Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

In today's Orders List, the Supreme Court granted nine petitions for certiorari in cases that will be heard next term, added an original jurisdiction case to the docket, summarily reversed the grant of a habeas petition by the Eleventh Circuit, and resolved a few outstanding matters involving cases that had been put on hold due to the change in Presidential administration. The Court also rejected certiorari in a number of cases, several of which produced dissenting opinions on statements respecting the certiorari denial.

One such opinion I wanted to highlight was Justice Thomas' statement respecting the denial of certiorari inHoggard v. Rhodes, a qualified immunity case, albeit one that involves university administrators rather than cops.

Here's the Thomas opinion:

As I have noted before, our qualified immunity jurisprudence stands on shaky ground. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Baxter v. Bracey, 590 U. S. ___ (2020) (opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari). Under this Court's precedent, executive officers who violate federal law are immune from money damages suits brought under Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 U. S. C. 1983, unless their conduct violates a "clearly established statutory or constitutional righ[t] of which a reasonable person would have known." Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U. S. 7, 11 (2015) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). But this test cannot be located in 1983's text and may have little basis in history. Baxter, 590 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 2, 4) (opinion of THOMAS, J.).

Aside from these problems, the one-size-fits-all doctrine is also an odd fit for many cases because the same test applies to officers who exercise a wide range of responsibilities and functions. Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ______ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 45).* This petition illustrates that oddity: Petitioner alleges that university officials violated her First Amendment rights by prohibiting her from placing a small table on campus near the student union building to promote a student organization. According to the university, petitioner could engage with students only in a designated "Free Expression Area"the use of which required prior permission from the school. The Eighth Circuit concluded that this policy of restricting speech around the student union was unconstitutional as applied to petitioner. Turning Point USA at Ark. State Univ. v. Rhodes, 973 F. 3d 868, 879 (2020). Yet it granted immunity to the officials after determining that their actions, though unlawful, had not transgressed "'clearly established'" precedent. Id., at 881.

But why should university officers, who have time to make calculated choices about enacting or enforcing unconstitutional policies, receive the same protection as a police officer who makes a split-second decision to use force in a dangerous setting? We have never offered a satisfactory explanation to this question. See Ziglar, 582 U. S., at _____ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 45).

This approach is even more concerning because "our analysis is [not] grounded in the common-law backdrop against which Congress enacted [1983]." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5). It may be that the police officer would receive more protection than a university official at common law. See Oldham, Official Immunity at the Founding (manuscript, at 2223, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3824983) (suggesting that the "concept of unreasonableness [in the Fourth Amendment] could bring with it [common-law] official immunities"). Or maybe the opposite is true. Lee, The Curious Life of In Loco Parentis at American Universities, 8 Higher Ed. in Rev. 65, 67 (2011) (discussing how "[f]rom the mid-1800s to the 1960s" "constitutional rights stopped at the college gatesat both private and public institutions"). Whatever the history establishes, we at least ought to consider it. Instead, we have "substitute[d] our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress" by conjuring up blanket immunity and then failed to justify our enacted policy. Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 6).

The parties did not raise or brief these specific issues below. But in an appropriate case, we should reconsider either our one-size-fits-all test or the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity more generally.

I think it is only a matter of time before the Court revisits qualified immunity. The Court's liberals are clearly concerned the doctrine encourages impunity within law enforcement, and the Court's originalists and textualists are increasingly aware that the doctrine, at least as currently formulated, lacks a firm constitutional or statutory grounding.

Yet as this opinion indicates, the first crack in the QI edifice might not come in the law enforcement context. Rather, it is quite possible that the first cracks will appear in the public university setting. As Thomas notes, university administrators not faced with the need to make snap judgments under exigent circumstances. They often have university counsel at their side. Moreover, even where there are not Supreme Court cases directly on point, the requirements imposed by the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause are sufficiently clear that university administrators could be considered to have sufficient notice of what sorts of conduct is or is not acceptable. Thusit would seem that prudential arguments for maintaining QI are less strong in the university setting than they might be in other contexts (even before one considers the question of what sorts of immunity did or did not apply to law enforcement historically).

Originally posted here:
Justice Thomas Takes Another Shot at Qualified Immunity - Reason

Elon Musk, founder and chief engineer of SpaceX speaks at the 2020 Satellite Conference and Exhibition March 9, 2020 in Washington, DC (Getty Images)

Elon Musk's SpaceX has been ordered by a US district judge to comply with a Department of Justice subpoena probing its hiring practices after the company was accused of discriminating against applicants based on their citizenship status.

CNBC reported that the subpoena was originally filed last October by the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

Fabian Hutter, an applicant to SpaceX, claimed his application was denied because he is not American.

Mr Hutter has dual citizenship in Austria and Canada, but is a lawful permanent US resident.

"Specifically, the charge alleges that on or about March 10, 2020, during the Charging Partys interview for the position of technology strategy associate, SpaceX made inquiries about his citizenship status and ultimately failed to hire him for the position because he is not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident," DOJ attorney Lisa Sandoval wrote in a court filing in January.

A court order filed in December also revealed that the DOJ has requested documents relating to 3,000 other employees in its investigation into the alleged discriminatory hiring practices.

The DOJ plans to investigate whether the company has engaged in any other discriminatory hiring practices.

The company has been trying to fight the subpoena for months, but the latest ruling will force the company to comply within three weeks.

In April, SpaceX objected to the recommendation made by another federal judge suggesting the company be forced to comply with the subpoena.

That court recommended in March that there are "several" investigations into the company, according to CNBC. It rejected SpaceX's argument that the subpoena was "government overreach.

Lawyers for the company argued that the DOJ's investigation was overkill considering Mr Hutter's complaint.

No matter how generously relevance is construed in the context of administrative subpoenas, neither the statutory and regulatory authority IER relies on, nor the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, permits IER to rifle through SpaceXs papers on a whim and absent reasonable justification, SpaceX said.

Story continues

The company argued that the investigation was "excessively overbroad, and that the IER's subpoena should be denied.

The company claimed that it currently employs "hundreds of non-US citizens" and said it did not hire Mr Hutter for the position because the company eliminated the position.

Under US International Traffic in Arms Regulations, SpaceX is allowed to hire noncitizens who have a green card.

Read More

Teen convicted in Slenderman stabbing granted conditional release

Rashad draws critics and dismissal calls for defending Cosby

Biden promises federal government will cover 100% of Miami rescue efforts costs for first month

Link:
Department of Justice probing SpaceX for hiring discrimination - Yahoo News

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court late last week barred the courthouse door to thousands of people who were wrongly marked as potential terrorists by credit giant TransUnion. The Courts analysis of their standing whether they were sufficiently injured to file a lawsuitreflects a nave view of the increasingly powerful role that personal data, and the private corporations that harvest and monetize it, play in everyday life. It also threatens Congressional efforts to protect our privacy and other intangible rights from predation by Facebook, Google and other tech giants.

Earlier this year, we filed an amicus brief, with our co-counsel at Hausfeld LLP, asking the Court to let all of the victims of corporate data abuses have their day in court.

TransUnion wrongly and negligently labelled approximately 8,000 people as potential terrorists in its databases. It also made that dangerous information available to businesses across the nation for purposes of making credit, employment, and other decisions. TransUnion then failed to provide the required statutory notice of the mistake. The Supreme Court held this was not a sufficiently concrete injury to allow these people to sue TransUnion in federal court for violating their privacy rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Instead, the Court granted standing only to the approximately 1,800 of these people whose information was actually transmitted to third parties.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Kavanaugh, fails to grapple with how consumer data is collected, analyzed, and used in modern society. It likened the gross negligence resulting in a database marking these people as terrorists to a letter in a drawer that is never sent. But the ongoing technological revolution is not at all like a single letter. It involves large and often interconnected set of corporate databases that collect and hold a huge amount of our personal informationboth by us and about us. Those information stores are then used to create inferences and analysis that carry tremendous and often new risks for us that can be difficult to even understand, much less trace. For example, consumers who are denied a mortgage, a job, or another life-altering opportunity based upon bad records in a database or inferences based upon those records will often be unable to track the harm back to the wrongdoing data broker. In fact, figuring out how decisions were made, much less finding the wrongdoer, has become increasingly difficult as an opaque archipelago of databases are linked and used to build and deploy machine learning systems that judge us and limit our opportunities.

This decision is especially disappointing after the Courts recent decisions, such as Riley and Carpenter, that demonstrated a deep understanding that new technology requires new approaches to privacy law.

This decision is especially disappointing after the Courts recent decisions, such as Riley and Carpenter, that demonstrated a deep understanding that new technology requires new approaches to privacy law. The Court concluded in these cases that when police collect and use more and more of our data, that fundamentally changed the inquiry about our Fourth Amendment right to privacy and the Court could not rigidly follow pre-digital cases. The same should be true when new technologies are used by private entities in ways that threaten our privacy.

The majoritys dismissal of Congressional decision-making is also extremely troubling. In 1970, at the dawn of the database era, Congress decided that consumers should have a cause of action based upon a credit reporting agency failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the data they have is correct. Here, TransUnion broke this rule in an especially reckless way: it marked people as potential terrorists simply because they shared the same name as people on a terrorist watch list without checking middle names, birthdays, addresses, or other information that TransUnion itself undoubtedly already had. The potential harms this could cause are particularly obvious and frightening. Yet the Court decided that, despite Congress clear determination to grant us the right to a remedy, the Court could still bar the courthouse doors.

Justice Thomas wrote the principal dissent, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. As Justice Kagan explained in an additional dissent, the ruling transforms standing law from a doctrine of judicial modesty into a tool of judicial aggrandizement. Indeed, Congress specifically recognized new harms and provided a new cause of action to enforce them, yet the Court nullified these democratically-enacted rights and remedies based on its crabbed view that the harms are not sufficiently concrete.

This could pose problems for a future Congress that wanted to get serious about recognizing and empowering us to seek accountability for the unique and new harms caused by modern data misuse practices, potentially including harms arising from decision-making based upon machine learning and artificial intelligence. Congress will need to make a record of the grievous injuries caused by out-of-control data processing by corporations who care more for their profits than our privacy and expressly tie whatever consumer protections it creates to those harms and be crystal clear about how those harms justify a private right of action.

The Courts opinion does provide some paths forward, however. Most importantly, the Court expressly confirmed that intangible harms can be sufficiently concrete to bring a lawsuit. Doing so, the Court rejected the cynical invitation from Facebook, Google, and tech industry trade groups to deny standing for all but those who suffered a physical or economic injury. Nonetheless, we anticipate that companies will try to use this new decision to block further privacy litigation. We will work to make sure that future courts dont overread this case.

The court also recognized that the risk of future harm could still be a basis for injunctive reliefso while you cannot seek damages, you dont have to wait until you are denied credit or a job or a home before seeking protection from a court from known bad data practices. Finally, as the dissent observed, the majoritys standing analysis only applies in federal court;state courts applying state laws can go much further in recognizing harms and adjudicating private causes of action because the federal "standing" doctrine does not apply. The good work being done to protect privacy in states across the country is now all-the-more important.

But, overall, this is a bad day for privacy. We have been cheered by the Supreme Courts increasing recognition, when ruling on law enforcement activity, of the perils of modern data collection practices and the vast difference between current and previous technologies. Yet now the Court has failed to recognize that Congress must have the power to proactively protect us from the risks created when private companies use modern databases to vacuum up our personal information, and use data-based decision-making to limit our access to lifes necessities. This decision is a big step backwards for empowering us to require accountability from todays personal data-hungry tech giants. Let's hope that it is merely an anomaly. We need a Supreme Court that understands and takes seriously the technology-fueled issues facing us in the digital age.

Link:
Supreme Court Says You Can't Sue the Corporation that Wrongly Marked You A Terrorist - EFF

LITTLE ROCK Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge announced today she will be hosting the 10th Annual Never Forgotten Arkansas Takes Action event on Thursday, July 22, 2021, at the Benton Event Center. Rutledges event consists of an all-day training session for law enforcement and attorneys, a family session, as well as a luncheon to recognize Arkansass missing. The event was established to raise awareness to the challenges associated with missing persons cases for families and law enforcement officials while also recognizing Arkansass missing children and adults. Registration is open for families, law enforcement and attorneys for the morning sessions. The luncheon ceremony is open to the public, but pre-registration is required which can be found here.We cannot rest easy until every family has answers and their loved ones are brought home, said Attorney General Rutledge. Never Forgotten Arkansas Takes Action has developed into an important platform to provide law enforcement and families of the missing with the necessary training, resources and support,The law enforcement training begins at 9 a.m. with Wisconsin Judge Mark McGinnis who will speak on Legal Issues in Missing Persons Cases and the Fourth Amendment. The afternoon will offer an overview of Amber Alerts, Silver Alerts and Endangered Missing Alerts by the Arkansas State Police.During the family session, which begins at 9:30 a.m., families will learn how to utilize social media, organize files and stay connected with Morgan Nick Foundation case managers and family members of long term cases. Open discussion will also be held with representatives from the Arkansas Crime Information Center, Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy, Arkansas State Crime Lab, Arkansas State Police, National Missing and Unidentified Persons System and the FBI.The luncheon ceremony will feature keynote speaker, former State Representative Rebecca Petty who has been personally impacted by the case of her missing daughter Andi, recognition of families and presentation of the Star of Excellence award. This program has been approved for 3.5 hours of Continuing Law Enforcement Standards Credit (CLEST) and Continuing Legal Education (CLE).Rutledge has led the charge in building stronger partnerships with stakeholders to educate, connect and provide outreach for missing persons in Arkansas. In 2021, a missing persons exhibit was on display at the State Capitol which will also be at the Never Forgotten Event before embarking on a statewide traveling exhibit at predetermined locations. In 2018, Rutledge released the first comprehensive resource guide for families of missing loved ones which is available to be downloaded or ordered for free at ArkansasAG.gov and NeverForgotten.ar.gov. Each week, Rutledge posts Missing Person Monday on social media highlighting a different missing person case.

More:
Rutledge to host tenth annual never forgotten event July 22 at the Benton Event Center - Newton County Times

Days after Gov. Ned Lamont signed legislation legalizing marijuana, some Danbury-area communities are taking a step back.

Newtown and Ridgefield plan to consider banning cannabis establishments, while Danbury looks to impose at least a temporary moratorium. Local police departments, meanwhile, are bracing for challenges, such as how to tell if someone is driving while high.

Danbury and Newtown officials say they arent saying no to cannabis establishments forever. Danbury officials say they want more time to decide how to regulate them or whether to prohibit them.

The best way to do that is to take a time out, said Sharon Calitro, the citys planning director.

Danbury took the same pause when Connecticut approved medical marijuana, but now allows these dispensaries and expects one to move to the city soon.

The stigma against pot has died down in recent years, said Carl Tirella, general manager of New York-based Acreage Holdings, which owns the medicinal dispensary moving to Danbury.

It has been amazing to watch the growth of the program from a few hundred patients to over 50,000 patients in just over seven years and with rec(reational weed) on the horizon, it shows Connecticut is continually open for growth and change, he said.

His companys Compassionate Care Center of Connecticut hopes to move from Bethel to Danbury by early August. The company is evaluating whether it would want to sell recreational marijuana, too, he said. Becoming a hybrid retailer comes with a $1 million fee.

The law goes into effect Thursday, with retail sales expected to begin in late 2022.

The Town of Prospects Planning and Zoning Commission already voted unanimously to ban cannabis establishments.

Newtown First Selectman Dan Rosenthal said hes fine with decriminalizing marijuana, but he doesnt want his town to be one of the first with recreational dispensaries. The Planning and Zoning Commissions public hearing on the issue is Thursday.

Its best to sit on the sidelines, see how it plays out, he said. If at some point in the future, the willingness is there to reconsider, then perhaps they do that.

Rosenthal and Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi said theyre worried about the message selling weed in town would send to young people. Pot is legal only for adults 21 and over.

Alcohol and vaping have been a problem among young people, Marconi said.

What I dont want to have happen is find ourselves in the same position with the use of weed or marijuana increasing and additional accidents for various reasons that have been experienced in some states that have passed it, said Marconi, who plans to recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission prohibit the sale of marijuana in town.

A 2019 study found marijuana use among youth may decline after its been legalized, while a 2020 study found minimal short-term effects of pot legalization on substance use among young people, with small declines in marijuana use and an increase in the likelihood of e-cigarette use.

The Danbury Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on July 27 on the citys proposed temporary moratorium on applications, petitions and issuance of permits related to cannabis establishments. The commission will also consider amending the zoning regulations to include definitions related to cannabis.

The state will not begin issuing permits for recreational marijuana retailers until 2022, but businesses could still try to apply beforehand to open a dispensary in Danbury, Calitro said.

We have to get ahead of the curve, she said.

Existing regulations permit two medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, she said. One has already been approved and would not be affected, but new applications could not be submitted under the moratorium.

The moratorium would be in effect for a year at most, less if the city develops regulations on marijuana use sooner, she said.

The city will need to consider what affect weed establishments would have on certain areas in the city and the already permitted uses in those zones, Calitro said.

On the other hand, there is potential revenue to be had, she said. We have to weigh both things.

Newtowns existing regulations allow medical marijuana dispensaries, although the town does not have any, said George Benson, director of planning. The proposal would ban recreational and medicinal marijuana establishments.

Ridgefield prohibits medical marijuana facilities already, so the town must see how that ban is affected by the new law, said Richard Baldelli planning and zoning director and zoning enforcement.

The Brookfield Zoning Commission is expected to discuss how to handle the new law, said Nina Mack, land use administrative assistant. Existing regulations allow medical marijuana dispensaries with special permit approval, but they are not allowed to sell recreational weed without additional approval from the town.

Bethels existing zoning regulations do not permit cannabis to be grown or sold in town. Officials plan to discuss what to do now with legal counsel, said Beth Cavagna, town planner.

Bethel changed its zoning regulations to ban pot in 2014 after approving a medical marijuana dispensary, Compassionate Care Center of Connecticut the one moving to Danbury. Approval of that dispensary had been contentious at that time, but the new regulations did not affect it, Cavagna said.

Since then, the publics views on pot have changed, and the fears residents had over the dispensary did not play out, she said.

Weve never had issues over there, she said.

The dispensary is moving to Danbury because it needs a bigger space, Tirella said.

Some local police chiefs are worried the new law will make activities like traffic stops more difficult.

Redding Chief Mark ODonnell said police should have been better consulted on the law.

Im just dead set against it, he said.

Few officers in the area are trained to identify whether someone is driving while high on drugs, chiefs said.

It just hasnt been something thats been necessary by and large for quite some time, Danbury Chief Patrick Ridenhour said.

Its harder to test for marijuana than it is for alcohol. Officers must get trained as drug recognition experts, a lengthy, expensive process, Newtown Chief James Viadero said. Grants may be available to do so, he said.

Two officers in Newtown are trained as these experts, which is more than some departments have, he said. When police dont have one of these experts on duty, they call in officers from nearby departments, Viadero said.

Ridenhour said hes not sure whether any Danbury officers are trained as drug recognition experts maybe one is but more will need to be.

Well manage, Ridenhour said. We have to do everything we can for the safety of our residents and citizens and our visitors.

Cops can learn the law, but telling K-9s that weed is legal is harder. Police dogs cannot differentiate between pot and other drugs and could prompt an officer to search someone with a legal amount of weed, Viadero said. That could lead to lawsuits over claims of illegal search and seizure.

There is a possible Fourth Amendment issue, Viadero said. Were going to have to work through that.

Departments expect to get more guidance from the state Police Officers Standards and Training Council and will get feedback from officers in other states where marijuana has been legal.

Municipal employees, including cops, could still get in trouble for smoking pot.

Ridgefield plans to create a new policy based on the law, Marconi said. ODonnell is reminding his officers, too.

Its still a federal crime, ODonnell said. Police officers cant smoke marijuana regardless of if its legal here or not...Not that I worry about our personnel. Theyre all pretty good.

Reporters Alyssa Seidman and Shayla Colon contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Weed is legal in CT, but some in Danbury area don't want it sold in their towns. - Danbury News Times

Jun 22, 2021 12:12 PMET

Legal Newswire POWERED BY LAW.COM

Centrus Energy Corp. announced the results of its 2021 annual meeting of stockholders held onJune 16, 2021. As ofApril 19, 2021, the meeting's record date, there were 12,918,602 shares of the Company's Class A common stock outstanding, each entitled to one vote, and approximately 79.8 percent of those shares were represented at the annual meeting.

The Company's stockholders passed all five proposals, including electing the eight director nominees for a term of one year; approving the Section 382 Rights Agreement, as amended; approving the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated; approving, on an advisory basis, the Company's 2020 executive compensation (i.e., "say on pay"); and ratifying the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company's independent auditors for 2021.

Stockholders reelected W.Thomas Jagodinski,Tina W. Jonas,William J. Madia,Daniel B. Poneman,Neil S. Subin, andMikel H. Williamsto the Board of Directors, and newly electedKirkland H. DonaldandBradley J. Sawatzketo the Board of Directors.

Kirkland H. Donaldserved as a nuclear trained submarine officer for 37 years, achieving the rank of Admiral. His last assignment in theNavywas a successful eight-year term as the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. This is a dual agency program responsible to the United States Departments of Defense and Energy for the safe and effective operation of all nuclear-powered warships and supporting infrastructure. The program is recognized worldwide for excellence in reactor safety and reliability. Following retirement in 2013, he was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc., until 2015. His public board service includes Entergy Corporation (NYSE:ETR), where he serves on the Finance Committee and is Chairman of the Nuclear Committee. He supports the Audit Committee on matters pertaining to cybersecurity. He also serves as Chairman of the Board for Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (NYSE:HII) and is a member of the Finance and Cybersecurity Committees. Additionally, Admiral Donald serves on the board of the non-profit, Battelle, and the privately held CyberCore Technologies. Admiral Donald advises the Australian government on matters pertaining to submarine programs. Admiral Donald graduated from theUnited States Naval Academywith a Bachelor of Science in Ocean Engineering.

Bradley J. Sawatzkewas appointed Chief Executive Officer of Energy Northwest (EN) inApril 2018. He previously served as Chief Operating Officer/Chief Nuclear Officer, beginning inDecember 2014, with responsibility for all EN generating units. He joined Energy Northwest as vice president of Nuclear Generation/Chief Nuclear Officer inDecember 2010. Mr. Sawatzke also serves on the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations board of directors and accrediting board, Association of Washington Business executive committee, Nuclear Energy Institute board of directors, and the Tri-City Development Council (serving the Pacific Northwest) executive committee. Mr. Sawatzke holds a Bachelor of Science and Applied Physics fromWinona State Universityand is a graduate of the Harvard Advanced Management Program.

The Company also announced today that after obtaining the approval of stockholders at it 2021 annual meeting, it had entered into the fourth amendment to the Company's Section 382 Rights Agreement (the "Rights Plan") designed to preserve the Company's substantial tax assets associated with net operating loss carryforwards ("NOLs") under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code ("Section 382"). The fourth amendment extends the Rights Plan throughJune 30, 2023. The Rights Plan is similar to plans adopted by other public companies with significant NOLs.

Pursuant to U.S. federal income tax rules, the Company's use of certain tax assets could be substantially limited if the Company experiences an "ownership change" (as defined in Section 382). In general, an ownership change occurs if the ownership of the Company's stock by "5 percent stockholders" increases by more than 50 percent over the lowest percentage owned by such stockholders at any time during the prior three years on a rolling basis.

For additional details regarding the amendment to the Rights Plan, please see the Company's forthcoming Current Report on Form 8-K and amendment to Registration Statement on Form 8-A to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

About Centrus Energy

Centrus Energy is a trusted supplier of nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry. Centrus provides value to its utility customers through the reliability and diversity of its supply sources helping them meet the growing need for clean, affordable, carbon-free electricity. Since 1998, the Company has provided its utility customers with more than 1,750 reactor years of fuel, which is equivalent to 7 billion tons of coal. With world-class technical and engineering capabilities, Centrus is also advancing the next generation of centrifuge technologies so that America can restore its domestic uranium enrichment capability in the future. Find out more atwww.centrusenergy.com.

Contacts:

Investors:Dan Leistikow(301) 564-3399 or[emailprotected]Media:Lindsey Geisler(301) 564-3392 or[emailprotected]

URL : http://www.centrusenergy.com.

Tags: Wire, Legal Newswire, United States, English

Read more:
Centrus Energy Corp. Reports Results of Annual Stockholder Meeting and Announces Extension of Section 382 Rights Agreement - Law.com

"The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Fourth Amendment protects the home as sacred..."

On May 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Fourth Amendment case Caniglia v. Strom. Shay Dvoretzky and Emily Kennedy of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the lead lawyers representing Edward Caniglia, help explain the significance of the decision.

Q: What was this case about?

The question in this case was whether the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement extends to homes.

The community caretaking exception originated with a 1973 Supreme Court decision, Cady v. Dombrowski, which upheld the warrantless search of a car that was in police custody. The officer in that case was looking for a gun that he believed was in the car and could have fallen into the wrong hands. In upholding the search, Cady recognized that police often perform noninvestigatory community caretaking functions, such as assisting with car accidents and traffic control.

Some lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Caniglia v. Strom, had extended the exception established in Cady to also allow warrantless searches of homes. In this case, Mr. Caniglias wife called the police to request a welfare check. The couple had argued the night before, and in a melodramatic gesture, Mr. Caniglia had placed an unloaded gun on the table and said, "Why dont you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?" His wife spent the evening at a hotel, and when she could not reach Mr. Caniglia the next morning, she called the police because she feared he had committed suicide.

...the Court held that the community caretaking exception does not extend to the home...

The police spoke with Mr. Caniglia at his home, and even though he was calm and denied any suicidal intent, they decided to send him involuntarily to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation. As soon as he left his home, they entered it and seized guns from his bedroom and garage. Although the hospital released Mr. Caniglia the same day (with a hefty bill for the police-ordered services), he was unable to retrieve his firearms from the police for months.

Mr. Caniglia sued the officers and the city for violating his Fourth Amendment rights, but the First Circuit upheld the officers actions as an exercise of their community caretaking functions. In a 9-0 opinion by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held that the community caretaking exception does not extend to the home, narrowing police powers to search homes without a warrant and repudiating the First Circuits decision.

Q: Why is this decision significant?

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Fourth Amendment protects the home as sacred.

The Courts holding is a significant victory for Americans concerned about the sanctity of their homes.

The government cannot intrude there without a warrant or a true emergency. The First Circuits now discarded standard would have allowed officers to demand entry into peoples homes based on subjective and undefined community caretaking needs. In rejecting that standard, the Supreme Court reaffirmed bedrock Fourth Amendment principles, and held that police do not have an open-ended license to perform community caretaking tasks in the home.

The Courts holding is a significant victory for Americans concerned about the sanctity of their homes. The diverse amicus support for Mr. Caniglia at the Supreme Court demonstrates the breadth of interests at stake: The ACLU and the American Conservative Union Foundation filed a joint amicus brief, and other amici included the Pacific Legal Foundation, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Institute for Justice, the American Association of Suicidology and several gun rights organizations.

Q: What do you make of the multiple concurrences, the length of which far surpasses the Courts opinion?

The Court is unanimous that there is no "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment for homes: Police either need a warrant or a true emergency to enter a home. The concurrences suggest that different Justices may feel differently about what constitutes a true emergency.

The argument spanned more than 100 minutes, and the rebuttal included an open floor for free-for-all questioning by the Justices.

At oral argument, several Justices pressed both sides and the United States on a range of hypotheticals rats in the Bubonic plague, elderly neighbors failing to show up for dinner dates, cats stuck in trees. Although the Court is notoriously rigid about the clock, and in the era of telephonic arguments about the sequencing of the Justices questions, the Chief Justice allowed the advocates extra time. The argument spanned more than 100 minutes, and the rebuttal included an open floor for free-for-all questioning by the Justices.

The concurrences touch on many of the hypotheticals expressed at argument. While they present important concerns, the defendants in Mr. Caniglias case didnt claim that they were responding to a true emergency. They relied solely on their community caretaking function, which the Court made clear does not justify warrantless intrusions of the home.

That such a lengthy argument generated an unusually short (4-page), unanimous opinion underscores Mr. Caniglias resounding victory on the "community caretaking" issue presented in the case.

Q: This was the first merits case youve handled since launching Skaddens new Supreme Court & Appellate practice. What has that been like?

The Court granted certiorari in Caniglia days before Skadden launched this practice, so our start has been exciting and rewarding.

Skadden has always been committed to pro bono work, and we have been grateful for the support of a robust pro bono practice, both in Caniglia and in other cases we are handling. Our group is also working on a number of appeals involving important business issues, in areas such as federal preemption, tax, energy and securities.

We look forward to what lies ahead as we continue to grow.

Read the rest here:
On Caniglia v Strom and Community Caretaking: Q&A with Shay Dvoretzky and Emily Kennedy of Skadden - JD Supra

TUCKER, Ga.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GMS Inc. (NYSE: GMS), a leading North American specialty distributor of interior building products, today reported financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended April 30, 2021.

Fourth Quarter Fiscal 2021 Highlights(Comparisons are to the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020, except where noted.)

Full Year Fiscal 2021 Highlights(Comparisons are to the full year of fiscal 2020, except where noted.)

We delivered a strong finish to fiscal 2021 as evidenced by record levels of net sales, net income and Adjusted EBITDA, said John C. Turner, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer. During the fourth quarter, our entire team continued to effectively navigate what remains a very dynamic operating landscape. Through a sharpened focus on execution, we successfully capitalized on opportunities created by tailwinds from a strong residential market and robust demand in complementary products while also continuing to address challenges presented by a continued soft commercial market, supply constraints and meaningful inflation. At the same time, we further optimized our capital structure with a senior notes offering and term loan repricing. We also advanced our platform expansion with an acquisition in Canada and the opening of four greenfield locations in the U.S. and continued this momentum in May with the signing of a definitive agreement to acquire Westside Building Material, affording us a unique opportunity to expand our reach and capture significant growth opportunities in strategically important West Coast markets.

Turner continued, As we look ahead to our new fiscal year, I would like to share my appreciation for all of our teammates who met and overcame the numerous challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the past year. Moving forward, we believe there is fundamental support for continued strength in residential construction and, while timing remains uncertain, early, but encouraging, indications of improvement in commercial construction are emerging. I am confident that our teams continued drive to execute and our relentless commitment to our strategic growth priorities of expanding share in core products, growing our complementary products offering, platform expansion, and improved productivity and profitability, position us to generate value for our shareholders well into the future.

Fourth Quarter Fiscal 2021 Results

Net sales for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021 of $932.2 million increased 20.9% year over year, primarily due to strong residential end markets, favorable pricing across product categories and the acquisition of D.L. Building Materials, coupled with the negative impact of COVID-19 related shutdowns in the prior year period. Organic net sales increased 17.1%. As there was one more selling day in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021 than the same period a year ago, net sales and organic net sales on a per day basis were up 19.1% and 15.3%, respectively.

Year-over-year sales increases by product category, which in all cases resulted from both higher volumes and higher price and mix combined, were as follows:

Gross profit of $293.9 million increased 16.8% compared to the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020. As anticipated, gross margin of 31.5% declined from 32.6% a year ago primarily due to a continuation of unfavorable mix and pressured price-cost dynamics for certain product categories.

Selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expense as a percentage of net sales was 22.2% for the quarter compared to 25.4% in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020. Adjusted SG&A expense as a percentage of net sales of 21.9% improved 260 basis points from 24.5 % in the prior year quarter as a result of continued cost discipline as well as favorable operating leverage from higher pricing broadly across the Companys product lines.

Net income of $33.7 million, or $0.77 per diluted share, compared to a net loss of $41.5 million, or $0.98 per diluted share, in the fourth quarter of the prior fiscal year. Adjusted net income of $46.9 million, or $1.07 per diluted share, compared to $24.0 million, or $0.56 per diluted share, in the fourth quarter of the prior fiscal year. Adjusted EBITDA of $91.2 million increased 43.5% from the prior year quarter. Adjusted EBITDA margin of 9.8% improved 160 basis points from 8.2% a year ago.

Platform Expansion Activity

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, the Company completed the previously announced acquisition of D.L. Building Materials, Inc., providing entrance to the Ottawa-Gatineau market in Canada, and also established four new locations, expanding its presence to two additional markets, Atlantic City, NJ, and Memphis, TN.

Subsequent to the end of the fourth quarter, on May 11, 2021, the Company announced a definitive agreement to acquire substantially all the assets of Westside Building Material, one of the largest independent distributors of interior building products in the U.S., for $135.0 million in cash. The transaction, which expands and enhances GMSs presence in multiple California metro areas and marks its entry into the Las Vegas market, is expected to close early in the third calendar quarter of 2021, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions.

Balance Sheet, Liquidity and Cash Flow

As of April 30, 2021, the Company had cash on hand of $167.0 million, total debt of $978.4 million and $453.8 million of available liquidity under its revolving credit facilities. Net debt leverage was 2.5 times as of the end of the quarter, down from 2.9 times at the end of both the third quarter of fiscal 2021 and the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, the Company issued $350.0 million aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured notes due May 2029 (the Senior Notes) in a private offering. The Senior Notes bear interest at 4.625% per annum and mature on May 1, 2029. Proceeds from the Senior Notes were used to repay a portion of outstanding borrowings under the Companys senior secured first lien term loan facility (the Term Loan Facility) and to pay related transaction premiums, fees, and expenses. As of April 30, 2021, $509.7 million remained outstanding under the Term Loan Facility. The Company also entered into the Fourth Amendment to its First Lien Credit Agreement (the Fourth Amendment) that, among other things, reduced the interest rate to LIBOR plus 2.50%, with a 0% floor, representing a 25 basis point improvement. As a result of the Fourth Amendment, the Company recorded a write-off of debt discount and deferred financing fees of $4.6 million during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021.

The Company generated cash provided by operating activities and free cash flow of $84.8 million and $72.8 million, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2021 compared to $167.7 million and $163.4 million, respectively, a year ago. The decrease from the prior year quarter was primarily due to the Companys efforts to preserve liquidity at the end of fiscal 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conference Call and Webcast

GMS will host a conference call and webcast to discuss its results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021 ended April 30, 2021 and other information related to its business at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 24, 2021. Investors who wish to participate in the call should dial 877-407-3982 (domestic) or 201-493-6780 (international) at least 5 minutes prior to the start of the call. The live webcast will be available on the Investors section of the Companys website at http://www.gms.com. There will be a slide presentation of the results available on that page of the website as well. Replays of the call will be available through July 24, 2021 and can be accessed at 844-512-2921 (domestic) or 412-317-6671 (international) and entering the pass code 13720195.

About GMS Inc.

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of its founding in 1971, GMS operates a network of more than 265 distribution centers across the United States and Canada. GMSs extensive product offering of wallboard, suspended ceilings systems, or ceilings, and complementary construction products is designed to provide a comprehensive one-stop-shop for our core customer, the interior contractor who installs these products in commercial and residential buildings.

Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

GMS reports its financial results in accordance with GAAP. However, it presents Adjusted net income, free cash flow, Adjusted SG&A, Adjusted EBITDA, and Adjusted EBITDA margin, which are not recognized financial measures under GAAP. GMS believes that Adjusted net income, free cash flow, Adjusted SG&A, Adjusted EBITDA, and Adjusted EBITDA margin assist investors and analysts in comparing its operating performance across reporting periods on a consistent basis by excluding items that the Company does not believe are indicative of its core operating performance. The Companys management believes Adjusted net income, Adjusted SG&A, free cash flow, Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA margin are helpful in highlighting trends in its operating results, while other measures can differ significantly depending on long-term strategic decisions regarding capital structure, the tax jurisdictions in which the Company operates and capital investments. In addition, the Company utilizes Adjusted EBITDA in certain calculations in its debt agreements.

You are encouraged to evaluate each adjustment and the reasons GMS considers it appropriate for supplemental analysis. In addition, in evaluating Adjusted net income, Adjusted SG&A and Adjusted EBITDA, you should be aware that in the future, the Company may incur expenses similar to the adjustments in the presentation of Adjusted net income, Adjusted SG&A and Adjusted EBITDA. The Companys presentation of Adjusted net income, Adjusted SG&A, Adjusted SG&A margin, Adjusted EBITDA, and Adjusted EBITDA margin should not be construed as an inference that its future results will be unaffected by unusual or non-recurring items. In addition, Adjusted net income, free cash flow, Adjusted SG&A and Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies in GMSs industry or across different industries. Please see the tables at the end of this release for a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA, free cash flow, Adjusted SG&A and Adjusted net income to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures.

When calculating organic net sales growth, the Company excludes from the calculation (i) net sales of acquired businesses until the first anniversary of the acquisition date, and (ii) the impact of foreign currency translation.

Forward-Looking Statements and Information:

This press release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You can generally identify forward-looking statements by the Companys use of forward-looking terminology such as anticipate, believe, confident, continue, could, estimate, expect, intend, may, might, plan, potential, predict, seek, or should, or the negative thereof or other variations thereon or comparable terminology. In particular, statements about the markets in which GMS operates, including in particular residential and commercial construction, and the economy generally, actions taken to optimize our operations and align our business consistent with demand and in response to COVID-19, our ability to continue successfully navigating the evolving operating environment, our optimized capital structure, strategic growth priorities, growth opportunities from acquisitions, and the ability to generate value for our shareholders contained in this press release may be considered forward-looking statements. The Company has based forward-looking statements on its current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections. While the Company believes these expectations, assumptions, estimates, and projections are reasonable, such forward-looking statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond its control, including current public health issues that may affect the Companys business. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, those described in the Risk Factors section in the Companys most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, and in its other periodic reports filed with the SEC. In addition, the statements in this release are made as of June 24, 2021. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any of the forward-looking statements made herein, whether as a result of new information, future events, changes in expectation or otherwise. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing the Companys views as of any date subsequent to June 24, 2021.

GMS Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share data)

Three Months Ended

Year Ended

April 30,

April 30,

2021

2020

2021

2020

Net sales

$

932,203

$

770,850

$

3,298,823

$

3,241,307

Cost of sales (exclusive of depreciation and amortization shown separately below)

638,353

519,256

2,236,120

2,178,093

Gross profit

293,850

251,594

1,062,703

1,063,214

Operating expenses:

Selling, general and administrative

207,321

195,609

Read more:
GMS Reports Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2021 Results - Business Wire

Georgia poultry plant hosts in-house vaccination clinic for workers; eployees roll up0 their sleeves to take advantage of easy access. (May 28) AP Domestic

Businesses can require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 without violating federalEqual Employment Opportunity Commission laws, the agency says.

Businesses can also offer incentives to employees to get vaccinated or to provide documentation of vaccination "as long as the incentives are not coercive," the EEOC said in a news releaseFriday.

The updated EEOC guidance indicates employers must make "reasonable accommodations" for employees who don't get vaccinated because ofa disability, religious beliefs, or pregnancy.

The agency also noted that other federal, stateand local laws may come into play.

The updated technical assistance released today addresses frequently asked questions concerning vaccinations in the employment context, EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows said in a statement.The EEOC will continue to clarify and update our COVID-19 technical assistance to ensure that we are providing the public with clear, easy to understand, and helpful information."

Vaccination or termination?Why this Tennessee caregiver would rather be fired

Employee incentives: Publix, other national companies offer incentives for employee vaccination

Ask HR: What incentives can I offer employees to get a COVID-19 vaccine?

Legal experts say federal laws dont block businesses from asking customers or employees about their vaccine status, despite social media posts claiming the opposite.

Posts circulating widely on Instagram this month cited excerpts of the Fourth Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act to falsely claim that a business asking for proof of vaccination or denying entry based on vaccination status is a violation of your privacy and property rights protected by federal law.

The posts claimed the Fourth Amendment protects individuals against businesses asking about vaccines because it protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

However, legal experts say that amendment refers specifically to searches and seizures by the government, not by private entities.

The Fourth Amendment only applies to governmental searches and seizures and certainly not to businesses asking for proof of vaccination, said Lawrence Gostin, a law professor at Georgetown University who specializes in public health law.

Contributing: Associated Press

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2021/05/30/can-employers-require-covid-vaccine-eeoc-vaccination-mandate/5272327001/

Here is the original post:
Can employers require a COVID-19 vaccine? Federal agency says yes, and they can offer incentives, too - USA TODAY

Wont somebody please think of the police dogs? On Saturday, the Associated Press ran the latest example of a genre of news story thats become a regular accompaniment to marijuana legalization: the fate of now-superfluous drug-sniffing dogs.

Drug-sniffing dogs are notoriously unreliable at detecting drugs, and yet many American police ... [+] departments still insist on using K9 units.

Virginia is set to legalize the possession of up to an ounce of cannabis beginning in July. That means the early retirement of at least 15 drug-sniffing dogs throughout the state, as the AP itempicked up by outlets across the countryreported, because these dogs are trained to alert to the scent of cannabis.

Any alert is interpreted by police (and prosecutors, as well as most courts) as probable cause to effect a search under the Fourth Amendment. Since the dog cant discern between a large amount of cannabis and a single joint, and because a dog trained to detect both cocaine and marijuana cant inform its handler what was detected, the only path forward for police narcotics units is to retire their drug-sniffing dogs and acquire new hounds trained only to suss out cocaine, heroin, MDMA, or other substances still part of Americas war on drugs.

For civil liberties advocates as well as anyone concerned with criminal justice, this is a good development. Drug dogs should retire, because drug dogs are extremely bad at detecting drugs.

As Reason reported last month, drug dogs are often about as useful as a coin toss to determine whether a school locker, vehicle, or individual has drugs. In other cases, drug dogs simply respond to commands from its handler and ignores whatever scents are actually out there.

That is, the drug-sniffing dog isnt there to sniff out drugs at all. The drug-sniffing dog is just there to give the police probable cause to searchand to impound vehicles and detain people who later turn out to be innocenton demand.

Reason offered the story of Karma, a drug dog in Republic, Washington, as a parable. A K-9 unit handled by former Republic police Chief Loren Culp, Karma had a perfect record: he detected drugs every time he did a search. The problem was that Karma detected drugs when there were no drugs present.

When he had the chance to stop the impound of an innocent owners vehicle, his success rate was zero percent, Reason reported. That didnt stop Culp from employing Karma in searchesand that also didnt stop Culp from boasting on Facebook about Karmas perfect record.

A drug dog in action in Turkey in 2014.

Criminal-justice scholars and observers have known for years that the problems with Karma are found throughout the United States wherever drug dogs are employed.

As Jane Bambauer, a law professor at the University of Arizona, wrote in an article published in 2013, dogs are often wrong, alerting where no drugs can be found. Worse, dogs can be biased, she added, picking up on subtle cues from their handlers.

Bambauers analysis followed a 2011 study from the University of California, Davis, which found that police dogstrained to detect explosives as well as drugsare affected by human handlers beliefs, possibly in response to subtle, unintentional handler cues.

If the police dogs handler wants the dog to alertconsciously or otherwisetheres a good chance the dog will alert.

Marijuana legalization isnt the only reason why drug dogs value and purpose are being re-evaluated. Courts are becoming increasingly aware that drug dogs just arent good at finding drugs. In a reversal from the position of the Supreme Court 30 years ago, when drugs were considered such a scourge that drug dogs unreliability wasnt a concern, courts are now openly questioning police dogs merit.

As TechDirt.com noted, in a decision published last year, a federal court in Utah granted a defendants motion to suppress a drug dog search and dismissed his indictment, after noting serious concerns about the dogs training and reliability.

The court questioned the reliability of every drug dog in the statewhere cannabis is not legal beyond medical applications. This is an enormous boon to defense attorneys handling cases where a dog alert was the probable cause. If Utah thinks that drug dogs arent reliable indicators of the presence of drugs, what about other jurisdictions?

So far the nations highest court has affirmed law enforcements use. In Florida vs Harris, a decision issued in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that if a drug dog has recently passed a training program, an alert from that dog is sufficient probable cause.

But as the record of Karma and other drug dogs with perfect training scores demonstrates, probable cause is a fait accompli. If the handler wants it, the handler can get it. Drugs need not be present.

So if drug dogs cant be relied upon to detect drugs, if drug dogs are often wrong, and if the courts think drug dogs are unreliable, whats the point? Why have them at all?

The real application of police dogs is psychological. The presence of a dog grants its police handler a sense of power and authority. If a search is desired, a search is granted. With a record like that, the sight of a dogor the chance that a dog will be encountered, at an airport, at a border crossing, or at a school, whateverwill deter and discourage the public from flouting the law. The approach of a drug dog might even compel a wavering lawbreaker to give himself up.

Thats not very fair or just, but in an era where all drugs were illegal, you could argue that this was at least legally defensible. Today, when cannabis is legal in some form for more than 200 million Americans, drug dogs snare innocent people in the criminal justice system.

Drug dogs are a vestige of the drug war. If a vast majority of Americans think cannabis should be legaland they doand if legal scholars and the courts think drug dogs are bad at their jobsand they do, and they arethen police departments probably should have been prepared for this moment, rather than providing grist for gauzy news items. But people love dogseven dogs that are civil-rights violation machinesand so here we are.

A Colombian policeman from an anti-drug unit walks with a sniffer dog amidst marijuana packages on ... [+] display for the press on August 24, 2012, at the anti-drug air base in Tulua, department of Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Four tons of marijuana "red dot" type allegedly belonging to the Sixth Front of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were seized from a truck in the town of Buga, Valle del Cauca department, while being transported from the town of Corinto bound for the department of Norte de Santander. AFP PHOTO/Guillermo LEGARIA (Photo credit should read GUILLERMO LEGARIA/AFP/GettyImages)

So what about the dogs? The retired drug dogs in Virginia are all being adopted going home with their police handlerswhere, if so desired, they will alert to the presence of drugs every day, for the rest of their days.

The rest of us should wish them a happy and healthy retirementand encourage every other drug-sniffing dog currently in police employ to join them as soon as possible.

Link:
Marijuana Legalization Is Retiring Police Dogs. Why Thats GoodAnd Why All Drug K9 Units Should Go. - Forbes