Mediaboss Marketing

A US Army veteran became the first in Florida to be charged with defying the states newly adopted red flag law after he refused to turn in his firearms, including an AR-15.

Jerron Smith, 33, who is suspected of shooting at his friends car, was found guilty by a jury in Broward County in southeastern Florida last Friday, December 6, in less than an hour.

Judge Ernest Kollra ordered a pre-sentencing investigation for Smith who faces up to five years in prison.

Floridas new red flag law came into effect in the wake of the shooting tragedy in a high school in Parkland in February 2018 in which 17 people lost their lives.

It was just after a month after the horrific incident that Smiths weapons were confiscated by the deputies after a shooting took place outside his residence in Deerfield Beach.

Smith was accused of repeatedly firing at his best friends car during an argument over a cellphone on March 28 night. The police came to his house to seize off all the weapons and other items under a Risk Protection Order. They had found several magazines stocked in his bedroom.

According to a criminal complaint filed against Smith, it was said that he had shot at least half a dozen times at the vehicle of Jackson Levon while he was inside it.

Under Floridas red flag law, authorities with the backing of the judge can seek to remove weapons from people who are perceived as threats to themselves and others. Apart from Florida, 14 other states have such laws.

Smith told the jury that he was unaware of the legal requirements when the deputies came to his house. He repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, believing that the police could not search his home without showing a warrant or his consent.

According to a report in the local Sun-Sentinel, Smith's lawyer could not present a convincing argument that his client did not fully understand the new law. The date for Smiths sentencing is yet to be decided.

The Sun-Sentinel also said in a report in September that guns have been taken from 2,0000 residents of the state in a year-and-half since the new law was passed.

But figures showed that South Florida, which includes places like Broward County where mass shootings are not rare, has not been as agile in implementing the new law like most other big counties.

Read more from the original source:
Army veteran who refused to give up firearms citing Fifth Amendment found guilty of defying Florida's new 'red flag' law - MEAWW

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

Here is the original post:
Public Service Announcment: If You Own a Closely Held Business Entity, You Have Waived Fifth Amendment Rights - JD Supra

The highest court in Pennsylvania has ruled that the states law enforcement cannot force suspects to turn over their passwords that would unlock their devices.

The states Supreme Court said compelling a password from a suspect is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, a constitutional protection that protects suspects from self-incrimination.

Its not an surprising ruling, given other state and federal courts have almost always come to the same conclusion. The Fifth Amendment grants anyone in the U.S. the right to remain silent, which includes the right to not turn over information that could incriminate them in a crime. These days, those protections extend to the passcodes that only a device owner knows.

But the ruling is not expected to affect the ability by police to force suspects to use their biometrics like their face or fingerprints to unlock their phone or computer.

Because your passcode is stored in your head and your biometrics are not, prosecutors have long argued that police can compel a suspect into unlocking a device with their biometrics, which they say are not constitutionally protected. The court also did not address biometrics. In a footnote of the ruling, the court said it need not address the issue, blaming the U.S. Supreme Court for creating the dichotomy between physical and mental communication.

Peter Goldberger, president of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, who presented the arguments before the court, said it was fundamental that suspects have the right to to avoid self-incrimination.

Despite the spate of rulings in recent years, law enforcement have still tried to find their way around compelling passwords from suspects. The now-infamous Apple-FBI case saw the federal agency try to force the tech giant to rewrite its iPhone software in an effort to beat the password on the handset of the terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, who with his wife killed 14 people in his San Bernardino workplace in 2015. Apple said the FBIs use of the 200-year-old All Writs Act would be unduly burdensome by putting potentially every other iPhone at risk if the rewritten software leaked or was stolen.

The FBI eventually dropped the case without Apples help after the agency paid hackers to break into the phone.

Brett Max Kaufman, a senior staff attorney at the ACLUs Center for Democracy, said the Pennsylvania case ruling sends a message to other courts to follow in its footsteps.

The court rightly rejects the governments effort to create a giant, digital-age loophole undermining our time-tested Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, he said. The government has never been permitted to force a person to assist in their own prosecution, and the courts should not start permitting it to do so now simply because encrypted passwords have replaced the combination lock.

We applaud the courts decision and look forward to more courts to follow in the many pending cases to be decided next, he added.

View post:
Another US court says police cannot force suspects to turn over their passwords - TechCrunch

The White House orders members of the govenment not to testify and refuses to produce documents requested by House committees. It stonewalls subpoenas or turns to the courts, which could delay proceedings well past the 2020 elections. Is the possibility of impeachment stymied?

Some of us can remember when Republicans commonly charged people with being Fifth Amendment Communists. The obvious point was that their reason for invoking the Fifth Amendment was to hide their connection to the Communists. Otherwise, why not answer?

Actually, even for innocent people it was often safest not to answer because investigators often drew outrageous inferences. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, lambasted one agency for assuming that a person who wore overalls was a Communist.

But sometimes were entitled to answers. In lawsuits, federal courts can order disclosure unless its unfair or improper.[1] They must consider the parties relative access to relevant information.[2] But if people refuse to answer once orders are issued, courts can direct[] that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims.[3] Similarly, when Trumps people refuse to testify, Congress could take facts as established for purposes of impeachment.

The harm under investigation here is considerable and effective remedies for disclosure are appropriate. The seriousness of the issues makes refusal to testify egregious and justifies effective remedies for failure to testify or turn over documents. The Presidents dealings with Russia and Ukraine were extremely dangerous to the extent that they reveal that American foreign policy is up for sale. If Mr. Trump is or suspects hes president because of what Russia did for him, or that he might remain president because of what Russia or Ukraine might do for him, there is at least the temptation to distort American foreign policy to get their help, weakening America and making us more vulnerable to our enemies. Thats a big constitutional no-no, embodied in all the language of the impeachment and emoluments clauses.[4]

His defenders insist that there is no evidence of an explicit quid pro quo. Thats not a satisfactory defense. People in high places are rarely stupid enough to make exchanges explicit I will do this if you will do that. Seeking favors is an impeachable high crime because they create temptations and because the participants often understand and expect there will be a quid pro quo, though Trumps judicial appointees may not get the point.[5] For the same reason, the emoluments clause says zero about quid pro quos just taking a benefit from a foreign power violates that clause. It prohibits accept[ing] any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or Foreign State. The crime under the emoluments clause is merely to accept the benefit.[6]

My high school sent me to a citywide competition about the meaning of brotherhood. One of the judges was the great news anchor, Walter Cronkite. One was the famous Manhattan District Attorney, Frank S. Hogan. And the third was the Manhattan Borough President, Hulan Jack. Shortly thereafter, Hogan convicted Jack for accepting a gift. Jack did some things I admired, but Jack accepted the gift knowing the donor wanted to do business with the City. Statutes prohibit accepting such gifts, whether or not theres an explicit deal because the temptations are obvious. Its well understood that illicit business is done with a wink and a nod. Take this is enough where other arrangements are pending.

In this case, Trump has admitted asking for a favor that he had no right to accept, a favor barred by more than one clause in the Constitution. The fact that he didnt get what he asked for is irrelevant. His behavior was as corrupt as it was for the Manhattan Borough President. Thats enough. And the consequences of Mr. Trumps behavior are much more serious.

[1] F.R.C.P. 26(c)(1).

[2] F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1).

[3] F.R.C.P. 37(B)(2)(A).

[4] See also Impeachment for Corruption, my commentary for April 10, 2018, and Is America For Sale? my commentary for June 20, 2017.

[5] McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) (although governor accepted loans and gifts, introducing donor to officials did not violate honest services law); McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (aggregate statutory limit on political donations did little to prevent quid pro quos); Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (honest services doctrine limited to bribery or kickbacks, not including scheme to deceive).

[6] Art. I, 9, 8.

Steve Gottliebs latest book is Unfit for Democracy: The Roberts Court and The Breakdown of American Politics. He is the Jay and Ruth Caplan Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Albany Law School, served on the New York Civil Liberties Union board, on the New York Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and as a US Peace Corps Volunteer in Iran.

The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.

Read more:
Stephen Gottlieb: Stiffing The Subpoenas And The Charges - WAMC

James Bovard, Opinion columnist Published 3:15 a.m. ET Nov. 27, 2019

Don't jump the gun on Deval Patrick. The list of controversies he's collected my make you reconsider your enthusiasm.

Former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick entered the presidential race last week. Patrick is touted as a centrist Democrat and is reportedly former presidentBarack Obamas favorite candidate. Patrick is also the only candidate in the race responsible for disastrous coverups at both the federal and state level.

Patrick was assistant attorney general for Civil Rights in the Clinton administration. Shortly before Clinton won the 1992 election, U.S. marshals killed 14-year-old Sammy Weaver and an FBI sniper shot Randy Weaver and killed his wife, Vicki Weaver, as she held their baby in the cabin door at Ruby Ridge.

An Idaho jury found Weaver not guilty on almost all charges and federal judge Edward Lodge slammed the Justice Department and FBI for concealing evidence and showing acallous disregard for the rights of the defendants and the interests of justice. A task force of 24 FBI and Justice Department officialscompiled a 542-page reportdetailing federal misconduct and coverups and suggested criminal charges against FBI officials involved in Ruby Ridge. Patrick rejected the task forces recommendation, ruling instead that the FBI sniper who killed Vicki Weaver had not used excessive force and did not intend to violate her civil rights.

In June 1995, the secret report leaked out and made a mockery of Patricks no excessive force ruling. One FBI SWAT team member at Ruby Ridge recalled the Rules of Engagement: If you see 'em, shoot 'em. The report condemned that rule as practically a license to kill that flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution. The task force was especially appalled that the Weavers were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender, noting that the FBIs tactics subjected the government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack." Patrick apparently shrugged off such concerns.

Top FBI officials were suspended on suspicion of committing perjury on the case the following month. Though Patrick had effectively absolved the government, theJustice Department paid $3 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuitfrom the Weaver family. When the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Ruby Ridge later that year,five FBI officials(including the sniper who killed Vicki Weaver) involved in the case invoked their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid incriminating themselves. In 1997, the chief of the FBIs violent crimes section wassent toprisonfor destroying a reporton the FBIs failures at Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

Democratic presidential candidate Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts, campaigns in Des Moines, Iowa, on Nov. 18, 2019.(Photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

If Patrick had accepted the task forces recommendation and permitted prosecutions, the Weaver case might not have swayed so many Americans to believe that FBI agents can kill gun owners with impunity. When FBI snipers swarmed on the scene of the Bundy Ranch five years ago, memories of Ruby Ridge spurredlegions of gun-toting activists to raceto the scene to protect the Bundy family.(FBI lies and misconduct in that case resulted incharges being dismissedand a federal judge condemning the bureau last year.)

In 2006, Patrick was elected governorof Massachusetts, one of the nations most liberal states. In July 2012, Patrick declared that warehousing non-violent offendersis acostlypolicyfailure and proudly signed a bill that offered parole to a few hundred non-violent drug offenders. But despite the governors rhetoric, Massachusetts continuedrounding up and locking away vast numbers of people caught with prohibited substances.Patrick strongly opposeddecriminalizing marijuana.

Election 2020: USA TODAY speaks with presidential candidates

The Massachusetts drug-conviction assembly line relied on state laboratories which assessed suspected narcotics. In September 2012, Massachusetts state lab chemist AnnieDookhan was arrestedfor falsifying tens of thousands of drug tests, always in favor of the prosecution. Worse, when she was feeling especially helpful, shed addbogus weight to a borderline sample, asRolling Stonereported. Dookhan routinely certified samples she received as illicit narcotics without ever testing them.

Governor Patrick described Dookhan as an isolated rogue chemistbut theBoston Globeconcluded that the lab debacle crushes any hope Patrickmay have had of finishing his term unburdened by scandal. Patrick responded to the scandal by announcing plans to"create a kindof boiler room, or a war roomwhere some folks who can work through the documents from different agencies to make sure we get a comprehensive list" of people potentially wrongfully convicted thanks to Dookhan.

Five months after the Dookhan scandal broke,another Massachusetts state lab chemist, Sonja Farak, was arrested for tampering with evidence as well as heroin and cocaine possession. Patrick quickly assured the media: The most important take-home,I think, is that no individuals due process rights were compromised by Faraks misconduct.

Actually, Farak had personally abused narcotics from her first day on the job in 2004 sometimes even cooking crack cocaine on the single burner in the lab and snorting meth and cocaine in courthouse bathrooms when she was called to testify.She detailed her drug adventures in hundreds of pages of diaries, including the day she was freaking out and crawling on the floor...trying to find crack, which I thought was there.

The state attorney generals office insisted that Farak had only started consuming narcotics at work a few months before her arrest and blocked all efforts to expose her drug binges since 2004.Massachusetts state lawyers also withheld reports showing that the machinesused for testing in Faraks lab were issuing faulty reports that could lead to unjustified convictions.

A mayor who's 37: What are Democrats thinking? Maybe that Buttigieg could beat Trump.

Though Patrick, whose second term ended in early 2015, had promised speedy justice to the wrongly convicted, state officials scorned due process and decency. Slate reported in 2015that district attorneys take the position that it is not their responsibility to help identify Dookhan or Farak defendants....[P]rosecutors have no special duty to notify defendants that their convictions might have been obtained with evidence that was falsified by government employees.AProPublica investigation notedin 2016 that it took four years for prosecutors to even attempt to systematically notify the thousands of defendants that their convictions might have been won unfairly.Most of the victims could not afford lawyers to challenge their convictions, resulting in innocent people spending more months and years in prison. In 2016, a judge condemned two prosecutors overseeing the challenged convictions for their intentional, repeated, prolonged anddeceptive withholding of evidence from the defendants. More than 61,000 drug convictions were eventually overturned due to the state laboratory abuses.

Deval Patrick does not bearresponsibility for either Ruby Ridge or the Massachusetts drug lab debacles, but he does bear responsibility for his responses. He compounded the first scandal, failing to stand up for the Weaver's civil rights. And he failed to honor his pledge for speedy relief of injustice in the second scandal.

That's not a record that qualifies Patrick for the presidency.

James Bovard, author of "Attention Deficit Democracy," is a member of USA TODAYs Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JimBovard

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/27/deval-patrick-president-scandals-civil-rights-attorney-general-weaver-column/4242158002/

Follow this link:
Will Deval Patrick be president? Not if his past scandals have anything to say about it. - USA TODAY