, Merger Sub I will survive and the separate existence of the Company willcease. The board of directors of the Company (the "Company Board") delegated toa Special Committee (the "Special Committee") the responsibility and authorityto consider, negotiate and approve or decline to approve the proposal receivedby the Company from Parent with respect to the transactions contemplated by theMerger Agreement. The Special Committee unanimously approved and recommended tothe Company Board the execution, delivery and performance by the Company Partiesof the Merger Agreement. The Company Board, acting on the recommendation of theSpecial Committee, unanimously approved the Merger Agreement, the Mergers andthe other transactions contemplated thereby. The Parent Parties are affiliatesof Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust, Inc. ("BREIT"), which is an affiliate ofBlackstone Inc.

Merger Consideration - The Company Merger

Pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions in the Merger Agreement, atthe effective time of the Company Merger (the "Company Merger Effective Time"),each share of common stock (or fraction thereof), $0.01 par value per share, ofthe Company ("Company Common Stock") that is issued and outstanding immediatelyprior to the Company Merger Effective Time will be automatically cancelled andconverted into the right to receive an amount in cash equal to $65.47 (the"Common Stock Consideration"), without interest.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, each share of Company Common Stock then held bythe Company or any subsidiary of the Company, including Company Common Stockheld in a rabbi trust for purposes of meeting Company liabilities under theCompany's Deferred Compensation Plan (as defined below) or held by the ParentParties or any of their respective subsidiaries, if any, will no longer beoutstanding and will automatically be retired and will cease to exist, and noconsideration will be paid, nor will any right inure or be made with respect tosuch shares of Company Common Stock in connection with or as a consequence ofthe Company Merger.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merger Consideration - The Partnership Merger

Pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions in the Merger Agreement, atthe effective time of the Partnership Merger (the "Partnership Merger EffectiveTime"), each common unit of limited partnership interest in the Partnership (the"Common Partnership Units") and each Series A preferred unit of limitedpartnership interest in the Partnership (the "Preferred Partnership Units" and,together with the Common Partnership Units, the "Partnership Units"), orfraction thereof, that is issued and outstanding immediately prior to thePartnership Merger Effective Time will be automatically cancelled and convertedinto the right to receive an amount in cash equal to the Common StockConsideration, without interest.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, (x) each Partnership Unit and each GP Unit (asdefined in the Merger Agreement) of the Partnership then held by the Company orany wholly owned subsidiary of the Company will be unaffected by the PartnershipMerger and will remain outstanding, and (y) each Partnership Unit then held bythe Parent Parties or their respective wholly owned subsidiaries, if any, willno longer be outstanding and will automatically be retired and will cease toexist, and no consideration will be paid, nor will any right inure or be madewith respect to such Partnership Units in connection with or as a consequence ofthe Partnership Merger.

Company Equity Awards

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, immediately priorto the Company Merger Effective Time, each award of restricted Company CommonStock (each, a "Company Restricted Stock Award") that is outstanding immediatelyprior to the Company Merger Effective Time will automatically become fullyvested and converted into the right to receive an amount in cash equal to theCommon Stock Consideration (less any applicable withholding taxes), and allequity-based awards deferred under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan (the"Deferred Compensation Plan" and such units the "Deferred Stock Awards") willautomatically become fully vested and no longer subject to restrictions, and allDeferred Stock Awards shall, at the Company Merger Effective Time, be adjustedand converted into a right of the holder to have allocated to the holder'saccount under the Deferred Compensation Plan an amount denominated in cash equalto the product of (i) the number of shares of Company Common Stock allocated tosuch account as of the Company Merger Effective Time and (ii) the Common StockConsideration, and shall cease to represent a right to receive a number ofshares of Company Common Stock.

Representations, Warranties and Covenants

The Merger Agreement contains customary representations, warranties andcovenants, including, among others, covenants by the Company to conduct itsbusiness in all material respects in the ordinary course of business and in amanner consistent with past practice, subject to certain exceptions, during theperiod between the execution of the Merger Agreement and the consummation of theMergers. The obligations of the parties to consummate the Merger are not subjectto any financing condition or the receipt of any financing by the ParentParties.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closing Conditions

The consummation of the Mergers is subject to certain customary closingconditions, including, among others, approval of the Company Merger by theaffirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares ofCompany Common Stock entitled to cast a vote on the Company Merger (the"Stockholder Approval"). The Merger Agreement requires the Company to convene astockholders' meeting for the purpose of obtaining the Stockholder Approval.. . .

Item 5.03 Amendments to Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws; Change in Fiscal

Year.

On April 18, 2022, the Board approved and adopted the fourth amendment (the"Bylaws Amendment") to the Company's Bylaws, as amended (the "Bylaws"), whichprovides that unless the Company consents in writing to the selection of analternative forum, (i) the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, or, ifthat Court does not have jurisdiction, the United States District Court for theDistrict of Maryland, Baltimore Division, shall be the sole and exclusive forumfor (a) any Internal Corporate Claim as defined under the Maryland GeneralCorporation Law (the "MGCL"), (b) any derivative action or proceeding brought onbehalf of the Company, (c) any action asserting a claim of breach of any dutyowed by any director or officer or other employee of the Company to the Companyor its stockholders, (d) any action asserting a claim against the

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Company or any director, officer or other employee of the Company arisingpursuant to any provision of the MGCL, the Company's charter or Bylaws or(e) any other action asserting a claim against the Company or any director orofficer or other employee of the Company that is governed by the internalaffairs doctrine, and (ii) the federal district courts of the United States ofAmerica shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusiveforum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arisingunder the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The Bylaws Amendment becameeffective on April 18, 2022.

The foregoing description of the Bylaws Amendment is only a summary, does notpurport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the fulltext of the Bylaws Amendment, which is filed as Exhibit 3.1 hereto, and isincorporated herein by reference.

Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.

On April 19, 2022, the Company issued a press release announcing the executionof the Merger Agreement. The full text of the press release is attached heretoas Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

On April 19, 2022 after the announcement of the Merger, the Company providedsupplemental information regarding the proposed Merger in a communicationcirculated to its employees and to certain universities. Copies of the employeeand university communications are attached hereto as Exhibits 99.2 and 99.3 andare incorporated herein by reference.

The information contained in Item 7.01 of this report, including the informationin the press release attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this report, is furnishedpursuant to Item 7.01 of Form 8-K and shall not be deemed "filed" for thepurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, orotherwise subject to the liabilities of that section. Furthermore, theinformation in Item 7.01 of this report, including the information in the pressrelease attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this report, shall not be deemed to beincorporated by reference in the filings of the registrant under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended.

Additional Information and Where to Find It

This Current Report on Form 8-K relates to the proposed merger transactioninvolving the Company. In connection with the proposed transaction, the Companywill file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a proxystatement on Schedule 14A. Promptly after filing its definitive proxy statementwith the SEC, the Company will mail the definitive proxy statement and a proxycard to each stockholder entitled to vote at the special meeting relating to theproposed transaction. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE COMPANY ARE URGED TOREAD THE PROXY STATEMENT (INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS THERETO) ANDANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION THAT THE COMPANYFILES WITH THE SEC WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAINIMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION. The definitive proxystatement, the preliminary proxy statement and any other documents filed by theCompany with the SEC (when available) may be obtained free of charge at theSEC's website at http://www.sec.gov or at the Company's website atwww.americancampus.com or by writing to American Campus Communities, Inc.,Attention: Investor Relations, 12700 Hill Country Boulevard, Suite T-200,Austin, TX 78738.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Company and its directors and certain of its executive officers may bedeemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from the Company'sstockholders with respect to the proposed transaction. Information about theCompany's directors and executive officers and their ownership of the Companysecurities is set forth in the Company's proxy statement for its 2021 annualmeeting of stockholders on Schedule 14A filed with the SEC on March 17, 2021 andsubsequent documents filed with the SEC.

Additional information regarding the identity of participants in thesolicitation of proxies, and a description of their direct or indirect interestsin the proposed transaction, by security holdings or otherwise, will be setforth in the proxy statement and other materials to be filed with the SEC inconnection with the proposed transaction when they become available.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Statements

Some of the statements contained in this Current Report on Form 8-K constituteforward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws.Forward-looking statements relate to expectations, beliefs, projections, futureplans and strategies, anticipated events or trends and similar expressionsconcerning matters that are not historical facts. In some cases, you canidentify forward-looking statements by the use of forward-looking terminologysuch as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "intends," "plans," "anticipates,""believes," "estimates," "predicts," or "potential" or the negative of thesewords and phrases or similar words or phrases which are predictions of orindicate future events or trends and which do not relate solely to historicalmatters. You can also identify forward-looking statements by discussions ofstrategy, plans or intentions.

The forward-looking statements contained in this Current Report on Form 8-Kreflect the Company's current views about future events and are subject tonumerous known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and changes incircumstances, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, that maycause actual results and future events to differ significantly from thoseexpressed in any forward-looking statement, which risks and uncertaintiesinclude, but are not limited to: the ability to complete the proposedtransaction on the proposed terms or on the anticipated timeline, or at all,including risks and uncertainties related to securing the necessary shareholderapproval and satisfaction of other closing conditions to consummate the proposedtransaction; the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstance thatcould give rise to the termination of the merger agreement relating to theproposed transaction; risks that the proposed transaction disrupts the Company'scurrent plans and operations or diverts the attention of the Company'smanagement or employees from ongoing business operations; the risk of potentialdifficulties with the Company's ability to retain and hire key personnel andmaintain relationships with suppliers and other third parties as a result of theproposed transaction; the failure to realize the expected benefits of theproposed transaction; the proposed transaction may involve unexpected costsand/or unknown or inestimable liabilities; the risk that the Company's businessmay suffer as a result of uncertainty surrounding the proposed transaction; therisk that shareholder litigation in connection with the proposed transaction mayaffect the timing or occurrence of the proposed transaction or result insignificant costs of defense, indemnification and liability; effects relating tothe announcement of the transaction or any further announcements or theconsummation of the transaction on the market price of the Company's commonstock.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While forward-looking statements reflect the Company's good faith beliefs, theyare not guarantees of future performance or events. Any forward-lookingstatement speaks only as of the date on which it was made. The Company disclaimsany obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement toreflect changes in underlying assumptions or factors, of new information, dataor methods, future events or other changes. For a further discussion of theseand other factors that could cause the Company's future results to differmaterially from any forward-looking statements, see the section entitled "RiskFactors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2021 and in the other periodic reports the Company files with theSEC.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits

(d) Exhibits

* Schedules have been omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(2) of Regulation S-K. The

Company agrees to furnish supplementally to the SEC a copy of any omitted

schedule upon request by the SEC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Here is the original post:
AMERICAN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Amendments to Articles of Inc. or Bylaws; Change in Fiscal Year,...

City leaders across Californias major Metro areas often face issues like police calls for service from rundown, seedy motels with residents demanding solutions.

This week, Anaheim City Council members decided to crack down on illegal activity at a couple of West Anaheim motels lining Beach Boulevard a source of constant complaints from residents who live in the area.

The Anaheim Lodge and the Travel Inn are facing at least 20 new requirements from the city, imposed on the backend of whats known as a Conditional Use Permit, set in motion by the Anaheim Planning Commission earlier this year.

The criminal activity on Beach Boulevard originates from mismanaged motels such as drug dealing, illegal gambling halls known as slap houses, and prostitution. These criminal activities lead to assaults, shootings, drug overdoses, deaths, human trafficking and property crimes along the boulevard, said Planning and Building Director, Ted White, during Tuesdays city council meeting.

The two motels are now required to beef up security, have 24-hour onsite management and alarm systems.

Click here to see the new requirements.

Theyre also required to paint their addresses on the motel rooftops for police helicopters a regular presence circling areas of West Anaheim.

Its a markedly different approach to tackling the motel problem compared to the neighboring City of Stanton, where officials there began buying out some Beach Boulevard motels using state grant money to turn them into housing for homeless people.

[Read: OC Cities Increasingly Look to Motels to Help House Homeless People]

Anaheim is looking to turn at least one Harbor Boulevard motel into housing, using the states Project Homekey program, according to a January staff report.

And, in 2019, Anaheim partnered with Jamboree Housing to convert an old Econo Lodge on La Palma Avenue into housing for homeless people.

In addition to those efforts, Anaheim City Council members this week reinforced restrictions set by their planning commissioners.

Anaheim city officials cited longstanding resident complaints and rising police calls on the two motels as the chief reason for imposing more stringent restrictions on the property owners, like alarm systems and a full accounting of cars parked in the lots in an effort to curb police calls.

As a city we are working to rebuild Beach (Boulevard). Sadly the problems of Beach are known to many, Mayor Harry Sidhu said during Tuesdays city council meeting.We are looking to redevelop Beach as a place where people want to live, shop, dine and work.

But an attorney representing the two motels, Frank Weiser, said the property owners have already rolled out virtually all of the freshly imposed requirements.

He also said the restrictions are just a masked effort to run the motels out of town.

I dont doubt that there may be issues that youve got with some of the crime areas in general. But to single out the motels and just impose the conditions arbitrarily is not the way to go, Weiser said during Tuesdays public hearing.

The way to do it is buy out the motels, not impose conditions and then eventually six months later, a year later, revoke [the permits] and put them out of business.

City council members voted 6-0 to uphold the planning commissions restrictions on the two motels, with Councilman Jose Diaz abstaining from the vote and discussion because he said he lives within 500 feet of the motels.

Many Beach Boulevard motels are infamous for drugs and prostitution a seedy status stretching back decades.

Police and city officials said theyve seen police and medical calls skyrocket at the two motels over the past few years.

Theres been a dramatic increase in arrests and calls for service at the Lodge in recent years. Of the 18 motels on Beach Boulevard, the Anaheim Lodge had the second highest calls for service in 2021, White said.

He continued, Arrests at the property jumped 471% between 2020 and 2021 Police statistics show that between 2017 and 2021, the Anaheim Lodge accounted for 18% of all arrests occurring at Beach Boulevard motels.

But Weiser, the attorney representing the Anaheim Lodge and the Travel Inn, said city officials are unfairly targeting the two properties.

He argued that the city is violating constitutional rights of the property owners by adding more requirements to their respective conditional use permits.

Both state and federal laws prescribe that the city council must comply with the constitutional limits on how you either modify or revoke a conditional use permit, Weiser told council members during Tuesdays public hearing.

Anaheims planning and building director, said the citys well within its right to modify the permits.

The municipal code provides seven findings related to the revocation or modification of the [permits]. If the council finds that one or more of the findings apply, it may revoke or modify the [permits], White said. Staff and planning commission believe the motel has been operating in a manner that is detrimental to the public safety.

City council members were also presented with statistics showing an increase in police calls and numerous pictures of overgrown plants, rundown parking lots, debris scattered throughout the properties and signs of a rat problem.

Weiser argued city officials illegally gathered much of those findings by walking onto the property without a search warrant or consent from the property owner.

The issue is whether the Fourth Amendment protects the property owner , the motel owner from the government coming on there and taking evidence and then using that evidence in a proceeding like this, Weiser argued.

He cited a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, where judges ruled that while the constitution allows officials to gather evidence in public areas like the front of the motel or the sidewalk they cant go farther into the property to gather evidence without a warrant or consent.

The private areas of the motel are absolutely subject to Fourth Amendment protection which requires consent from the property owner or consent from the particular tenant or guest in the property.

City attorneys earlier this week told Anaheim city council members that they stood behind the citys legal approach to the motels, saying everything was done legally and the property owners were given a heads up about the new restrictions.

Spencer Custodio is the civic editor. You can reach him at scustodio@voiceofoc.org. Follow him on Twitter @SpencerCustodio.

Start each day informed with our free email newsletter. Be alerted when news breaks with our free text messages.

You are obviously connected to your community and value good journalism. As an independent and local nonprofit, our news is accessible to all, regardless of what they can afford. Our newsroom centers on Orange Countys civic and cultural life, not ad-driven clickbait. Our reporters hold powerful interests accountable to protect your quality of life. But its not free to produce. It depends on donors like you.

Related

Original post:
Whats the Best Way For CA Metro Areas Like Orange County to Deal With Rundown, Seedy Motels? - Voice of OC

As the anniversary of Andrew Brown Jr.s death in Elizabeth City nears, many who called for justice say that until now, they have seen little in the way of transparency or reform. But two lawsuits moving through the courts and a federal investigation might yet offer them hope.

Pasquotank County sheriff's deputies killed the 42-year-old Black man while attempting to carry out drug-related search and arrest warrants against him on April 21, 2021. It quickly became one of the highest-profile police shootings in North Carolina, and received national attention.

Activists demanded justice. They wanted the deputies, who fired a collective 14 shots at Brown's vehicle, to be held accountable.

One month after the shooting, District Attorney Andrew Womble announced he would not press charges against any of the deputies involved in the shooting. He said the officers acted properly because they reasonably feared for their safety. He said Brown used his vehicle, "as a deadly weapon," and that therefore the shooting was "justified."

After that, news coverage from major national outlets largely faded. But the decision to not press charges against the deputies closed only one chapter, not the book.

Brown's family has filed a civil lawsuit against the sheriff and deputies seeking $30 million in compensation, and has kept mostly out of the press. A federal civil rights investigation is ongoing, and a media coalition is seeking the full release of body camera footage, which could shed more light on the events from that morning.

Lawsuits quietly move forward

Browns family lawsuit claims he died because of officers' "intentional, malicious and reckless disregard of his life. Defendants include Pasquotank County Sheriff Tommy Wooten II and several law enforcement officers. For nine months, that case filed by Brown's paternal aunt, Lillie Brown Clark, who is the administrator for his estate has been moving through the court with little public fanfare or attention.

In the fall, attorneys for the family were able to view the full State Bureau of Investigation report for the first time. These reports are not public records in North Carolina, but they contain some of the most exhaustive details in these kinds of investigations, including much sought after law enforcement body camera footage in this case.

In October, the Brown family amended the complaint, now alleging that one of the defendants, Investigator Daniel Meads, concealed to the SBI that he altered his weapon while inside of Browns house." Since then, there's been a clash over whether the full SBI report should be released to Brown's family and lawyers, and whether they should be able to speak with news media about the contents of the file especially parts of the file they allege are public record. Lawyers for the family claim that these restrictions amount to a "gag order."

But even as the parties in the lawsuit debate over issues of transparency, theres no clear indication that the public will ever see the footage. The involved parties are now scheduled for a court-hosted settlement conference in May. The case is set for mediation track, Brown family attorney Harry Daniels confirms, and lawyers on both sides have an obligation to come to the table, whether or not they intend to reach a court-mediated settlement.

Many federal civil rights lawsuits around high-profile police shootings of Black and Brown people in the country have indeed ended in settlements that often include money but specify there was no admission of guilt. Some end up in court where a jury can award massive settlements that are whittled down on appeal.

The family of George Floyd, who was killed in Minneapolis police custody on May 25, 2020, agreed to a $27 million settlement in March. In September 2020, the city of Louisville, Kentucky, agreed to pay Breonna Taylor's family $12 million and reform police practices.

There has already been some reform in Pasquotank County. A new Community Advisory Council will review citizen complaints and take part in hiring decisions, though it will not have disciplinary authority. County leaders say they hope to install more de-escalation training as well.

Media coalition fights for footage

Alongside the family lawsuit, another legal effort continues. A coalition of media outlets, including WUNC, is pushing for the full release of body camera footage captured the day Brown was killed.

The media coalitions lawyer Mike Tadych argued in an amended petition that because District Attorney Womble did not bring charges against the officers involved, all video should be released. There would be no trial, and therefore no jury to prejudice. Sheriff Wooten himself has also called for the release of his officers body camera footage to the general public. Under North Carolina law, only a court may order the release of video. Wooten did not respond to multiple interview requests made by WUNC.

Tadych says the media lawsuit process has come with unexpected turns.

It is drawn out, says Tadych. The delay in a written ruling was an outlier. And then the delay in the court revisiting the renewal of our petition after the district attorney announced that no charges would be filed in playing portions of the recordings we were after at his press conference, and all of that is unprecedented.

The case now heads to an appeals court, and Tadych says opening brief deadlines are expected to come up in early May.

Meanwhile, as these two court cases continue, a federal civil rights investigation into Browns death is still ongoing, FBI Public Affairs Specialist Shelley Lynch from the Charlotte Field Office confirms.

DA who determined killing was 'justified' runs for judgeship

With local municipal, sheriff, and judicial elections, residents in Elizabeth City and surrounding Pasquotank County will soon have their first say since the shooting on who should lead them. And Browns death hangs over elections at every level.

Womble, the district attorney who determined not to charge officers in Browns killing, is now running for a more powerful judicial role: superior court judge in the 1st Judicial District. As he carries out his campaign, experts and local activists have raised questions around his legal rationale for determining that Brown used his car as a deadly weapon, and his decision not to charge involved officers. Womble did not respond to multiple requests from WUNC for an interview.

At the May 18 press conference in which he announced he would not bring charges, Womble said the deputies needed to carry out their orders.

The law enforcement officers were duty bound to stand their ground, carry through on the performance of their duties and take Andrew Brown into custody, he said. They could not simply let him go, as has been suggested.

However thats exactly what the United States Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Tennessee vs. Garner decision in 1985. In that ruling, the court determined that it violates the Fourth Amendment if police kill a fleeing suspect while trying to make an arrest. Some legal experts say this standard should have applied in the Brown case.

"I don't think District Attorney Womble got it right," said Shawn Fields, who teaches criminal law at the Campbell University School of Law. "The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable seizures including excessive force from police officers.

Importantly, that protection has limits, notably that if the arresting officers believe the fleeing suspect poses a safety threat to them or others, that Fourth Amendment protection no longer applies. Its on this point where opinions about the events of that morning diverge widely. Womble asserts that Brown did, in fact, pose a threat to officers, while activists say he was trying only to flee.

I find that the facts of this case clearly illustrate the officers who used deadly force on Andrew Brown Jr. did so reasonably and only when a violent felon used a deadly weapon to place their lives in danger, Womble said at the press conference.

At other times in his press conference, Womble emphasized that Brown was attempting to flee.

When the officers approached Brown with their guns drawn, his response was to maneuver his car and flee, Womble said. Brown was undeterred by the officers yelling for him to, Stop! Show me your hands! Or by deputy (Joel) Lunsford attempting to open the driver's door.

Activists say Brown was indeed fleeing the scene and did not pose a danger to officers. Some legal experts, like Fields, agree.

Based on the facts that I saw, Mr. Brown was not using his car as a deadly weapon," said Fields.

Officers firing at moving vehicles

Pasquotank DA Andrew Womble

Wombles decision not to charge officers has raised questions from activists and legal experts.

"I don't care what direction you're going: forward, backward, sideways. I don't care if you're stationary, and neither do our courts and our case law," said Womble in that same May press conference.

One of the primary cases that involves officers shooting into vehicles is Plumhoff v. Rickard, which Womble cited in that press conference. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 held that use of deadly force by police officers in that case was not unreasonable given the threat to public safety.

However, the fact-pattern in that case is significantly different from what took place in Elizabeth City on April 21. In the Supreme Court case, Donald Rickard led police on a chase with speeds that exceeded 100 mph. After the chase, Rickard at one point came to a stop with police thinking they had barricaded his car. He escaped and attempted to speed away, and it was only then that police fired at his vehicle. The Supreme Court justices go to great length to emphasize the high-speed nature of that case.

"Rickards outrageously reckless drivingwhich lasted more than five minutes, exceeded 100 miles per hour, and included the passing of more than two dozen other motoristsposed a grave public safety risk, and the record conclusively disproves that the chase was over when Rickards car came to a temporary standstill and officers began shooting," according to the Supreme Court opinion. "Under the circumstances when the shots were fired, all that a reasonable officer could have concluded from Rickards conduct was that he was intent on resuming his flight, which would again pose a threat to others on the road."

In Elizabeth City, Brown's vehicle never traveled faster than even a few miles per hour, let alone speeds exceeding 100 mph, and the entire scene was over in a matter of seconds, not several minutes.

During his press conference, Womble argued that speed did not play a role in his decision, arguing that Brown could have sped up, and therefore the car could potentially become a dangerous weapon.

"The speed at which the car was moving? Not relevant in my determination," Womble said.

But Fields, the Campbell Law professor, argued that line of thinking could be true about nearly anything, including a gun, baseball bat, or even a person's fists. By that logic, argued Fields, the mere presence of a bat, or even the fact that a person has hands, could put that person potentially in possession of a dangerous weapon.

This point is exacerbated by the officers knowledge that Brown was not known to carry a gun. The sheriff's own documentation for the arrest said that Brown likely was not carrying a gun, and no firearm was found in his vehicle.

Researchers like John Gross, who wrote in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, have called on law enforcement to stop the practice of shooting at cars completely. He argued that by firing into vehicles, it can turn a manned vehicle into an "unguided missile" if the driver is struck by a bullet and incapacitated.

The Pasquotank Sheriff's policy manual explicitly addresses moving vehicles in its policy manual:

"Shots fired at or from a moving vehicle involve additional considerations and risks, and are rarely effective. When feasible, deputies should take reasonable steps to move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants."

In the days following Browns death, Pasquotank County Sheriff Tommy Wooten said that SWAT team officers with his office would receive further training.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Originally posted here:
In absence of criminal charges, family seeks alternative forms of justice for Andrew Brown Jr. - WUNC

Case Highlights the Role of Correspondent Bank Accounts and Circumvention of AML Programs Court Order Describes Seizure as a Reckoning for Atrocities in the Ukraine

On April 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the governments Application for Warrant to Seize Property Subject to Forfeiture, finding that there was probable cause to believe that the yacht Tango, a 255-foot luxury yacht allegedly owned by sanctioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, was subject to forfeiture based on alleged violations of U.S. bank fraud, money laundering, and sanction statutes. The Tango is located in a shipyard on the Spanish island of Mallorca, and the warrant and subsequent seizure by the United States and its allies was part of Task Force KleptoCapture, an interagency law enforcement task force designed to help deploy U.S. prosecutorial and law enforcement resources to identify sanctions evasion and related criminal conduct.

Sanctions were imposed on Vekselberg and the company he founded, the Renova Group, in April 2018 by the Treasury Department. Following Russias invasion of Ukraine, Vekselberg was hit with new penalties by the U.S. government on March 11, 2022. These sanctions were pursuant to various Executive Orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) imposed against persons responsible for or complicit in certain activities with respect to Ukraine.

According to the affidavit supporting the seizure warrant application, Vekselberg bought the Tango in 2011 and has owned it continuously since that time. It further alleged that Vekselberg used shell companies to obfuscate his interest in the Tango to avoid bank oversight into related U.S. dollar transactions. The affidavit cited three confidential witnesses, including a manager and employee of a company that provided services during the vessels design and construction, who identified Vekselberg as the true owner.

Additionally, despite his status as an individual under sanction, Vekselberg, and those working on his behalf, continued to make U.S. dollar payments through U.S. banks for the support and maintenance of the Tango and its owners. These included a payment for a December 2020 stay at a luxury water villa resort in the Maldives, as well as mooring fees for the yacht. According to the affidavit, Vekselberg had an interest in these payments and therefore necessitated a license from the Treasury Department, which was not obtained.

The affidavit stressed the role of correspondent bank accounts, which are the primary way foreign financial institutions (or respondent banks) gain access to the U.S. financial system. By establishing a correspondent bank account, the U.S. bank may receive deposits from, or make payments or other disbursements on behalf of the respondent bank, or to handle other financial transactions related to the respondent bank. As the affidavit notes, [n]early all U.S. dollar wire transactions conducted by foreign financial institutions are processed through correspondent bank accounts held in the United States. According to the affidavit, Vekselberg and his agents transferred funds internationally through correspondent accounts held at U.S. financial institutions, using shell companies to do so in order to hide the true nature of the transactions from U.S. financial institutions, undermine KYC protocols, and present the U.S. financial institutions from issuing [Suspicious Activity Reports] related to the transactions.

When finding that probable cause supported the warrant, the Court first observed that willfully attempting to circumvent U.S. sanctions, such as trying to circumvent the anti-money laundering (AML) procedures implemented by U.S. financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act to prevent the misuse of correspondent bank accounts, is a criminal violation of the IEEPA. Further, deceiving banks which are trying to enforce U.S. sanctions law through their AML programs is bank fraud. Moving funds involved in such activity is money laundering.

The Court addressed jurisdiction to seize, and noted that the Treasury Departments OFAC had designated Vekselberg as part of U.S. sanctions against Russia. The Court agreed that the government had established probable cause to believe Vekselberg structured transactions involving the Tango to conceal his identity, including via use of shell companies, as part of a scheme to violate the IEEPA and commit bank fraud, as part of a related international money laundering scheme. These transactions were subject to U.S. jurisdiction because they passed through the United States via correspondent bank account transfers. The Tango therefore was subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. Sections 981(a) and 982(a).

Next, the Court stated that venue for the warrant for seizure was established because Congress empowered the District Court for the District of Columbia to seize property located in a foreign country. Although the Court had rejected the governments initial request to search items located in the Tango because the Court lacked venue to issue a search warrant for property held at a foreign port, the Court nonetheless reasoned that no search warrant was necessary because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search of property owned by a nonresident alien located in a foreign country, and Vekselberg lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Tango.

The Court concluded by discussing the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, which limits the Governments forfeiture power. The Court noted that an Excessive Fines challenge at this stage was premature because Eighth Amendment issues are not ripe until after a court enters a civil or criminal forfeiture order. Nevertheless, the Court addressed the proportionality of the forfeiture to the crime and stated, Far from being grossly disproportionate to Putins murder of civilians, destruction of Ukrainian cities, and attack on Ukraines sovereignty, forfeiture of the [Tango] is wholly justified. The seizure of the [Tango] is just the beginning of the reckoning that awaits those who would facilitate Putins atrocities. Neither the Department of Justice, nor history, will be kind to the Oligarchs who chose the wrong side.

[View source.]

Original post:
Russian Oligarchs Yacht Subject to Forfeiture Based on Alleged Violations of Bank Fraud, Money Laundering, and U.S. Sanction Statutes - JD Supra

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) recently revealed that, over the past two years, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) the law enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Securitys Immigration and Customs Enforcement unit conducted an indiscriminate surveillance dragnet that swept up some six million money transfers between people in Mexico and four southwestern states. Wyden called on the DHS inspector general to investigate the surveillance. Thats a critical step the programs bulk collection of information was clearly an abuse of power, targeted at the Latino community. But the problems at HSI go much deeper. The money transfer dragnet is only the latest overreach by a department thats long overdue for systemic reform.

HSI, which has rarely been in the spotlight, takes an expansive view of its mandate to combat transnational crime. It uses this authority to start criminal investigations into ordinary financial transactions, travel, and family relationships. These can have drastic consequences, from criminal charges to deportation, for those targeted.

In the case of the money transfers, HSI demanded that companies like Western Union provide sender and recipient names, addresses, and transaction amounts on all money transfers over $500 entering or leaving Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. The legal tool used was an administrative subpoena, which is not approved by a court and is only supposed to be used to seek information needed for an active customs investigation a requirement that Wyden notes doesnt seem to have been met. The agency has not claimed (nor could it credibly argue) that all of these transactions were part of an active investigation. On the contrary, HSI appears to have sought and saved the data for its agents and other local, state, and federal officers with whom it shares information to trawl through whenever they choose and use in any way they want. This would appear to violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from scooping up information about people in the absence of any suspicion of criminal activity.

This is part of HSIs pattern. The agency often uses its transnational crime mission to investigate immigrants of color who are not suspected of criminal activity. Starting in 2017, for example, HSI led an operation that targeted the parents and relatives of unaccompanied immigrant children who were entering the United States to reunite with family after fleeing unstable living conditions in their home countries. Although this operation was a blatant attempt to penalize vulnerable children and their families for seeking refuge in the United States, HSI cloaked the operation in language emphasizing transnational criminal organizations, saying it was aimed at human smuggling operations, despite the absence of any focus on smuggling organizations or networks.

Similarly, since at least 2017, HSI has inserted itself into young immigrants removal proceedings and applications for immigration relief by producing HSI memos, which are used by immigration officials to justify detaining youth without bond and denying them immigration benefits that provide legal residency, like Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. As reflected in these memos, HSI uses vague criteria to brand young immigrants as gang members criteria such as wearing colors or clothing associated with gangs, being present in an area frequented by gangs, or being seen with known gang members.

These types of programs are not just a product of former President Donald Trumps anti-immigrant agenda. HSIs Operation Second Look program started during the administration of President Barack Obama. It investigates naturalized citizens, looking for inconsistencies in their documents or old deportation orders as grounds to strip them of citizenship. The program reportedly focuses on immigrants from special-interest nations a list that consists overwhelmingly of countries with substantial Muslim populations.

HSI has also been implicated in invasive airport searches, which activists have alleged are deployed punitively against journalists, activists, and travelers of color another practice dating back to the Obama administration. HSI uses its expansive border search authority, which is meant to prevent people and items posing an imminent danger from entering or leaving the country, to seize, break into, and copy the contents of travelers cell phones, laptops, and other electronic devices.

Finally, for years, particularly under the George W. Bush and Trump administrations, HSI conducted workplace raids and mass arrests of working immigrants. Last year, President Bidens Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas ordered an end to this practice, a welcome and important change.

Despite news reporting on these troubling practices, HSI has faced limited oversight. A review of investigation reports made public by DHSs Inspector General reveals that the office has never investigated HSIs civil rights and civil liberties record. The lack of investigations isnt due to lack of expertise: the Office of Inspector General routinely conducts these types of reviews into how Enforcement and Removal Operations ICEs other half treats detainees. DHSs Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties also does not seem to have reviewed HSIs operations, although not every review by that office is made public.

Urgent action is needed to rein in this part of DHS that has too much power and is subject to too little oversight. Mayorkas should issue a clear directive pausing HSIs initiatives that are alleged to involve civil rights and civil liberties abuses and commission an independent review of HSIs authorities and operations. Increased oversight, stronger protections against profiling, and concrete consequences for civil rights and civil liberties violations should be the starting point, not the end, of forward-looking reforms.

Go here to read the rest:
Mayorkas Must Rein in Homeland Security Investigations - Just Security