Mediaboss Marketing

Now may be a good time to max out your investments in airlines, car rental agencies and intercity bus companies. Travel has picked up as the pandemic has ebbed, but the Supreme Court could give it an extra boost by revoking the constitutional right to abortion.

If that happens, a lot of American women are going to find that "shop local" is a useless slogan when it comes to this type of commerce. The pro-choice Center for Reproductive Rights has predicted that with Roe gone, "abortion would remain legal in twenty-one states and likely would be prohibited in twenty-four states."

Vast swathes of the continent would become abortion-free zones free of legal abortions, anyway. But Americans have been traveling to get what they want since the Pilgrims arrived, and women with unwanted pregnancies are no exception.

In the days before Roe, when the procedure was illegal in most of America, places like New York and Washington state had lots of visitors who didn't come for recreation. Some 40% of all abortions were performed on patients outside their home state.

Already, liberal states are a destination for desperate abortion-seekers. Illinois, surrounded by states that have greatly restricted access, saw nearly 10,000 women come from out of state to get abortions in 2020, the Chicago Tribune reports. Planned Parenthood says that number may quadruple if Roe falls. We are on the verge of a wave of abortion refugees.

But anti-abortion advocates are not likely to accept this outcome as inevitable. A bill was introduced recently in the Missouri Legislature to bar its residents from getting abortions out of state.

Republican Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman told Politico: "If you believe as I do that every person deserves dignity and respect and protection whether they're born or unborn, then of course you want to protect your citizens, no matter where they are." Though her measure didn't pass, it will undoubtedly inspire other states to enact their own bans.

That would be a radical step, but "radical" is a term of endearment in the anti-abortion movement. It would be a terrible idea, though, and one at odds with our entire system of federalism.

One of our fundamental freedoms, long recognized by the Supreme Court, is the right to travel within the United States and be treated as an equal citizen from sea to shining sea. A state government can no more burden the freedom of its residents who venture out of state than it can burden the freedom of migrants from out of state.

In 1969, the court struck down a California law imposing a residency requirement for public assistance. It said the rule violated the right to travel and amounted to "an unconstitutional discrimination which violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

For a state to assert its power over citizens beyond its borders would be an act of extreme presumption. Decades ago, when Nevada was the only state with legal casinos, everyone could go there and gamble without fear of bluenoses back home.

The same limits apply today. Utah can ban recreational cannabis, but its residents may drive to Colorado to get high. California may forbid the open carry of guns, but it can't stop Angelenos visiting Arizona from packing in public view.

As University of Pennsylvania law professor Seth Kreimer has written, one basic principle of American federalism is "that each citizen may take advantage of the liberties offered by any state." This arrangement also contributes to our national civic peace by accommodating a diversity of policies.

Anti-abortion advocates may argue that their cause is different because it involves life and death. Not so. A New Yorker who kills a fellow New Yorker in Atlanta and is acquitted under Georgia's "stand your ground" law cannot be convicted under New York's less lenient statutes.

Conservatives, who champion state sovereignty, should recognize that only one state can be sovereign within its borders. Otherwise, every state could extend its policies into the other 49 states.

The right should also beware of handing a new weapon to progressives. If a state can punish conduct that takes place in another state, Connecticut, which bans "assault weapons," could imprison a resident who uses one for target shooting in Maine. The possibilities for liberal mischief are endless.

If and when the enemies of Roe win their greatest victory, they will be tempted to seize every possible method of exploiting this success. But even the long reach of the law needs limits.

Here is the original post:
Column: The coming fight over out-of-state abortions - Tampa Bay Newspapers

from the looking-at-the-wrong-problem-and-it's-not-even-a-problem dept

More case law on compelled passcode production and the Fifth Amendment has been generated by a New Jersey appeals court. Unfortunately, it doesnt do anything to strengthen Fifth Amendment protections against compelled production.

And thats largely because this court cant. The states Supreme Court handed down a ruling in August 2020 that limited the foregone conclusion the government needed to reach before securing a court order demanding passcode production was limited to the device and the existence of a passcode, rather than offering supporting arguments about the presumed existence of criminal evidence on the device.

That case dealt with a crooked cop whose phones were seized during an investigation. After discussing some (still unaddressed) concerns about the Fifth Amendments inconsistent application in other cases that may protect people using passwords more than people using biometric features to unlock phones, the court said that, in this case, law enforcement knew what it needed to know to surmount the foregone conclusion barrier.

The States demonstration of the passcodes existence, Andrewss previous possession and operation of the cellphones, and the passcodes self-authenticating nature render the issue here one of surrender, not testimony, and the foregone conclusion exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination thus applies. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment does not protect Andrews from compelled disclosure of the passcodes to his cellphones.

Its this case thats specifically cited in this appeals court decision [PDF]. The lower court refused to grant the governments motion to compel, citing its inability to prove the locked iPhone seized belonged to the suspect. It also said the search of the phone (which hasnt occurred yet) raised additional Fourth Amendment concerns.

Heres how everything started:

Det. Pancza and members of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force executed the three warrants at 6:00 a.m. on July 16, 2021, at defendants residence. Defendant was located in his locked bedroom. He was the only occupant of the room, and he refused to open the door. Ultimately, the officers forced entry into defendants bedroom.

During their search of defendants bedroom, officers located three electronic devices: a Samsung cell phone, an Asus laptop, and an Apple iPhone. The iPhone was found in a pull string bag hanging on the back of a computer chair.

In accordance with the search warrant, Detective Brian Migliorisi attempted to access the iPhone 7, but he was prevented from doing so because the iPhone was passcode protected. The only information Det. Migliorisi could retrieve from the iPhone was its association with the same iCloud email account from the cyber tips, the one containing defendants last name and first initial. Defendant was charged with third-degree endangering the welfare of children, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(b)(iii).

The lower court did not find these circumstances added up to proof of the defendants ownership of the iPhone.

The court denied the motion, concluding the State failed to establish defendants ownership of the iPhone and knowledge of the passcode. The court found that officers locating the iPhone in a backpack in a bedroom was insufficient to prove defendants ownership. The court also found that the phone immediately being in the vicinity of the defendant at the time of the search did not conclusively demonstrate that . . . defendant own[ed] the phone.

The appeals court disagrees. First, it points to the August 2020 Andrews decision, which limited the Fifth Amendment discussion to the government proving a passcode exists, the defendant operates or controls the device in question, and that entry of the passcode would allow investigators to access the devices contents. From what it sees here, the government has everything it needs to utilize the foregone conclusion exception.

Further, it says the Fourth Amendment concerns about the proposed search have no bearing on this discussion because the search hasnt been performed and the defendant never challenged the warrants utilized in this case. If the search is indeed determined to be overbroad, the defendant can challenge it then. But because no challenge to the probable cause basis was raised by the suspect, the lower court was wrong to bring Fourth Amendment analysis into a discussion dealing solely with compelled production.

The only standard being applied to compelled production was easily met here, the appeals court says.

The motion court found defendant was in the vicinity of the phone and concluded that this was insufficient to prove defendants ownership or operation of it. We disagree, as the court overlooked credible evidence in the record when making its findings. At the time of the search the phone was in defendants locked bedroom; he was the sole occupant and refused to let the police in. Significantly, the email address associated with the phones iCloud account incorporates defendants last name and first initial. These probative facts, which suggest that defendant owned and operated the iPhone, were omitted from the motion courts analysis.

Any further appeal efforts within the state will be foreclosed by the state Supreme Courts decision. To appeal this determination, the defendant will have to look to the top court in the land. That remains an option because this is a discussion about federal constitutional rights rather than limited to the protections granted by New Jerseys constitution. But odds are slim this will be examined by the US Supreme Court. The Andrews case that set state precedent has already had its appeal effort rejected by SCOTUS. For the time being, it will remain pretty easy for New Jersey law enforcement to bypass the Fifth Amendment.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, 5th amendment, compelled disclosure, compelled speech, new jersey, passwords, phone passcode

Go here to read the rest:
NJ Appeals Court: Lower Court Mixed Up 4th And 5th Amendment And Either Way, Phone Passcodes Can Be Compelled - Techdirt

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. Last Friday morning, April 22, Civil Rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton flew into town to do the eulogy for Patrick Lyoyas funeral at Renaissance Church of God in Christ.

Over a thousand people including family, friends, state and local officials joined the Congolese community in mourning the 26-year-olds death.

Before them, Reverend Sharpton said hes calling on the justice department to step in and conduct their own investigation into Lyoyas death.

Im not going to desecrate the local authorities. But, I want to call on the federal justice department. We need the justice department to investigate this death, Reverend Sharpton said at the podium at the front of the church. We have reason to not just want to wait on the local prosecutor. We dont want local politics to compromise justice. Were calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene and to stand up for the civil rights of Patrick Lyoya.

Peter Lyoya told FOX 17 in an interview this week that he too would like the justice department to step in and open an investigation into his sons death.

On Monday morning April 4, Patrick Lyoya was fatally shot in the back of the head by a Grand Rapids police officer identified by GRPD as Christopher Schurr during a traffic stop near the intersection of Nelson and Griggs.

Reverend Sharpton said at the podium that there was intent to use a deadly weapon and reiterated his call for a federal investigation.

Western Michigan University Law Prof. Lewis Langham said if that should happen, the DOJ will look to see if Lyoyas constitutional rights were violated, he said.

[Reverend Sharpton] is looking to have the federal government investigate as to whether or not there is some type of constitutional law violation, Langham said, whos professor emeritus at WMU's Cooley Law School. [Theyre] probably looking at Section 242 Title 18, which basically makes it a crime for a police officer or others in their profession similar, when theyre acting under the authority of their job, to deny someone their constitutional right.

Langham spoke with FOX 17 on Monday afternoon via Zoom. He said specifically the justice department would look at the fourth amendment and the overall traffic stop.

The traffic stop, as it relates to the license plate ... that was a legitimate stop, Langham said. But, I think they may be looking at the question as to why. What drew their attention to Patrick Lyoya in the first place, that you even looked at his license plate. So, that could be something that theyre looking at under the fourth amendment.

Langham said that officers cannot stop anyone under false pretenses. He added that the DOJ may look at the fifth amendment and double jeopardy.

If for some reason if the officer is charged, if hes found not guilty, looking down the road, if that were to happen, you can still seek federal charges and that'd be considered double jeopardy under the fifth amendment because the federal government and state government are considered separate sovereigns, he said.

Currently, Michigan State Police is conducting its investigation into the fatal officer-involved shooting. Langham said once they wrap, itll head to Prosecutor Chris Becker, who will then determine if criminal charges should be brought.

However, he said its up to the justice department if they should get involved and when.

For now, the request is an avenue Lyoyas legal team, led by civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Ven Johnson, is seeking in order to bring justice to the family.

Whatever and however the federal government gets involved they will make a decision whether or not they want to, and if they do there may not even be a federal civil rights type violation, Langham said. They could look at it and determine there isnt an issue here.

READ MORE: GRPD explains process behind releasing officer's name in Lyoya shooting

Follow FOX 17: Facebook - Twitter - Instagram - YouTube

Read the original here:
WMU Law professor says if federal probe is opened, the 4th and 5th amendments will be key in Lyoya case - FOX 17 West Michigan News

Caryn Strickland, a former public defender in the Western District of North Carolina, testifies before a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., on March 17, 2022. U.S. House of Representatives/Handout via REUTERS

Register

April 26 - A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that a former federal public defender in North Carolina could sue the judiciary for violating her constitutional rights by being deliberately indifferent to her complaints of sexual harassment.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partly reversed a judge's dismissal of a 2020 lawsuit by Caryn Strickland, who alleged she was sexually harassed by a superior and stonewalled in her efforts to have the judiciary address her complaint.

The Federal Public Defender's Office in the Western District of North Carolina, like others nationally, is part of the judiciary. Because the 4th Circuit itself was a defendant to the lawsuit, three judges from other circuits court heard Strickland's case.

Register

U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Beck Briscoe of the 10th Circuit, writing for the three-judge panel, said the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment "secures a federal judiciary employee's right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace."

The court rejected Strickland's argument that the internal employment dispute resolution process used by the 4th Circuit like other courts to handle misconduct complaints was unconstitutional and violated her due process rights.

But Briscoe said Strickland sufficiently alleged the process was unfair in her case because the top public defender in her office was not disqualified from representing it during the review of Strickland's claims despite being accused of retaliation.

"Todays decision is a major victory," Jeannie Suk Gersen, a professor at Harvard Law School who represents Strickland.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in a statement said the judiciary has made "significant" improvements" to its workplace conduct policies and complaint procedures and "remains committed to promoting an exemplary workplace."

The decision came a month after Strickland testified before Congress in favor of greater legal protections for the judiciary's 30,000 employees, who unlike other workers are not protected against sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

She had alleged she was sexually harassed by a superior who was constantly "shadowing" her and implied she would be promoted if she acquiesced to his sexual advances.

Strickland said she was forced to quit her job and take a judicial clerkship after complaining about sexual harassment through a flawed and biased internal process the judiciary adopted.

Her appeal had garnered the support of other judicial employees and several members of Congress including Representative Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee.

Nadler in a statement called the decision "a major victory for the rule of the law and the rights of all judicial branch employees, but it is not enough," saying Congress must pass legislation to protect judicial employees.

The case is Strickland v. United States, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-1346.

For Strickland: Jeannie Suk Gersen of Harvard Law School

For the Judicial Conference: H. Thomas Byron III of the U.S. Department of Justice

(NOTE: This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Representative Jerrold Nadler's name and to add a comment from the judiciary.)

Read more:

4th Circuit replaces federal public defender amid sexual bias lawsuit

Ex-judiciary employees describe harassment, discrimination to U.S. House panel

4th Circ. leery of challenge to federal courts' sex harassment policies

Federal judiciary defends internal sexual harassment review process

Fed court workers say judiciary mishandles bias, harassment complaints

Register

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Thomson Reuters

Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.

Follow this link:
U.S. judiciary can be sued over handling of sex harassment complaint - court - Reuters

NEW YORK A Manhattan judge held former President Donald Trump in civil contempt Monday, slapping him with daily $10,000 fines for repeated delays and failures to comply with New York Attorney General Letitia James fraud investigation.Mr. Trump, I know you take your business seriously, and I take mine seriously. I hereby hold you in civil contempt and fine you $10,000 a day, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron said, addressing Trump, though the former president was not present for the hearing.The judge ruled the former president flouted a court-ordered March 31 deadline to turn over paperwork. The fines will continue until Engoron decides Trump has fully complied with James demands for documents.The judge concluded the hearing with a theatrical slam of the gavel.The AG says she has evidence Trumps family company engaged in fraudulent and misleading business practices by manipulating the value of its properties for financial gain, whether by inflating values to secure loans and insurance coverage or deflating them to reduce taxes. The investigation is winding down after almost three years.Today, justice prevailed, James said in a statement. For years, Donald Trump has tried to evade the law and stop our lawful investigation into him and his companys financial dealings. Todays ruling makes clear: No one is above the law.Trump lawyer Alina Habba vowed to immediately take steps to get the contempt order revoked.Before Engoron announced his decision, lawyers from James office likened obtaining crucial documents from Trump and the Trump Organization to pulling teeth.We are being deprived of evidence, said Assistant Attorney General Andrew Amer. We are being hampered in our efforts to have a complete understanding because we dont have evidence from the person who sits at the top of (the) organization.Amer said Trump has two personal cellphones. But Trump has not submitted a sworn statement he never uses them to text.The only way to know that is to have the phones imaged and searched, said Amer. We certainly know he tweets.Habba insisted the former president had handed over everything he had.President Trump does not email, he does not text message, and he has no work computer at home or anywhere else, Habba said in Manhattan Supreme Court.The New Jersey-based lawyer said Trump and his eponymous company had provided the AG with over 6 million documents connected to more than 100 Trump Organization entities. Habba said she flew to Mar-a-Lago to personally ask Trump if there was any possibility of evidence that hadnt been turned over.Donald Trump does not believe hes above the law. He sat with me, he went through the documents personally, said Habba. She later clarified that she misspoke and that Trump had authorized her to search for documents.My client is an honest person, much to the dismay of certain people in this room, Habba replied, insisting there was no more evidence to provide.Later Monday, Engoron ordered global real estate firm Cushman & Wakefield to comply by May 27 with the AGs subpoenas for information on its real estate services for the Trump Organization. The firm had previously refused to provide details on its appraisals of Trumps Seven Springs Estate in Westchester County, New York, Trump National Golf Club, Los Angeles, and 40 Wall St., according to the AG.James has alleged Trump habitually lied about the value of his properties. The falsehoods even allegedly extended to Trumps triplex penthouse in Trump Tower. Trump claimed in 2015 that the apartment was 30,000 square feet and worth $327 million, according to court papers. But the AG says that overestimates its value by about $200 million and that its closer to 10,966 feet.James says Trump, his company, and his adult children were closely involved in the valuations her office is investigating. The former president, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are appealing an order that they sit for depositions with the AGs office. Eric Trump sat for questioning under oath in 2020 and invoked his Fifth Amendment right at least 500 times.A criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney, running parallel to James probe, is examining much of the same alleged conduct. It led to an indictment against the Trump Organization and its long-serving chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, on Jun. 30, 2021. Both have denied engaging in a 15-year tax fraud scheme.The two prosecutors in charge of the DAs probe quit in February, with one writing in his resignation letter that he believed Trump was guilty of multiple felonies.DA Alvin Bragg has insisted the probe is ongoing and could still result in charges against Trump.Trump has called both investigations a witch hunt.

Link:
Donald Trump hit with $10000 daily fines, held in contempt in New York probe - Daily O'Collegian