Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

The three federal police officers who brutally assaulted Vietnam veteran Jos Oliva at a Veterans Administration hospital in El Paso five years ago later claimed he tried to enter the building without clearing security. But video of the incident shows that Oliva did nothing to justify the officers violence, which caused shoulder injuries requiring two surgeries and left him with persistent ear and throat issues.

In a case the Supreme Court is expected to consider for review next week, Oliva argues that he should be able to sue V.A. Officers Mario Nivar, Hector Barahona and Mario Garcia for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. At stake is the question of whether the Court should tolerate what 5th Circuit Judge Don Willett calls a Constitution-free zone where citizens can be brutalized even killed by rogue federal officers with impunity.

Oliva, then 70 years old, was on his way to a dental appointment in February 2016 when Nivar, who was manning the security station at the entrance to the V.A. hospital, asked him for ID. Oliva said he had put his ID in a plastic X-ray bin along with his other personal effects, a response that Nivar apparently viewed as insufficiently respectful.

I got a problem with this man, Nivar told his fellow officers, according to Oliva. Hes got an attitude.

Nivar walked around the conveyor belt, took out his handcuffs, and directed Oliva toward the metal detector. As Oliva walked through, Baharona, who had gestured for him to proceed, grabbed and yanked his arm, tearing his rotator cuff; Nivar choked Oliva from behind and slammed him to the floor; and Garcia joined the attack.

The cops handcuffed and detained Oliva, eventually charging him with disorderly conduct, a charge that was ultimately dismissed. A federal judge later concluded there was no evidence that Oliva had committed a crime or resisted arrest, which implies that Nivar and his colleagues violated the Fourth Amendments ban on unreasonable seizures.

In the 1971 case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Narcotics Agents, the Supreme Court said victims of such abuse have a right to sue the perpetrators for damages. Agents of the now-defunct Federal Bureau of Narcotics had entered Webster Bivens home without a warrant, manacled petitioner in front of his wife and children, threatened to arrest the entire family, searched the apartment from stem to stern, and taken him to a federal courthouse, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search.

Nearly half a century later, in the 2017 case Ziglar v. Abbasi, the Court cautioned against extending the remedy established by Bivens to any new context, which it called a disfavored judicial activity. At the same time, the Court said its decision is not intended to cast doubt on the continued force, or even the necessity, of Bivens in the search-and-seizure context in which it arose.

Consistent with that caveat, seven federal appeals courts have held that people can still sue federal law enforcement officers for search-and-seizure violations. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which last year overturned a ruling that allowed Olivas lawsuit to proceed, concluded that his complaint qualified as a new context because the facts are not exactly the same as those cited by Bivens.

Oliva, who is represented by Institute for Justice attorney Patrick Jaicomo, is asking the Supreme Court to resolve this circuit split by reaffirming that people can sue federal cops who violate their Fourth Amendment rights. Otherwise, Jaicomo warns, more than 18,000 federal law enforcement officers who work in the three states covered by the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) will be able to disregard the Fourth Amendment without being held accountable.

Willett recently lamented that innately unjust situation, noting that federal law generally bars state tort claims by plaintiffs like Oliva. If Bivens claims also are off the table, he wondered, do victims of unconstitutional conduct by federal cops have any judicial forum whatsoever?

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.

Here is the original post:
Does this veteran have any recourse against the federal cops who assaulted him? | Sullum - Chicago Sun-Times

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas issued a news release on April 13 announcing an FBI operation to copy and remove malicious web shells from hundreds of vulnerable computersrunning on-premises versions of Microsoft Exchange Server software" The announcement coincided with the partial unsealing of a search warrant.

The legal authority the FBI used for this operation was Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a rule detailing the requirements and process for issuing search warrants.

Yet its clear from the unsealed search warrant that the primary purpose of the FBIs operation here was to remove malicious code surreptitiously; an admirable goal, but a slippery slope when it comes to the legal basis upon which executed.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees a persons right to be secure in theirhouses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that in order for a search to occur in these private spaces, the government must secure a search warrant, issued based upon probable causeparticularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Rule 41 basically provides the road map for adhering to these Fourth Amendment requirements, through issuance of that probable cause warrant.

Putting aside the question as to how the government establishes probable cause when the search warrant doesnt provide identifying information about the victims whose servers are to be accessed nor the places to be searched, the point is that Rule 41s purpose is to further investigative evidence gathering, not to disrupt crime nor delete code (which ironically, is evidence in itself).

Its true that Rule 41 was amended in 2016 to allow remote searches and seizures (Section (b)(2)(6)), but the premise of this amendment was to aid investigations that span across more than five federal districtsnot to clean and secure victim computers.

This time the government removed rogue nation-state code; something most agree is dangerous. But what if the next time its Saudi Arabia objecting to their portrayal in a movie? Lets call this Sony Pictures Part 2, after North Koreas infamous 2014 attack on Sony Pictures, because its movie The Interview portrayed Kim Jong Un in a negative light?

What if this time, the FBI decides that Saudi Arabias concerns warrant hacking into private networks to delete all copies of the offending movie, under the premise of stopping a national security threat, a move arguably violative of the 1st Amendment?

Having been a member of both the law enforcement and intelligence communities, Ive seen first hand the motivation that drives people to serve, and the dedication they bring. And while the FBIs heart was in the right place, heart alone doesnt suffice.

In this case, the FBI is knowingly causing the transmission of a program, information, code, or command to intentionally damagedamage having been defined to include deleting information protected computers (in this case, the victims servers), without the authorization of the victims whose systems are being accessed.

In any other context, this would be criminal under Section 1030(a)(5)(A) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which ironically, is one of the very statutes the FBI alleges was violated by the Chinese nation-state group known as Hafnium, at the heart of the threat to Microsoft Exchange Servers. But two wrongs dont make a right. Not even in 2021.

From a practical perspective, if the motivation was to search computers for evidence, in virtually any other case there would be a point where the additional evidence to be gained would be duplicative, and the marginal return too low, to warrant searching additional computers. And that point would be long before searching over 100 victims servers.

Notably, Section 1030(f) of the CFAA states that this section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency... But not prohibiting an action is different from lawfully authoriz[ing] one. And with no court having interpreted application of 1030(f), we return to the FBIs need for a route to secure court-authorization, which brings us back to Rule 41.

Interestingly, the FBI used Rule 41 in 2017 when it neutered a virulent botnet called Kelihos. But in that case, the operation involved rerouting victim computers, as opposed to gaining access and clean[ing] them. This newest operation is therefore the next step down the slippery slope that law professors, activists, and defense attorneys love to argue when challenging governmental action.

Yet with the damage done in just the past few months by Solar Winds and the Hafnium hacks alone, we clearly need a fresh approach. And the FBIs solution here is just that. But its a solution without a clear legal basis.

So, whether it means amending the CFAA or passing a new law, one thing is clear: Contorting a long-standing federal procedural rule in a way for which 22 Senators raised concerns back in 2016, concerns precisely about using Rule 41 to clean computerssurely cannot be the right answer.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines

Joel Schwarz is director at MBL Technologies and serves as the firms privacy and data protection lead. He is an adjunct professor at Albany Law School and previously served as the civil liberties and privacy officer for the National Counterterrorism Center, and was a cybercrime prosecutor for the Justice Department and the New York Attorney Generals Office.

See the rest here:
The FBI's New Malware Eradication Service Is on Thin Legal Ice - Bloomberg Law

A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated qualified immunity for two university police officers who had directed a coach to detain a group of high school football players attending a camp at a Missouri college amid an investigation into whether one or more players had peeped on the dorm room of a female cheerleading coach.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, in St. Louis, voted 2-1 to reverse a federal district courts decision that had denied immunity to the officers and allowed two of the football players to pursue their claim that the detention violated the Fourth Amendments bar against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case stems from a 2016 summer high school football camp at Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville, Mo. At the same time, the university hosted a summer camp for high school cheerleaders, and the participants resided in nearby dormitories.

A female cheerleading coach reported that she had seen people observing her through a window of her dorm room, and possibly taking photos, while she undressed, court papers say. Officers Clarence Green and Anthony Williams of the university police department investigated and found that a dorm room assigned to seven football camp participants had a view into the cheerleading coachs room.

Court papers say the officers instructed the football camp coach to gather the students in a room for investigation. The coach, acting on his perceived orders from the law enforcement officers, questioned the students, asked to see the pictures on their cellphones, and kept them detained for hours, court papers say. Apparently no snooping photos were found. When none of the seven players confessed to any snooping, they were expelled from the football camp.

Two of the football players, identified as T.R.H. and H.R.J., sued the officers, alleging that their coach confined them at the officers direction and that the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.

A federal district court denied the officers request to dismiss the suit based on qualified immunity, which protects police officers and other government officials from personal liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

The officers appealed, and in its May 11 decision in T.R.H. v. Green, the 8th Circuit court panel reinstated qualified immunity to the officers.

The appeals court majority assumed for the opinion that the football players coach was acting at the behest of the officers and that the players detention was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The question then became whether it was reasonable.

The court said it has not been established in the 8th Circuit whether the U.S. Supreme Courts 1985 decision in New Jersey v. T.L.O., which applied a standard of reasonable suspicion (rather than the higher standard of probable cause) to a school officials search of a students purse for contraband, also applies to seizures by school officials or school police officers.

Given the state of the law, a reasonable officer could have proceeded on the understanding that a student seizure is permissible if it is reasonable under the standard of T.L.O., U.S. Circuit Judge Steven M. Colloton wrote for the majority. Although the alleged seizure in this case did not occur at the high school and was initiated by law enforcement, reasonable officers could have believed that probable cause was not required.

The majority treated the university police officers essentially the same as school resource officers and noted that the 8th Circuit has ruled recently that in at least one context an SRO does not need probable cause to summon a student to the school office for an interrogation.

The Northwest Missouri State campus officers were justified in ordering the seizure based on a belief that either a violation of Missouris invasion of privacy law had occurred or there was a possible violation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education, the court said.

In sum, it was reasonable for Officers Green and Williams to believe that a seizure of high school students by a high school coach acting at the behest of the officers was permissible if reasonable, Colloton said. It was also reasonable for the officers to believe that the seizure was justified under that standard. The officers thus did not violate the students clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment, so they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, writing in dissent, said the seizure of the students was not justified at its inception, as required under the Supreme Courts T.L.O. decision. The cheerleading coach did not make her complaint until she was checking out of the dorm, Kelly said.

From this, it is reasonable to infer that the cheer camp had ended, that there was no risk of students engaging in future similar conduct, and thus, that there was no special need to restore order or safety, Kelly added.

Further, she said, it was not reasonable for the officers to believe that hours of detention of the students was reasonable considering the absence of a security threat and the lack of any apparent disruption to the camps or to the students learning environment.

Read more:
Court Restores Officers' Immunity Over Seizure of High School Athletes in Peeping Probe - Education Week

This is the third tentative sports wagering agreement in the state, according to the gambling commission.

SPOKANE, Wash. The Washington State Gambling Commission announced Tuesday it reached a tentative agreement with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians to allow sports gambling.

The amendment to the tribes Class III gaming compact allows the tribe and state the ability to address the legislatures primary sports wagering policy concerns, like licensing, agency funding, regulation, criminal enforcement, money laundering, sport integrity and responsible and problem gambling.

The gambling commission expected to have draft rules for its commissioners to review at the agencys June 10 public meeting.

The agreement will now go through a state and federal approval process, according to the gambling commission.

First, legislative hearing will be held in the Senate Labor, Commerce and Tribal Affairs and house Commerce and Gaming committees. Then, the gambling commission will view and vote on the compact amendment at the June 10 hearing. According to the gambling commission, if approved the proposed compact amendment will be forwarded to the Tribal Chair and then the Governor for Signature.

Once the agreement is signed, the gambling commission says the tribe will send the amendment to the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior for consideration and publication in the Federal Register. Once its published in the Federal Register, sports wagering can begin.

Washington state was the first state to enact a new sports wagering law in 2020, according to the gambling commission.

This is the third tentative sports wagering agreement in the state, according to the gambling commission.

The Kalispel Tribe of Indians tribal-state compact for Class III gaming was originally signed in October 1998 and Northern Quest Resort and Casino first opened in 2000. This is the fourth amendment to their compact.

Read the original post:
Kalispel Tribe reaches tentative agreement with state to allow sports betting - KREM.com

FRONT ROYAL The drug possession trial of alleged murderer Richard Crouch will now be a bench trial before a judge, and evidence obtained by a legally challenged search will be included.

During a pre-trial conference in Warren County Circuit Court on Tuesday, Judge William Sharp accepted the waiver of a jury trial and denied a motion to suppress evidence in the case.

Attorney Eric Wiseley, representing Crouch, declined by phone interview Wednesday to give details as to why the trial format was switched other than it was the preference of his client.

Crouch of Warren County is charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in the trial, now scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday.

The drug offense occurred Sept. 25, 2019, according to court records, a day after an incident in which he allegedly beat and choked a woman.

The trial for the charges he faces in the alleged beating is scheduled for Nov. 29 through Dec. 2, with a pre-trial conference on Nov. 19.

Crouch is also charged with murder in the unrelated death of Tristen Brinklow, 20, of Warren County, also in September 2019. The trial for that case is set for Aug. 2-6 with a pretrial conference date of July 26.

According to testimony from Warren County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Mike Henry during the hearing Tuesday, police had spoken with the victim in the beating and learned about the narcotics.

Police then went to Crouch's residence on Bear Court in Warren County to search his home without a warrant, where they found a baggie of methamphetamine and scales, according to Henry's testimony and court documents.

Assistant Commonwealths Attorney Michael Fleming had filed a motion to include the results of the search in the trial.

Flemings motion during the hearing argued that Crouch, who was not present for the search, had consented even though he wasn't present because he was on probation.

As part of Crouchs agreement to plead guilty to the felony charge of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in July 2019, Crouch had consented to searches without a warrant as part of his probation, Fleming argued.

The fact that Crouch's parents, who lived with him, didnt consent to the search was irrelevant because they werent the ones on trial, Fleming said.

Wiseley argued that it was the parents Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights that had been violated and the evidence obtained during the search needed to be suppressed.

Wiseley cited the case of Georgia v. Randolph, which found that police had no right to search the residence of two co-tenants without a warrant when one of them objected to it, even though the other had consented.

Even though CrouchsFourth Amendment rights may have been waived, his parents were woken up in the middle of the night and had not consented to the search, Wisely argued.

But Sharp stated that in the Georgia case, the person objecting to the search was a defendant. Sharp said that since he was a federal or state Supreme Court judge, he was bound to follow precedent case law, and there was none allowing suppression of the search results.

Sharp said a potential remedy for Crouch's parents would be a civil lawsuit against the officers who conducted the search. But Wiseley stated those officers have qualified immunity, which limits peoples ability to file lawsuits against officers. Keeping or removing that qualified immunity provision has become part of a national discussion on how to reform policing around the country.

If Crouch is found guilty at the end of the trial, Wiseley said he will appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

Crouch remains in custody without bond at Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center.

View post:
First of three trials involving alleged murderer switches to bench trial - Northern Virginia Daily

IN A LAWSUIT filed in federal court, Walton County beachfront property owners had raised claims that, in allowing the public on the beach on four privately-owned lots in Walton County, the county sheriffs office had allowed members of the public to possess the property. The property owners and the WCSO recently agreed to dismissal of the lawsuit. (Photo by Dotty Nist)

By DOTTY NIST

A lawsuit filed by Walton County beachfront property owners against the Walton County Sheriffs Office (WCSO) has been dismissed within less than six months time.

At the end of October 2020, plaintiffs CBHIV, L.L.C., owner of four beachfront lots south of San Roy Road in the Eastern Lake community, had sued the WCSO and Walton County Sheriff Mike Adkinson in federal court, asserting that their beachfront property had been physically appropriated for public use due to the actions of sheriffs office personnel.

The property owners stated that their property extends to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico, which as shown by the Plaintiffs survey, as well as Walton County records, lies below the current wet-sand and water line.

The lawsuit stemmed from visits by sheriffs office personnel in response to the owners requests for assistance in enforcing the trespass laws with regard to uninvited members of the public (beachgoers) present on the beach on their property.

The property owners stated that WCSO personnel, at those visits, had drawn their own lines and authorized and placed members of the public in possession of the Plaintiffs property, without regard to Plaintiffs property lines or the rights of Plaintiff to its property.

A specific instance of such a request and WCSO response, stated to have occurred on May 27, 2020, was referenced in the lawsuit. The property owners reported that a deputy responding to their trespassing complaint on that date drew his own perceived line and allowed the public to use the property lying south of such line The property owners further alleged that the line drawn in the sand by the deputy was located approximately 40 feet north of Plaintiffs southerly boundary.

The property owners asserted that these actions by the WCSO had been without legal authority and had represented violations of the U.S. Constitutions Fifth Amendments Takings Clause and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

They requested that the court declare the referenced actions by the WCSO unconstitutional and that the WCSO be barred from future seizures which deprive Plaintiff of its property rights.

In a Nov. 23, 2020, response, Adkinson clarified that although (along with the sheriff) the WCSO had been named as a separate entity in the lawsuit, there is no such legal entity separate and apart from the office of Sheriff.

Adkinson denied violation of the plaintiffs Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, or Fourth Amendment rights.

No actions or injuries complained of in the Complaint were based on any policy, custom, or practice of the Sheriff, nor were they taken by any policy maker, according to his response.

All actions attributable to the Sheriff were taken in good faith and were reasonable under the facts and circumstances, Adkinson declared.

Adkinson denied that any action of the sheriff had risen to the level of a Fifth Amendment taking.

He argued that the complained of action did not violate the property owners Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, that the beachfront property allegedly impacted was not within the scope of property protected by the Fourth Amendmentand that the alleged actions of the Sheriff did not result in a meaningful interference with Plaintiffs possessory interests in its property sufficient to rise to the level of a seizure.

Calling the property owners claims wholly frivolous, unreasonable, and without legal or factual foundation, Adkinson asked the court to enter a judgment in his favor. He also requested a trial by jury for any issues tried.

With no additional filing of motions by either party, on April 20, 2021, Adkinson and the property owners agreed to a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice. The agreement provided for the case to be dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. On April 21, the court recorded that case as having been disposed.

Link:
Beachfront property owner lawsuit against sheriff's office has been dismissed The Defuniak Herald & Beach Breeze - DeFuniak Springs Herald

SALT LAKE CITY (CNN) - A Salt Lake City bar is reopening its dining room, but only to vaccinated customers.

It is been getting angry phone calls as a result.

After more than a year with the front door closed, the inside empty, curbside only.

The Bayou is ready to reopen. Customers hearing the news have been sending messages of excitement.

Others are calling saying they won't be coming here to eat because the bayou wants them to show a vaccination card to get in.

"This is our requirement to keep everyone safe because we have to make those decisions," The Bayou President Mark Alston said.

Alston says because people don't wear masks at tables to eat and drink, he wants to keep himself, staff and other patrons safe by making sure everyone is protected against COVID-19.

"We are following the CDC guidelines," Alston said. "The guidelines are clear. When fully vaccinated hang out with others fully vaccinated, no masks eating drinking, totally fine. When not, keep masks on."

Their decision has led to dozens of angry phone calls since the announcement Wednesday.

And people are sounding off on Yelp.

"We've been called communists," Alston said. "Been compared to running Auschwitz camp in Nazi Germany."

People Alston says, aren't even customers. He took about a half dozen calls while we were there.

Alston says he made sure this doesn't violate HIPAA laws either

For the Bayou, it's a way to get back to normal

No masks or social distancing required, just that vaccination card

The CDC says HIPAA prevents healthcare organizations from sharing patient information without the person's consent or knowledge.

It doesn't apply to bars.

The Fourth Amendment involves search and seizure.

It applies to law enforcement.

Link:
Utah bar stricken with angry calls after requiring proof of vaccine to dine in - KVOA Tucson News

New City Council member Bruce Knell talks after being sworn in on Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2021. (Dan Cepeda, Oil City)

CASPER, Wyo. Casper City Council member Bruce Knell on Tuesday, May 11 accused fellow Council members Shawn Johnson, Amber Pollock and Kyle Gamroth of breaking their oath to the Constitution in voting against authorizing the Casper Police Department to accept $35,000 in DEA cannabis suppression funding.

There were a few problems with Knells argument as Johnson, Pollock, Gamroth and City Attorney John Henley pointed out. First, Gamroth, while he later said he was against authorizing the acceptance of the funding, technically voted in favor of the Casper PD accepting the funding during the councils Feb. 2 meeting.

Knells argument was that council members take an oath to the Wyoming and United States Constitution when sworn-in to office and that since marijuana is illegal in Wyoming and federally, voting against accepting the DEA funding was unconstitutional.

Article continues below...

He said that the three council members should perhaps relook at being on the council over their opposition to Casper accepting the DEA funding. Knell said that asking for further information about how the DEA funding was used in a March 29-30 drug interdiction operation in which law enforcement agencies in the area arrested 23 people, was a waste of resources, a waste of time and completely inappropriate.

Johnson pointed out that marijuana is not illegal under either the U.S. or Wyoming Constitution, but through state and federal statute.

It is not constitutionally illegal, it is statutorily illegal, Johnson said. He added that in some cases, statutory laws can be unconstitutional and that there is debate about whether the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to impose marijuana prohibitions on states.

Johnson also noted that marijuana remains fully illegal in the laws of only six states.

He added that when he asked for further information about the DEA funded drug interdiction operation, he wasnt necessarily concerned that the funding was used to attempt to suppress cannabis.

Johnson said he has some general concerns about grant funding going toward police operations that may violate peoples Fourth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment is as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Johnson said that there are sometimes lawsuits that stem from people feeling their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated during police operations funded by federal grants.

He added that laws are not necessarily moral, pointing out that it was once illegal to be homeless in Casper. Johnson added that gay and interacial marriage has also at times been illegal in the United States.

Johnson emphasized that his oath is to the Constitution and added: I will always fight to keep government where it belongs.

Knell asked Henley to weigh in on whether his accusations were following an accurate line of argument.

Henley said that Johnsons point about marijuana being illegal under statute and not under the Constitution is correct.

Johnson added that he thinks federal marijuana prohibitions may be against the 10th Amendment, which read: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

He said that the federal government has not been enforcing federal law against states which have legalized marijuana. Johnson said he also has a question about Why is the federal government injecting money into Wyoming for that kind of thing?If you really wanted to enforce federal cannabis prohibitions then you would go after the states that have it fully legalized.

Gamroth similarly said that he thinks he is upholding his oath in his opposition to the DEA cannabis suppression funding. While Gamroth voted in favor of the Casper PD being allowed to accept the funding, the vote came as part of a consent agenda list in which the council votes on multiple items at once and Gamroth, a new council member, said the procedure caught him somewhat off guard.

Gamroth added on to some of what Johnson had said: Laws do not equal morality.

Pollock said that Johnson and Gamroth had covered some of the points that came up for her when Knell made the accusation. She added that even if the Constitution mandated that the council members uphold statutory laws, the oath still wouldnt require that the council allocate funds in such a manner: The fact that this is a funding a decision, that is not dictated to me by my oath.

She said that it is valid if Knell wants to have a policy discussion and disagreement, but pushed back against the suggestion that the vote was against her oath.

Knell acknowledged that he had been mistaken in thinking marijuanas illegal status was under the Constitution rather than under statute: I thought it was a violation of our oath.

He apologized to Johnson, Pollock and Gamroth for saying they had violated their oath.Knell said that he remains opposed to legalizing marijuana but said that his intention had not been to offend his fellow council members.

Pollock said that she had not felt offended but reiterated that she thinks marijuanas legal status is a matter for policy debate. Pollock added that she thinks there is a trend nationally in which elected officials are inaccurately or unfairly accused of violating their oath to the Constitution.

She said shed be happy to have debate on policy matters on which council members might disagree.

Related Stories from Oil City News:

See the original post here:
Knell accuses Casper Council members of breaking oath in vote against use of DEA cannabis suppression funds, then apologizes - Oil City News

Robert Jones stands in front of his home in Pasco County, Florida

What is a parent to do when the person theyre supposed to callthe people who are supposed to serve and protect youare the same people that are demonizing your house? Robert Jones asked, vividly describing the treatment he and his family suffered under the Pasco County Sheriffs Office predictive policing program.He made those comments during a press conference in which Robert and other parents similarly harassed announced they were suing Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco.

Roberts first run-in with the predictive policing program happened not long after his family moved to the Florida county just north of Tampa. Sheriffs deputies visited their home and asked Robert if they could speak to his son as part of what (to Robert) sounded like a scared straight program for teenagers. By Roberts own admission, his son had run with a bad crowd at their previous home and he let the deputies into the home thinking the talk might be helpful.

But the deputies focus wasnt on talking so much as using the opportunity to search the home. They left with empty plastic baggies and returned later to arrest Roberts son, claiming the baggies had tested positive for trace amounts of marijuana. His son was later acquitted of these charges. Understandably, Robert refused to submit to any more warrantless searches when deputies started to regularly visit his home.

When he asked deputies to stop the visits, they refused saying that they were required under the Sheriffs predictive policing program. On some occasions, deputies would demand entry when Robert was at work and only his young daughters were at home. He described his daughters cowering under the bed as officers pounded on the windows and doors.

Soon, deputies started looking for minor code violations on their property that they could ticket. Robert was cited for tall grass, for missing numbers on a mailbox, and for parking his jet ski trailer too close to the house. Even worse, these citations came with court dates that Robert was never informed about. When he missed hearings, he was arrestedthree separate times in a period of just a few months.

This all lead to the sheriffs office getting a warrant to search the home in March 2016. Using that warrant, they took the familys laptops, tablets, and phones. But Robert hadnt committed any crimes, and prosecutors eventually dropped every charge thrown his way. Even after all charges were dropped, Robert still had to get a court order to get back all the property seized from his family. By April 2016, he gave up and moved his family out of the county in the middle of the night.

What was the sheriffs office hoping to accomplish? According to one former deputy, the program that targeted Roberts family is meant to, Make their lives miserable until they move or sue. If that was the plan, it seems to have worked. Robert and other Pasco County residents targeted by the program launched a federal lawsuit represented by the Institute for Justice in March. The suit argues that the program violates residents constitutional rights.

First, this includes the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Once placed on the list, deputies would regularly visit the homes of the so-called prolific offenders, many of whom were minors. These visits would happen day and night, with deputies demanding to be let into the homes. As was the case with Roberts family, deputies would often peer into windows and demand entry even if only minor children were home at the time.

Such visits were performed without warrants and courts have instructed that, while the Fourth Amendment allows law enforcement to knock on someones door, it doesnt let officers force their way into a home or look into the windows like a peeping tom.

Second, when people like Robert insisted on protecting their Fourth Amendment rights, deputies would then commit a further violation of rights by fining them for petty code violations using them as a means of entering homes without a warrant.

When he came into office a decade ago, the Pasco County Sheriff bragged that he would create a futuristic policing program to stop crime before it happens. But the predictive policing program Pasco County got violates rights and fails to fight crime. The Tampa Bay Times, in its investigative reporting on the program, found that: Pascos drop in property crimes was similar to the decline in the seven-largest nearby police jurisdictions. And shockingly, Over the same time period, violent crime increased only in Pasco. Imagine how much better life in Pasco County might be if those in the sheriffs office had dedicated the time they spent harassing innocent civilians through their predictive policing scheme and instead dedicated that time to going after actual violent criminals.

For now, it is up to the courts to end this program once and for all and discourage other law enforcement agencies from following suit. Here is hoping other law enforcement agencies dont make the same error of mistaking harassment for policing.

Read the rest here:
Florida Sheriff Harasses Public With Program Where All Are Innocent Until Predicted Guilty - Forbes

The list of U.S. states to launch mobile drivers licenses (mDLs) is growing rapidly, with five implemented already and three more official digital IDs on the way by the beginning of next year, by the Associated Press count.

Utah, Iowa and Florida are expected to implement mDLs soon, with the apps storing the credential protected by passwords or on-device biometrics.

The projects were already in progress prior to the pandemic, but the adoption of contactless digital identification methods may have been sped up by a decade, AP reports.

Most people want some kind of a hard token for their identity, but I dont know how long that will last, Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum told AP. I would imagine that at some point, maybe in a generation, maybe less, that people will accept a fully digital system.

National Motorists Association spokesperson Shelia Dunn Joneleit says digitizing the credential introduces the risk of hacking, and points out that not all Americans own smartphones, and suggested people should not have to hand over their phones to the police, which would potentially violate Fourth Amendment rights. The comments reveal a need for public education more than a rights risk, however as mobile drivers licenses do not require individuals to hand their phones to police to present their identification.

The article quotes an Idemia representative making the case for cryptographic verification as a stronger method of digital identity proofing.

Utahs mDL is being produced by GET Group North America, while Idemia is providing mDL solutions to Oklahoma, Delaware and Arizona.

Colorado and Louisiana had previously developed digital ID apps, but they do not follow REAL ID standards.

REAL ID compliance has been an ongoing issue for several states, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has now announced an extension of the deadline for the federal ID documents standards implementation.

The deadline has been extended from October 1, 2021 to May 3, 2023, due to the challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the new deadline, only drivers licenses which are REAL ID compliant will be considered valid identity documents for domestic U.S. air travel.

All 50 states and four out of five U.S. territories are now issuing REAL ID compliant licenses, but only 43 percent of all state-issued drivers licenses and ID cards meet the standard.

In comments to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security reported by Homeland Security Today, senior TSA official Darby LaJoye said that the agency wants REAL ID issuance closer to 90 percent to avoid disrupting airport operations.

DHS and states also need time to make other changes mandated by the REAL ID Modernization Act, including for allowing the submission of digital documents.

LaJoye also noted that the TSA has deployed 1,053 credential authentication technology (CAT) units to 121 locations, and expects to deploy another 1,001 in the next several months. Deployment of the devices, made by Idemia, accelerated during the pandemic.

Louisianas LA Wallet app has added an optional COVID-19 vaccination credential feature to provide digital verification of their immunity status, the Governors Office announced.

The LA Wallet is available for free through the Apple App and Google Play stores as the States Digital Drivers License app.

Colorado, meanwhile, has expanded the list of local law enforcement agencies accepting its mDL to include 14 new police departments.

Colorado Springs and Vail Police Departments are among those now accepting the myColorado mobile app for identity verification, as well as proof of age and address during traffic stops.

The mDL is already accepted by Colorado State Patrol and the Denver Police Department, among more than 425 restaurants, bars, businesses and state agencies.

The Denver Police Department embraces technology for improving efficiency and safety, says Denver Police Department Chief Paul M. Pazen in the announcement. The Colorado Digital ID allows for contactless verification of users identification, which helps to keep officers and individuals safe and healthy amid the ongoing pandemic.

More than 135,000 Coloradans have downloaded the app, though state residents are advised to carry their physical license until the Colorado Digital ID is universally accepted across all state and local jurisdictions.

Thales Vice-President Identity and Verification Steve Purdy explained the current state and opportunity of mDLs in a recent Biometric Update guest post.

age verification | biometrics | credentials | digital identity | driver's license | identity document | identity verification | mobile app | Real ID | United States

More here:
US mobile driver's licenses advancing to more states, agencies, applications - Biometric Update