Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

A new report by an FAA aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) has drone operators feeling sky-high.

Under current regulations, drone delivery services must operate within the visual line of sight of the operator, necessitating the use of a ground-based observer either on foot or in a vehicle. Consequently, drone delivery trips are shorter than most operators would like them to be because flights in the air are limited by terrain and infrastructure on the ground.

But according to last weeks ARC report, that may not be the case for much longer. Established by the FAA in June, the Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) ARC delivered a set of recommendations to the aviation authority, including a push for a case-by-case approach to BVLOS operations.

Key recommendations from the committee include:

If the FAAs handling of previous regulations like Remote Identification provision or the Operations over People rule are any indication, it will be one to two years before the agency follows through on BVLOS. But industry stakeholders believe it is a step in the right direction.

Unlocking BLVOS will have a tremendous impact on the world, opening up opportunities only dreamed about in science fiction, John Vernon, chief technology officer of ARC member company DroneUp, told Modern Shipper. This reports feedback and commonsense proposals represent the best from the technology, aviation, municipal and societal leaders and provide a solid list of recommendations to rule-makers.

Currently, the FAA awards BVLOS waivers on a conditional basis, but so far only 86 have been issued since March 2018, with many going to research and development programs rather than commercial services. That means that only a handful of companies each year have been able to test drone deliveries longer than a mile or two.

But according to Zipline, another ARC member, the value of drone delivery is highest when drones can travel longer distances: We appreciate the hard work by the FAAs beyond visual line of sight aviation rulemaking committee. Enabling long-distance autonomous flight is a critical step forward making safe, clean, on-demand delivery available to all and ensuring Americas continued leadership in the skies, the company told Modern Shipper.

Yariv Bash, CEO of Flytrex, also sees plenty of potential. But its a very hard problem which will take tons of time to solve because the sky is already filled with humans flying airplanes, and you dont want to jeopardize that, Bash said. Aviation is one of the safest industries, and its important to keep it that way.

Having said that, the FAA is really investing a lot of effort into solving [BVLOS regulations], so I think that in the next two to three years, thats going to be solved as well. And then the skys the limit for drone deliveries.

Flytrex is in the business of delivering to homes via drone, airdropping drinks, groceries and hot food like chicken wings directly into customers backyards. While Flytrexs local deliveries would be largely unaffected by the BVLOS recommendations, Bashs experience with FAA regulations gives him hope that the organization will follow through.

I think that the FAA took a very holistic approach, and its doing it with commercial drone deliveries in a very different way than most other regulators in the world, he explained. Theyre investing an order of magnitude more resources into solving this, and were already seeing the fruits of that investment.

The FAAs efforts to promote commercial drone delivery began in 2017 with the launch of the Integration Pilot Program, an initiative that aimed to bring state, local and tribal governments together with private-sector drone operators and manufacturers.

That program, of which Flytrex was a member, concluded in October 2020 before the FAA launched a new program, BEYOND, which included most of the same participants. BEYOND aims to certify drones as if they were normal aircraft, and the initiative is nearing completion for several member companies.

The next big move by the FAA was the introduction of Remote Identification (RID) provisions. The final RID rule, published in January 2021, mandates that all unmanned aircraft heavier than 0.55 pounds be equipped with beacons that transmit identification and location data to the FAA and law enforcement.

Developed with safety in mind, that regulation helped improve the visibility of operations and again moved the commercial drone industry forward.

Its like adding license plates to cars back in the 1920s, Bash remarked.

Also published in January 2021 and amended two months later was the Operations Over People rule, which does exactly what its name implies: It permits drone flights over people and in busy areas, as well as at night under certain conditions. That provision took effect last April.

Thats not to say its all clear skies for the FAA. The administration is currently contending with a lawsuit challenging the RID regulations, alleging that the provision violates the constitutional rights of recreational drone users under the Fourth Amendment.

The suit, backed by drone equipment retailer RaceDayQuads, lays out the argument that first-person-view drone racers, who often cannot afford expensive RID equipment and typically fly in RID noncompliant locations like their backyards, would be subject to unreasonable searches from the government for flying on their own property.

However, the BVLOS ARC recommendations figure to make life easier for both hobbyists and fledgling drone companies trying to find their wings.

I think [BVLOS is] the last largest barrier to the market, Bash explained. It doesnt mean that a new company entering will be able to scoot through everything and just start operating. But once you start to structure everything and remove all the unknowns from that process, it really helps a lot.

Drone Racing League now an FAA-approved drone event organizer

DroneUp acquires airspace traffic management company AirMap

Elroy Air, AYR Logistics partner to use drones for humanitarian aid

The leading voices in supply chain are coming to Rogers, Arkansas, on May 9-10.

*limited term pricing available.

Read the rest here:
Expanded drone delivery taxis toward takeoff with new FAA recommendations - FreightWaves

Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On March 11, 2022, ORCC Financing IV LLC, a subsidiary of Owl Rock CapitalCorporation, executed a Fourth Amendment to the Credit Agreement, dated as ofAugust 2, 2019, by and among ORCC Financing IV LLC, as borrower, SocitGnrale, as administrative agent, State Street Bank and Trust Company, ascollateral agent, collateral administrator and custodian, Cortland CapitalMarket Services LLC, as document custodian, and the lenders party thereto. Theamendment extends the reinvestment period from April 1, 2022 until October 3,2022 and the stated maturity from April 1, 2030 to October 1, 2030. Theamendment also changed the applicable interest rate from LIBOR plus anapplicable margin of 2.15% during the reinvestment period and LIBOR plus anapplicable margin of 2.40% after the reinvestment period to term SOFR plus anapplicable margin of 2.30% during the reinvestment period and term SOFR plus anapplicable margin of 2.55% after the reinvestment period.

The foregoing description is only a summary of certain of the provisions of theAmendment and is qualified in its entirety by the underlying agreement, which isfiled as Exhibit 10.1 to this current report on Form 8-K and is incorporated byreference herein.

Item 2.03. Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation.

The information set forth under Item 1.01 above is incorporated by referenceinto this Item 2.03.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Continued here:
OWL ROCK CAPITAL CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance...

InThe United States of Anonymous, Jeff Kosseff explores how the right to anonymity has shaped American values, politics, business, security, and discourse, particularly as technology has enabled people to separate their identities from their communications.

Legal and political debates surrounding online privacy often focus on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, overlooking the history and future of an equally powerful privacy right: the First Amendment's protection of anonymity.The United States of Anonymousfeatures extensive and engaging interviews with people involved in the highest profile anonymity cases, as well as with those who have benefited from, and been harmed by, anonymous communications. Through these interviews, Kosseff explores how courts have protected anonymity for decades and, likewise, how law and technology have allowed individuals to control how much, if any, identifying information is associated with their communications. From blocking laws that prevent Ku Klux Klan members from wearing masks to restraining Alabama officials from forcing the NAACP to disclose its membership lists, and to refusing companies' requests to unmask online critics, courts have recognized that anonymity is a vital part of our free speech protections.

The United States of Anonymousweighs the tradeoffs between the right to hide identity and the harms of anonymity, concluding that we must maintain a strong, if not absolute, right to anonymous speech.

"From the world's leading expert on Section 230, a new book with a balanced and insightful look at online anonymitythe good and the badthat is required reading for anyone who wants to substantively engage in this debate."Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia

"An indispensable, in-depth look at both the history and present of anonymity protections in American life, media, and online culture.The United States of Anonymouswill have resounding implications for the future of democracy."Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist

"Providing both a great story and keen legal analysis, Jeff Kosseff examines what fuels our commitment to protecting anonymous speech in the United Statesand the new and sometimes high costs of that unwavering allegiance."Victoria Smith Ekstrand, author of Hot News in the Age of Big Data

"Jeff Kosseff weaves together history, legal issues, and public affairs in this vital, timely, and highly readable book.The United States of Anonymousshould be required reading for all engaged in the debate over anonymity, identity, and privacy in the online age."Jeff Jarvis, author of What Would Google Do?

"Jeff Kosseff has, once again, spotted the next looming topic in technology law, anonymous communication, illuminating its contours with his trademark skill. The United States of Anonymousis a foundational dive into one of the toughest areas of speech, privacy, and identity today."Kate Klonick, St. John's University School of Law

"A superb book, accessibly written, that canvasses the history of anonymous speech and its interaction with the law. Jeff Kosseff has created a major framework for any future discussions of anonymity."Anupam Chander, author of The Electronic Silk Road

I much look forward to Prof. Kosseff's posts.

Read the rest here:
Jeff Kosseff Guest-Blogging About "The United States of Anonymous" - Reason

Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

Merger Agreement with Kids2, Inc.

On March 16, 2022, Summer Infant, Inc. (the "Company") entered into an Agreementand Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among the Company,Kids2, Inc., a Georgia corporation ("Parent"), and Project Abacus AcquisitionCorp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("MergerSub"). The Merger Agreement provides, subject to its terms and conditions, forthe acquisition of the Company by Parent through the merger of Merger Sub withand into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Parent (the "Proposed Merger").

The Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board of Directors") unanimously(i) determined and declared that the Merger Agreement and the transactionscontemplated thereby, including the Proposed Merger, are advisable and in thebest interests of the Company and its stockholders; (ii) approved the MergerAgreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the ProposedMerger; and (iii) resolved to recommend that the Company's stockholders adoptthe Merger Agreement (the "Company Board Recommendation").

Under the terms of the Proposed Merger, (i) each share of common stock of theCompany issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of theProposed Merger (the "Effective Time") (other than shares of common stock(a) owned by Parent, Merger Sub, the Company or any subsidiary of Parent, MergerSub or the Company, or (b) held by a stockholder who is entitled to, and who hasperfected, appraisal rights for such shares under Delaware law) automaticallywill be converted into the right to receive cash in an amount equal to $12.00per share (the "Merger Consideration"), without interest, subject to anyrequired withholding of taxes; and (ii) each outstanding unexercised, vested orunvested option or unvested restricted stock award outstanding immediately priorto the Effective Time will be converted into the right to receive cash (withoutinterest, subject to any required withholding of taxes) (a) in the case ofoptions, in an amount equal to the product of the excess, if any, of the MergerConsideration over the exercise price of such option, multiplied by the numberof shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of the option or (b) in thecase of unvested restricted stock awards, in amount equal to the product of theMerger Consideration multiplied by the number of shares subject to therestricted stock award.

The completion of the Proposed Merger is subject to closing conditions,including: (i) the approval of the Merger Agreement by the Company'sstockholders (the "Stockholder Approval"); (ii) the absence of any laws or courtorders making the Proposed Merger illegal or otherwise prohibiting the ProposedMerger; (iii) other customary closing conditions, including the accuracy of therepresentations and warranties of each party (subject to certain materialityexceptions) and material compliance by each party with its covenants under theMerger Agreement; and (iv) the closing of a debt financing by Parent, a portionof the proceeds of which will fund Parent's obligation to pay the MergerConsideration.

Parent has entered into debt commitment letters providing for (i) an asset-basedcredit facility and (ii) a term loan, a portion of the proceeds of which willfund Parent's obligation to pay the Merger Consideration at the closing of theProposed Merger. The obligations of the lenders under the debt commitmentletters are subject to a number of conditions, including the receipt of executedloan documentation, accuracy of certain specified representations andwarranties, and certain pro forma financial conditions.

The Merger Agreement contains representations and warranties customary fortransactions of this type. The Company has agreed to various customary covenantsand agreements, including, among others, (i) agreements to use commerciallyreasonable efforts to conduct its and its subsidiaries' businesses in theordinary course of business during the period between the date of the MergerAgreement and the Effective Time and not to engage in certain kinds oftransactions during this period; and (ii) to call a meeting of its stockholdersto adopt the Merger Agreement.

The Company has also agreed not to (i) solicit proposals relating to alternativetransactions; or (ii) participate in any discussions or negotiations regarding,or furnish any non-public information relating to the Company in connectionwith, any proposal for an alternative transaction, subject to certain exceptionsto permit the Board of Directors to comply with its fiduciary duties.Notwithstanding these "no-shop" restrictions, prior to obtaining the Stockholder. . .

Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition.

On March 16, 2022, the Company announced its financial results for the fourthfiscal quarter and full year ended January 1, 2022. The full text of the pressrelease issued in connection with the announcement is attached herewith asExhibit 99.1.

The information in this Item 2.02 and exhibit 99.1 attached hereto shall not bedeemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(the "Exchange Act") or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section,nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") or the Exchange Act, except asexpressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.

Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors;Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.

In connection with the entry into the Merger Agreement, on March 16, 2022, theBoard of Directors approved, and the Company entered into, the fourth amendment(the "Amendment") to the existing engagement letter between the Company andRiveron RTS, LLC ("Riveron"), originally dated December 9, 2019 and furtheramended on February 28, 2020, November 30, 2020 and January 3, 2022 (the"Engagement Letter"). The Amendment provides that if the Company consummates atransaction constituting a "Change in Control" (as defined in the Company'sAmended and Restated Change in Control Plan (the "Change in Control Plan")) (a"Sale Transaction"), the Company shall pay Riveron a success fee, payable at theclosing of the Sale Transaction, based upon the per share consideration receivedby holders of the Company's common stock in the Sale Transaction, which would beapproximately $258,120 based on the Merger Consideration.

As previously disclosed, neither Stuart Noyes, the Company's CEO and a member ofthe Company Board, nor Bruce Meier, the Company's Interim CFO, will receive anycompensation from the Company for their services, rather, the Companycompensates Riveron in accordance with the Engagement Letter, as amended.

The foregoing description of the Amendment does not purport to be complete andis qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Amendment,which is filed herewith as Exhibit 10.3 and is incorporated herein by thisreference.

Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.

On March 16, 2022, the Company and Parent issued a joint press releaseannouncing the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The full textof the press release issued in connection with the announcement is attachedherewith as Exhibit 99.2.

The information in this Item 7.01 and exhibit 99.2 attached hereto shall not bedeemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwisesubject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporatedby reference in any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, exceptas expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.

On February 9, 2022, the Board of Directors approved an amended and restatedchange in control plan to extend the term of the existing plan to February 9,2024.

The foregoing description of the amended and restated change in control Plandoes not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference tothe full text of the amended and restated change in control plan, which is filedherewith as Exhibit 10.4 and is incorporated herein by this reference.

Additional Information about the Proposed Merger and Where to Find It

In connection with the Proposed Merger, the Company will prepare and filerelevant materials with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"),including a proxy statement on Schedule 14A and a proxy card, to be mailed toCompany stockholders entitled to vote at the special meeting relating to theProposed Merger. This communication is not intended to be, and is not, asubstitute for the proxy statement or any other document that the Company mayfile with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Merger. INVESTORS ANDSTOCKHOLDERS ARE URGED TO CAREFULLY READ THE PROXY STATEMENT (INCLUDING ANYAMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS THERETO AND ANY DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCETHEREIN) AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED MERGERTHAT THE COMPANY WILL FILE WITH THE SEC WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEYWILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPANY AND THE PROPOSED MERGER.The definitive proxy statement, the preliminary proxy statement, and otherrelevant materials in connection with the transaction (when they becomeavailable) and any other documents filed or furnished by the Company with theSEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website (www.sec.gov). Inaddition, copies of the proxy statement and other relevant materials anddocuments filed by the Company with the SEC will also be available free ofcharge on the Investor Relations page of the Company's website located athttps://www.sumrbrands.com.

Participants in the Solicitation of Company Stockholders

The Company, Kids2, Inc. and their respective directors and executive officers,management and employees may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation ofproxies from the Company's stockholders in connection with the Proposed Merger.Information about the Company's directors and executive officers and theirownership of Company common stock is set forth in its definitive proxy statementfor its 2021 annual meeting of shareholders filed with the SEC on April 16,2021. To the extent that holdings of the Company's securities have changed sincethe amounts reflected in the Company's proxy statement, such changes have beenor will be reflected on Statements of Change in Ownership on Form 4 filed withthe SEC. Additional information regarding the participants in the solicitationand their interests in the Proposed Merger will be included in the proxystatement and other materials relating to the Proposed Merger when they arefiled with the SEC. These documents may be obtained free of charge at the SEC'sweb site at http://www.sec.gov and on the Investor Relations page of the Company'swebsite located at https://www.sumrbrands.com.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Form 8-K contains (and oral communications made by us may contain)"forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the SecuritiesAct and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Forward-looking statements can beidentified by words such as "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "expect,""intend," "plan," "predict," "project," "target," "future," "seek," "likely,""strategy," "may," "should," "will," and similar references to future periodsand include statements regarding the proposed merger with Kids2, includingstatements relating to the Proposed Merger.

Forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of futureperformance. Instead, they are based only on our current beliefs, expectations,and assumptions regarding the future of our business, future plans andstrategies, projections, anticipated events and trends, the economy, and otherfuture conditions. Because forward-looking statements relate to the future, theyare subject to inherent uncertainties, risks, and changes in circumstances thatare difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our control. TheCompany's actual results may differ materially from those indicated in theforward-looking statements. Therefore, you should not rely on any of theseforward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actualresults to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-lookingstatements include, among others, risks related to disruption of management'sattention from ongoing business operations due to the Proposed Merger; the riskthat one or more closing conditions to the transaction may not be satisfied orwaived, on a timely basis or otherwise; the risk that the transaction does notclose when anticipated, or at all; the occurrence of any event, change or othercircumstances that could give rise to the termination of the merger agreement;potential adverse reactions or changes to employee or business relationshipsresulting from the announcement or completion of the proposed merger; the riskof litigation or legal proceedings related to the Proposed Merger; unexpectedcosts, charges or expenses resulting from the Proposed Merger; and other factorsdiscussed in the "Risk Factors" section of the Company's most recent AnnualReport on Form 10-K, and the Company's subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Qand in other filings the Company makes with the SEC from time to time. Allinformation provided in this release is as of the date hereof and the Companyundertakes no duty to update this information except as required by law.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

104 Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL document)

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

** Portions of this exhibit have been omitted for confidential treatment pursuant

to Regulation K, Item 601(b)(10).

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read more here:
SUMMER INFANT, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Results of Operations and Financial Condition, Change in Directors or Principal...

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) The oath of office is scheduled to be given in March to Grand Rapids newly-appointed police chief.

City Clerk Joel Hondorp will administer the oath to Eric Winstrom at a March 7 ceremony in City Hall Commission Chambers, according to the city.

Winstrom, a former Chicago police commander,was selectedFeb. 1 following a national search to replace retiring Grand Rapids Police Chief Eric Payne.

Winstrom spent more than two decades in various roles with Chicago police. He last served as an executive on that departments Leadership Team and oversaw a detective division.

He is considered to be an expert on the use of force and the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches, Grand Rapids said following Winstroms hiring.

Paynespentmore than 30 years with the Grand Rapids Police Departmentand 2 1/2 years as the citys top cop.

2022 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

More here:
New Grand Rapids Police Chief To Receive Oath Of Office - CBS Detroit

This time of yearwith Black History Month followed by Womens History Monthturns our gaze toward scholars, advocates, and thinkers who fit one or both of those identities, asking their thoughts in this moment. As a Black woman and a Black mother, few topics grip me as more important than addressing the use of excessive police force in a long-term, impactful manner. The threat of police violence hovers as a constant, threatening cloud covering Black peoples everyday lives. Living While Black, forces us to navigate our days journeys while too often presumed punishable, permeating how we talk to and prepare our children to face the world. Headlines and social media splashed with hashtags of the most recent Black son or daughter unjustly killed by police force us to hold our collective breath awaiting verdicts and to suppress our anguish when we hear acquittals or sentencing pronouncements clearly showing that Black lives often do not matter in our justice system. As a sentencing scholar approaching my work through my perspective as a Black woman I have come to conclude that policing in America so often operates as punishment that we can only have meaningful systemic change when we couple federal legislative and executive actions with renewed constitutional protections of life, liberty and security. As there is movement by the legislative and executive branches on the federal level to implement police reform, having a Black womans perspective on the Supreme Court, and including her unique set of experiences and insights in deliberations, may just be the key to legitimate and workable protections from policing abuses and toward the just treatment of all people under the law.

Unfortunately, our legal system allows, and often even encourages, police behavior that leads to the death of people punished outside of any adjudication of their guilt a phenomenon I term the death penalty on the streets. From federal programs sending surplus military equipment to state and local police agency SWAT teams to the federally-implemented War on Drugs policies that have led to decades of jurisprudence expanding police power over individuals and their private spaces the federal government, having helped create an environment that fosters this assault on individual security, must shoulder a responsibility to curb it. Data in recent years reveal that SWAT teams are not typically used for hostage, barricade, or active shooter situations; instead, SWAT teams are deployed, as much as eighty percent of the time, to search someones home, often for low-level drug investigations. Unsurprisingly, Black people are more likely to be subject to military-like force during the execution of drug warrants. SWAT teams are more likely to be used in searches and raids targeting Black and Latino Americans than in those targeting white Americans. While SWAT teams and their use of no-knock warrants are but one aspect of excessive police violence that needs addressing, this aspect clearly highlights the need for federal action and constitutional protection. National headlines read that Amir Locke would be alive today were no-knock warrants banned. The same can be said for Breonna Taylor, who was denied justice. In both situations, the tactics taken by police officers were supported by the existence of federal police militarization programs and protected constitutional jurisprudence that focuses a reasonableness inquiry on the narrow moment that a police officer fires at an individual. Amir Lockes killing came even after so-called reforms to the no-knock warrant policy. Local reforms will not be enough. In the same way that federal incentives and spending policies encouraged the rise in domestic police militarization, federal action must be used to incentivize reform. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a promising reform, would make it easier for the federal government to prosecute police misconduct cases, eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, ban the use of chokeholds and no-knock warrants by federal officers and encourage states to do the same. President Bidens promised executive orders address other much needed reforms governing police actions. But any federal action is limited in effect unless constitutional protections within which those reforms exist keep pace with the reality of lived experiences.

Ultimately, if policing is not viewed as punishment and therefore is not limited by the Eight Amendment protections against arbitrary and disproportionate punishment, then even with increased policing reforms, officers who kill may still be deemed to have acted reasonably even when that death could have been avoided. So long as an officer can plausibly claim a reasonable fear for his or her life, the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence upon which the courts now rely neglect the deeper issues of racial bias and ignore the bigger picture of what took place in the encounter just before the killing, including examining what the officer could have done to avoid even getting to that supposedly fretful moment when they decided to pull the trigger. Rather than focusing on human dignity and creating obstacles to the taking of life, as the Eighth Amendment directs, by applying the Fourth Amendment to police force cases, courts have failed to consider the lived experiences that demonstrate that when police officers kill, they inflict punishment that transcends a Fourth Amendment seizure. Black people have experienced policing as punishment for centuries. Black women have carried the sorrow of that punishment for ages. Our perspective brings a realness that has been missing from American jurisprudence in so many areas for far too long.

Police reform is a federal responsibility, and having a Black woman on the Supreme Court can help to protect the promise and longevity of that reform. A Black woman as the newest Supreme Court justice will, of course, be impactful beyond criminal justice issues. Black women have a unique vantage point from which to observe society. Black women have dealt with the challenges presented by being racialized as well as by being gendered. Such experience, perspective, and background allow Black women to connect with diverse matters involving justice, fairness, and equality affecting all members of society. While I cannot be certain that a Black woman will embrace my notion of policing as punishment, I am confident that having a Black woman serving on the Court will enrich deliberations among the justices in ways that will move the Court to discussions more reflective of the lived experiences of all Americans.

As we reflect upon Black History Month and Womens History Month, it is important to acknowledge that, of course, Black womens voices are always important and cannot be relegated to two months of the year. However, we do our history a disservice if we do not use these months to amplify the voices of Black women and to promote our perspectives and our impact on history and on our future. I am using my voice to highlight the need for a federal response to police violence. I am using my voice to speak up for the protection of Black lives because they matter. As a justice on our Nations highest court, a Black woman will use her voice to speak up for American justice for all, because justice matters.

2022 Supreme Court Vacancy, Criminal Justice, Importance of the Courts, Judicial Diversity, Judicial Nominations, Policing, Race and Criminal Justice, Supreme Court

Read more here:
The Federal Responsibility to Promote Police Reform; And What Seating a Back Woman on the Supreme Court has to do with it. | ACS - American...

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Senate may soon consider the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act of 2022. On its surface, the bill would make a relatively small modification to the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is designed to put a greater onus on Big Tech to crack down on the spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). While a laudable goal, the bills changes threaten critical privacy protections, such as end-to-end encryption (E2EE), or mandate firms scan user communications. In isolation, this privacy tradeoff could be worth making, or at least worth debating. But the bill as currently structured would deputize platforms as partners in law enforcement in the identification and reporting of CSAM. This could make evidence obtained by the platforms inadmissible in court, as platforms would now be state actors and their searches unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendmentand thus make prosecution of CSAM criminals much more difficult.

Now that the Judiciary Committee has moved the bill out of Committee, the Senate will have the opportunity to fix the major issues still prevalent in the bill. This insight explains why the legislations reforms risk significant harm to both user privacy and law enforcement agencies as they attempt to prosecute CSAM criminals. Members should carefully consider these concerns as they consider the bill.

EARN IT Act What It Does

The EARN IT Act does two main things. First, it creates a commission with a variety of different stakeholders to develop recommended best practices for platforms to prevent, reduce, and respond to the online sexual exploitation of children. The commissions recommendations do not bind platforms to act in accordance with the best practices, and ideally would remain voluntary to guide platforms with the best steps to address CSAM. Courts may also use these guidelines in determining whether platforms adhered to necessary standards of care under relevant state laws on the issue.

Second, the bill would create an exemption to Section 230s protections for intermediary liability for claims relating to the advertisement, promotion, presentation, distribution, or solicitation of CSAM. Section 230 currently has an exemption for violations of federal criminal law, meaning existing law which makes it a federal crime to knowingly possess and share CSAM already applies to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. For all state and federal civil claims, however, Section 230 precludes courts from treating platforms as the publisher or speaker of what users post. In practice, this means that states cannot enforce CSAM-related statutes that attempt to hold platforms as the speaker when CSAM is shared. EARN IT would extend the exemption for federal criminal enforcement to any state civil or criminal claims. Further, because EARN IT allows states to enforce their own laws, in practice it also allows states to change the legal standards for liability. This means that even if a platform doesnt know about CSAM on their service, they can be liable for users possessing and sharing the content if the state finds that a platform should have known, or even acted negligently, in identifying and reporting these materials.

Certainly, both Congress and platforms should strive to find better strategies to target the spread of CSAM. But while the EARN IT Act clearly aims to this goal, as drafted, it would have significant unintended consequences for both user privacy and the ability of law enforcement to prosecute criminals.

EARN IT Act Threatens User Privacy

Since the original bills introduction, many critics have worried that it would target user privacy features such as end-to-end encryption, which criminals can use to obtain and share CSAM without the risk of law enforcement gaining access to these communications. In the original bill, for example, adhering to the commissions recommendations would earn platforms Section 230 immunity. Attorney General Bill Barr, a noted critic of end-to-end encryption, would have had significant control over the commission and its participants. This threat led to significant outcry from public interest and privacy groups. In response to massive opposition to this approach, the drafters drastically changed the bill to its current structure and Senator Leahy introduced an amendment to alleviate concerns that offering E2EE would lead to liability.

When EARN IT was reintroduced in 2022, lawmakers changed the language again. Now the encryption provision only states that offering E2EE cannot be used as evidence to support other claims, as long as it not be an independent basis for liability. What does this mean in practice? If a claim against a platform alleges the service should have known about CSAM, plaintiffs and prosecutors could argue that offering E2EE could have contributed to the reckless behavior of the platform. The language would only protect platforms if they engaged in no other conduct that potentially supported the conclusion that the platform should have known about the CSAM.

This wouldnt be a major issue in isolation, as federal law requires actual knowledge of the content, so offering E2EE wouldnt necessarily give rise to liability. Nevertheless, the bill also allows for states to bring claims under state laws that could have different standards than the current federal regime, such as recklessness. While the actual legality of the practices will depend on the facts of the case, firms will likely feel pressure to eliminate these services, regardless of the privacy benefits they provide to users.

Worse, even a fully restored Leahy amendment that made clear offering E2EE could not be used as evidence against a platform wouldnt fully protect the privacy of users. E2EE only protects the communications in transit, and not the information on users devices. Firms can employ client-side scanning to examine the contents of messages before the message is encrypted or decrypted. The Leahy amendment would only cover the encryption of messages in transit, and not on the device, itself. Again, this in isolation doesnt give rise to liability, but when states impose a lower standard than knowledge, ICS could be found liable for spreading CSAM if they do not use tools such as client-side scanning to ensure users do not share CSAM over the service.

With Congress significant focus on online privacy, including that of the EARN IT Acts cosponsors, this threat to user privacy is somewhat surprising. Encryption protects users from a variety of potential harms. Victims of domestic abuse need secure and confidential communications to speak to loved ones and access support. Journalists use encryption to protect sources. And a lack of strong protections opens the door for hostile actors to target Americans. At the same time, pedophiles can also use encryption to evade law enforcement and continue to harm children.

If the EARN IT Acts changes simply meant a tradeoff between stopping CSAM and keeping privacy protections such as encryption, then Congress and the public could have that debate. Unfortunately, as drafted, the bill would both reduce privacy protectionsand make it more difficult to prosecute CSAM criminals.

EARN IT Act Could Make Prosecution of Criminals More Difficult

Despite the best intentions of the bills authors, by effectively deputizing platforms into searching for and reporting CSAM on behalf of law enforcement, the EARN IT Act could make information obtained by platforms inadmissible in court under the Fourth Amendment.

Currently, platforms employ a wide range of tools to find and eliminate CSAM. Under federal law, when the platforms learn of CSAM, they report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) the details so that law enforcement can find and arrest the individuals involved. These voluntary actions then lead to prosecution of the individual. Yet this regime only works as long as the platforms provide information to law enforcement voluntarily.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, which means that law enforcement must normally obtain a warrant to search users communications. Because platforms arent state actors, their searches do not need the same protections, and prosecutors can use any information obtained from the platform to convict the perpetrators. If a state employs a recklessness or even negligence standard for platforms to find and remove CSAM, however, and platforms are essentially coerced into monitoring communications for CSAM, courts may determine that the influence from government actors essentially makes the platforms state actors.

If courts determine that platforms are state actors, then the evidence obtained from the platforms monitoring efforts may be deemed unconstitutional. For example, an app can use a program such as PhotoDNA to automatically compare unencrypted information against a hash of material in an authoritative database. When there is a successful hit for CSAM, the app can report that to NCMEC and law enforcement can follow up to arrest the perpetrator. But if the government forces the app to scan all the communications on the device to get around the Fourth Amendment, evidence obtained by the app would be inadmissible in the actual prosecution of the case.

It is critical that the enforcement regime remains voluntary so that evidence obtained will not be barred in courtrooms. While Congress should continue to work to target CSAM online, the bills current approach would effectively coerce platforms into acting as the deputy of law enforcement and risks allowing criminals off the hook.

Conclusion

The EARN IT Act as currently drafted has significant problems that threaten the privacy of users and may make it more difficult to prosecute the criminals exploiting children online. While the goals of the bill are certainly laudable, Congress should consider amending the bill to both ensure important privacy features are protected and that platforms do not become state actors when they search for CSAM on their services.

Go here to read the rest:
Unintended Consequences of the EARN IT Act - AAF - American Action Forum

Recently, I addressed Don Pescis misinformation on abortion; later Conrad McIntire Jr. challenged my rebuttal with even more misinformation. He stated, for example, that only secular humanism supports the right to abortion. This is patently false. Although the American Baptist Church board opposes abortion as a primary means of birth control, it does not condemn abortion outright. Buddhists have no official position on abortion. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)s General Assembly says the termination of a pregnancy is a personal decision based on prayer and Scripture. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America states that abortion prior to fetal viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding, but should be prohibited later unless the mothers life is threatened or fetal abnormalities pose a fatal threat to a newborn. Reform and Conservative Judaism openly advocate for the right to safe and accessible abortions. The United Church of Christ advocates for reproductive rights, including safe abortions.

I could continue, but the point is evident. The worlds religions do not agree about abortion. More importantly, their opinions are irrelevant. The United States is not a theocracy. Religion is not the governments business, nor should it be.

The Fourth Amendment protects a womans right to be secure in her person. A fetus does have certain rights, but not those of personhood until it can exist outside the womb. Pregnancy does not cause a woman merely an inconvenience as Mr. McIntire states, but sometimes death or disability. When he further claims a woman makes her choice by agreeing to have sex, he ignores recent state laws that make no exception for rape or incest. A 10-year-old child raped by her father, then, would be forced to bear another child. I find that morality repugnant. I think many others would as well.

Read this article:
Letter to the editor: Religions do not agree on abortion - Journal Inquirer

It shouldnt take this much effort to get the government to respect property rights.

For generations, people have enjoyed hunting, hiking and relaxing with family and friends at the Punxsutawney and Pitch Pine hunting clubs in Pennsylvanias Allegheny Mountains. The clubs stretch for thousands of acres and feature beautiful forests, abundant wildlife and houses where members can stay during their visits.

The clubs are private, which is a big part of their appeal. All entrances are gated. No Trespassing signs are posted at property lines. Access is limited to members and guests.

Members come to be free from the intrusions of everyday life. That quiet time is often interrupted, however, by intrusions from Pennsylvania wildlife officers whove repeatedly entered the clubs without permission or warrants to spy on, interrogate and otherwise hassle their members.

According to the Institute for Justice, which is representing the clubs in a lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania, officers have spent hours roaming the clubs by foot, bicycle and truck. Theyve secretly watched members, sometimes coming up behind them or entering their tree stands to inspect their papers. Theyve also hidden behind trees and jumped out in front of vehicles to stop and interrogate members.

In one case, an officer sped down a trail in his truck, told a member hed been spying on him and his guests for several days from a hidden spot in the woods while wearing camouflage. He accused the member of putting out seed to feed bears. The member calmly explained that the seed was actually birdseed and that hed been putting it out for the birds. The officer begrudgingly relented and eventually left without issuing a citation.

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. But several state constitutions including some with text that predates the federal Bill of Rights use the word possessions instead of effects. In those states, private land like the aforementioned clubs is supposed to fall within the category of possessions.

Unless, that is, those states disregard the framers intent. Pennsylvania is one such state.

As IJ explains, Article I, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution was intended to protect private property, including possessions, from illegal searches. But in a 2007 case called Commonwealth v. Russo, the Pennsylvanias high court held that the term possessions does not extend to private land.

In this case, IJ hopes to not only send meddling wildlife officers back to where they came from but also to reverse the wrong-headed Russo ruling that empowered their harassment in the first place.

Read more:
EDITORIAL: Another example of government intruding on property rights - Las Vegas Review-Journal

Highland, Kansas, is a town of about 1,000 people surrounded by miles and miles of rolling cornfields. Theres one gas station, no stoplights. But Highland Community College is a magnet for people like Aiden Moore. It offered him something no other school did, namely a shot at playing college football.

It was really my last chance, says Moore, remembering a call he got from a Highland recruiter. I had interest from big-time schools, but I just didnt have the grades.

Moore made the trip from his home in Louisville, Kentucky, joined the Highland Scotties, and enrolled in classes. But he soon wished he had kept his construction job in Louisville. A sophomore this year, he says a white coach called him a gangster with a genius IQ and otherwise made fun of his intellect. He says campus police hound him and other black players on the team in a relentless effort to catch them smoking pot. He says townspeople sometimes seem scared to share space with them in the gas station or even to see him and other players on the street.

In a tiny school in a tiny, rural town, Black student-athletes feel conspicuous and scrutinized, even under attack.

Kejuan Carson, who hails from Auburn, Alabama, says he was cut from Highlands football team this month after he asked permission to skip a practice to finish an English paper.

And I thought everything was cool," Carson says. "But later on that day, that's when people started telling me I got kicked off the team."

He says the team has cut at least two dozen players, all of them Black, since the beginning of the year.

B.J. Smith, a former Highland womens basketball coach, says harsh treatment of Black student-athletes dates to 2019 when Highland hired a new president, Deborah Fox, who brought in a new athletic director, Bryan Dorrel. Smith says Dorrell immediately laid down the law.

His exact words were I needed to recruit more kids the culture of our community could relate to, Smith says. I honestly don't know what you mean. What, what are you saying? And he very aggressively said you know exactly what I'm saying. He wanted me to recruit more kids that looked like the people that lived in Highland.

From then on, Smith says, the school looked for excuses to punish Black players, suspend them from games and even expel them from school.

You need to look right. You act right, speak when spoken to, you know, there's a terminology for what they want of Black people, Smith says.

In 2019, Highlands winning football coach, Aaron Arnold, who is white, resigned. The next year, the ACLU of Kansas sued the school on behalf of four Black students, alleging it sought to reduce the number of its Black students. The school settled the lawsuit eight months after it was filed, agreeing to pay up to $15,000 to each of the four students and pledging to provide anti-discrimination and Fourth Amendment training to staff and administrators.

Smith, among the nations most successful junior college womens basketball coaches at the time, lost his job that same year when his contract wasnt renewed.

Carlos Moreno

/

KCUR 89.3

Earlier this month, Smith, who is white, and two assistant coaches, both Black, sued the school, claiming it was seeking to get rid of its Black student-athletes. Parkville, Missouri, attorney Bill Odle, who represents them, says the coaches refused to go along with a pattern of abusive behavior toward Black players.

It's a concerted campaign to make Highland white again, Odle says.

Fox, Highland's president, issued a statement strongly denying the allegations and asserting that almost half the student-athletes at Highland are Black, the same percentage as when Smith lost his job. She said the school is looking forward to presenting its case for getting rid of Smith.

Smith has been ousted before. He was the womens basketball coach at Southeast Missouri State University when the school was caught up in a flurry of basketball recruiting violations, resulting in NCAA sanctions. In 2014, while at Highland, he pleaded guilty to participating in an illegal car theft ring by helping to obscure the paper trail of cars that had previously been sold for salvage. Smith, who says he didnt know about the stolen cars, was given probation and Highland kept him on as the women's basketball coach.

But Smith said the school never specified what, if any, violations he had committed when it didnt renew his contract. Smith says the school is attacking him to mask its own deplorable behavior.

School officials declined to comment. But Ryan Kuhnert, a 2009 Highland graduate, insists the school values diversity.

When I went to Highland it was the most Black people I had ever encountered in my life being from a small farm town," Kuhnert says. "And it was a great learning experience for me."

Kuhnert says the schools treatment of Black student-athletes is in keeping with the strict discipline he saw imposed on everyone, white or Black.

Highland farmer Jerry Blevins agrees and says the college is just trying to strengthen its ties to the community.

The reason why they want Kansas kids, it has nothing to do with Black or white. They want local kids, so with their parents and family and stuff, Blevins says.

But the racial issues at Highland Community College were made stark earlier this month when The Kansas City Star published a recording of Fox likening a Black football player to Hitler, whom she called a great leader."

Fox said in a subsequent statement that she meant the player was misdirecting his own substantial leadership abilities and she apologized. But, for Ann Myers, whose son attended Highland, that apology fell well short.

That that was a bad, bad call. I felt disgusted as a human being, she says.

Carlos Moreno

/

KCUR 89.3

Myers sent off her son, Dominic Perks, to Highland Community College when he was just 17. In his second year, Perks, who is Black, argued with a campus security guard over whether he was properly signed in to eat at the cafeteria, which according to Myers he was. The guard accused Perks of uttering the f-word. That was enough to get Perks expelled the next day.

The teenager called his mother after he was kicked off campus, locked out of his dorm room and stranded five hours from his home in St. Louis.

It was a horrible feeling, recalls Myers, emotion rising in her voice. Because, you know, as parents, we are our children's protectors, we're the advocates. And at that present moment, I couldn't protect him. It still bothers me because I feel like he's always gonna be trying to prove who he is.

Now Highland Community College itself is under the microscope, struggling to show that it remains a stepping stone for Black student-athletes and not a place where their sports and academic careers go to die.

Read more from the original source:
A small Kansas community college finds itself in the spotlight amid allegations of racial animosity - KCUR