Mediaboss Marketing

The Bill of Rights is the most important document in our nation.

Right?

I mean youve got the first amendment, which we all know gives us the freedom of speech. Then, how could we forget, the second amendment- the right to bear arms.

And for most people, that is all they really know. You have the occasional person who can cite the fifth amendment, our right to a fair and speedy trial. But how many of us really know our rights?

A 2017 poll conducted by the University of Pennsylvanias Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 37 of people could not identify ANY of the five rights protected by the first amendment. Additionally, the survey found that a whopping 33 percent of participants were unable to name ONE of the three branches of government. (Executive, legislative, and judicial, come on guys this is elementary level civics).

These numbers are sad- but they are also scary. How can we protect and preserve the Constitution if 37 percent of Americans do not even know the first amendment? If we want to reap the benefits of living in this great nation- we must fulfill our civic duty. That civic duty goes beyond voting and serving on a jury- part of that duty is being an informed citizen. Because the truth is, if ANY one of your rights is a mystery, it ceases to exist.

Madison Adams

Claremore

Follow this link:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: If any one of your rights is a mystery, it ceases to exist - Claremore Daily Progress

A Kentucky lawmaker wants to grant police in his state the power to detain a person for two hours if he or she declines to offer up identification or answer an officer's questions while they're investigating possible criminal activity. Lawyers? Miranda warnings? Forget about them.

The bill was introduced by state Sen. Stephen Meredith (RLeitchfield), and civil rights lawyers are warning that it could open a big, nasty, easily abusable, unconstitutional can of worms.

The bill states that the person who is being detained by police in this process is not considered under arrest, which appears to be a mechanism to try to keep a person from demanding a lawyer. It could also get people to incriminate themselves by making them answer police questions or face temporary detention.

While police are obviously empowered to investigate criminal activity, this bill, SB 89, seems designed to give police the power to target individuals for harassment for the sketchiest of reasons. Meredith told the Lexington Herald-Leader that one of the incidents that inspired the bill (which he acknowledges was pushed forward at the urging of local police) was a man lingering outside an apartment complex, which made neighbors nervous. They called the police, but the man refused to answer their questions and left. They found out later that he had outstanding arrest warrants.

But Rebecca DiLoreto, who lobbies for the Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, noted that the police could have tagged this guy for violating the state's loitering laws, and then they could have used that actual allegation of criminal activity to demand ID and check for warrants.

DiLoreto warns that SB 89's passage would lead to an environment where police would be able to detain people for up to two hours without having to keep official records because these people aren't technically arrested. She tells the Herald-Leader:

"The idea that we can detain people because we find them to be suspicious and we think they might commit a crime, that crosses a dangerous line. Now, unfortunately, it has been known to happen. Sometimes it's in a mostly white community where someone spots a black person walking down the street and they get suspicious and call police.

The 'crime' in this case is basically that you're here and we don't think, from looking at you, that you should be here. The potential for abuse in that seems obvious."

It would also most certainly violate people's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

See more here:
Kentucky Lawmaker Wants To Give Police the Power to Detain People Who Don't Answer Their Questions - Reason

Shaniz West agreed to let the police enter her home to make an arrest. They trashed it. A federal appeals court told her too bad. Now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to right this clear injustice.

The facts surrounding Ms. Wests predicament are not in dispute. In 2014, Ms. West returned to her Caldwell, Idaho, home to find four local police officers. They were looking for her ex-boyfriend, Fabian Salinas, who was wanted for violent gang activity. Ms. West told the officers she didnt know whether Salinas was inside, so the cops asked permission to enter the home in an effort to locate and arrest him. According to reports, Ms. West gave the officers her house keys and left with a friend.

Instead of entering the home, however, the police called in a SWAT team, which used shotguns and other equipment to launch a tear gas attack through the windows and garage door. The resulting damage ran into the tens of thousands of dollars and left the home uninhabitable for months.

Wests personal belongings and the home itself were saturated with tear gas, a judge with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted. Broken glass littered the floor and the walls and ceiling had gaping holes from contact with the tear gas canisters.

Ms. West sought compensation for the destruction, but her case was rejected by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit. The 2-1 majority held that the police were covered under a doctrine known as qualified immunity, which protects government officials from being sued for acting in their official capacity unless they clearly violate an established constitutional right. The majority further held that Ms. West should have known that by letting the authorities enter her home, she was also consenting to potential damage.

The case has similarities to a 2015 Colorado incident in which the police destroyed an innocent mans house after a suspected thief broke into the home while attempting to avoid arrest. In that instance, too, a federal appeals court eventually ruled the homeowner was out of luck when he attempted to sue to recover damages.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment stops the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Is it truly reasonable to suggest that an owners consent to search a property also implicitly grants the authorities permission to do extensive damage? Is it truly just to argue that the authorities have no financial responsibility if, while carrying out their duties, they destroy private property?

The Institute for Justice has taken up Ms. Wests case and this week petitioned the Supreme Court for review. Lets hope the justices seize the chance to rein in the extreme effects of qualified immunity.

Read the original here:
EDITORIAL: Come on in, officer and wreck the place, while youre here - Las Vegas Review-Journal

Trenton, New JerseyOn Tuesday, January 21, at 1 pm, EFF Senior Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to rule that the state cant force a defendant to turn over the passcode for his encrypted iPhone under the Fifth Amendment, which protects Americans rights against self-incrimination.

The Fifth Amendment states that people cannot be forced to incriminate themselves, and its well settled that this privilege against self-incrimination covers compelled testimonial communications, including physical acts. However, courts have split over how to apply the Fifth Amendment to compelled decryption of encrypted devices.

EFF, ACLU, and ACLU of New Jersey filed a brief in the case State v. Andrews arguing that the state cant compel a suspect to recall and use information that exists only in his memory to aid law enforcements prosecution of him.

At Tuesdays hearing, Crocker will tell the court that reciting, writing, typing or otherwise reproducing a password from memory is testimony protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Read theamicus brief EFF filed in the Andrews case:https://www.eff.org/document/effaclu-amicus-us-v-andrews

WHO: EFF Senior Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker

WHAT: New Jersey v. Andrews

WHERE:Supreme Court of New Jersey 25 Market St.Trenton, NJ 08611The argument will also be live-streamed.

WHEN:TuesdayJanuary 211 pm

See the original post here:
Tuesday Hearing: EFF Argues in New Jersey Supreme Court That Defendant Can't Be Forced to Turn Over Password to Encrypted iPhone - EFF

MICHIGAN CITY Its been nearly a month since a mistrial was declared in the murder case against Hakim Zamir Lamar Qualls.

And although his new trial is set to begin Jan. 27, Qualls who was released on GPS monitoring upon mistrial will return to La Porte Superior Court 1 on Thursday to ask whether his case should be dismissed entirely.

The defense filed a motion Friday asserting that Qualls case should be dismissed on the basis that to try it again would violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Defense attorney Elizabeth Flynn also contends in a memorandum of law filed last week that prosecutors and their professional witness acted in concert to goad Qualls into requesting a mistrial to subvert the protects afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The mistrial was declared after state witness Jillian Ashley now assistant chief of the Michigan City Police Department, but a detective when she investigated the alleged murder divulged information to the jury that the judge had previously deemed inadmissible.

Specifically, she testified that Qualls had not provided a statement to police upon his arrest, despite having made a claim of self-defense in relation to the Dec. 18, 2018, fatal shooting of 18-year-old Dareon Brown.

Her doing so prompted the defense to request a mistrial, which was granted on Dec. 17, 2019.

The same day, prosecutors filed a motion to add two additional charges attempted murder and aggravated battery to the counts of murder and dangerous possession of a firearm that Qualls already faced.

In their request that new charges be added, prosecutors cite information they admittedly gleaned from the defenses opening statement and witness testimony at the first trial:

a. Defense indicated the victim Dareon Brown's gun 'clattered away,' the Defendant picked it up and fled the area."

b. Physical evidence shows that Dareon Brown was shot with his own gun twice.

"Under Indiana law, retrial following a defendant's successful mistrial motion is only barred where the government's conduct is responsible for the mistrial motion, Flynn writes in her memorandum.

And she notes it was Ashley, acting in her capacity as a professional witness for the state, who caused the mistrial.

"The State did not object to this Court's decision to grant a mistrial, Flynn states. The State immediately, on the same date that the mistrial was rendered, filed a Motion to Amend the Information to add new charges of Attempted Murder and Aggravated Battery. The State has further engaged in additional investigation for what appears to be for the purposes of discrediting the Defendant's version of events which was shared during the Defendant's opening statement. The State is attempting to benefit from its own misconduct and the egregious misconduct of its witness."

Flynn also takes issue with having allowed Ashley to investigate a case in which the alleged victim was her nephew. The defense contends that it provides Ashley with a personal stake in the outcome of the case.

Judge Michael Bergerson will conduct a hearing on the defenses motion to dismiss and the states request that Qualls be charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery on Thursday during criminal call, which begins at 8:30 a.m. in Superior Court 1.

Follow this link:
Qualls asks to have murder case dropped - The Herald Argus