Mediaboss Marketing

When he went for a ride, his wife hid the gun between the mattress and box spring, packed a bag, and stayed at a hotel for the night. She called the Cranston police the next day, saying she was worried about her husband. The police accompanied her back to the house, and the ranking officer concluded that her husband posed a danger to himself or others.

An ambulance took Edward Caniglia to Kent Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation, and officers seized two of his handguns while he was gone. Caniglia said he agreed to go to the hospital because the officers promised not to take his guns. Officers acknowledged no such agreement. He was not admitted to the hospital, nor charged with a crime. Though the police eventually returned the guns, Caniglia sued, claiming the police had violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Chief US District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr. rejected the claim of a Fourth Amendment violation, citing the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. He said the gun seizure was reasonable considering the officers legitimate safety concern for Caniglia and his wife.

Caniglia appealed, and three judges from the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case, including former US Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter and Senior US Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bruce M. Selya, a Rhode Islander who wrote a decision upholding the lower court.

There are widely varied circumstances, ranging from helping little children to cross busy streets to navigating the sometimes stormy seas of neighborhood disturbances, in which police officers demonstrate, over and over again, the importance of the roles that they play in preserving and protecting communities, Selya wrote in March 2020.

He noted that in the 1973 case of Cady v. Dombrowski, the US Supreme Court ruled that in some circumstances, police may search a motor vehicle without first getting a warrant if they are engaged in a community caretaking function rather than investigating a crime.

The 1st Circuit ruling extended that exception to peoples homes.

The community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention, Selya wrote. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways.

By extending the exception to homes, the 1st Circuit differed from other federal courts, leading to Wednesdays Supreme Court hearing.

The ruling butts up against the legal maxim that a mans house is his castle, and it has drawn objections from groups ranging from the American Conservative Union Foundation to the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island.

The home is considered to be the place where privacy rights and the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment are at their peak, Rhode Island ACLU executive director Steven Brown said Tuesday.

The police already have the ability to go into homes without warrant when there are exigent circumstances, meaning true emergencies, Brown said. But to come up with another excuse in the absence of an emergency to allow police to waltz into your home should be of concern to anyone who values privacy, he said.

In a legal brief, the ACLU said that extending the community caretaking exception to warrantless searches of homes would let the police bypass Fourth Amendment protections in a startling array of circumstances.

These are not theoretical concerns, the ACLU wrote. In both state and federal courts, everything from loud music to leaky pipes have been used to justify warrantless invasion of the home.

The Second Amendment Foundation filed a legal brief, saying the term community caretaking might sound therapeutic and roll off the tongue in a paternalistic patter that makes one think of good neighbors and sanctuary from harsh realities.

But as a constitutional doctrine, it means law enforcement officers, with no oversight from the legislature or judiciary, are empowered, on their own initiative, to deprive a law-abiding citizen of the means of exercising the Second Amendment in their home, the group said.

Make no mistake, the community caretaking exception is a Trojan horse abrogation of the Fourth Amendment, designed to undermine the Second Amendment at the retail level of governance, the foundation wrote.

But the US Department of Justice filed a legal brief defending the actions of the Cranston police, saying the officers confronted a specific, credible, and reasonably impending threat of suicide or domestic violence.

Faced with an unenviable choice about how or whether to intervene, the officers reasonably decided not to leave petitioner agitated, ostensibly suicidal, and with two handguns at his fingertips, the federal lawyers wrote.

Marc DeSisto, a lawyer for the Cranston officials who were sued, said ruling acknowledges two competing interests: the need for the caretaking activity and the affected individuals interest in freedom from government intrusions. But courts have long recognized the difficult position police officers face when responding to calls for help, rather than reports of crime, he said. Especially when self-harm is threatened, decisions must be made with an eye towards deescalating and calming the situation.

Society demands and deserves that first responders, including police, protect and serve their communities, DeSisto wrote. Whether it is preventing suicide, protecting domestic partners, responding to natural disasters, or helping children and the elderly, such functions can be and have been performed for over two centuries consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Sidney Wordell, executive director of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association, noted that in 2018 Rhode Island enacted red flag law that allows courts to disarm individuals who are believed by law enforcement to represent a violent threat to themselves or others.

DeSistos legal brief noted that the red flag law took effect three years after the incident involving Caniglia, so it wouldnt apply in this case. But Wordell said the law now provides a means of removing weapons from volatile domestic situations, and it provides a process for returning guns after a cooling down period.

Law enforcement doesnt have the luxury of determining what didnt happen, Wordell said. But we do know data around use of weapons in domestic violence situations is that someone who threatens violence or is prone to violence is probably going to carry that out.

While the high court arguments will focus on the concept that a mans house is his castle, Wordell said, That is a shared home she lives there, too.

Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at edward.fitzpatrick@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @FitzProv.

Here is the original post:
US Supreme Court to hear R.I. case involving warrantless seizure of guns - The Boston Globe

This is especially concerning because within the executive branch, OLC opinions are considered binding unless the president or attorney general overrules them. That gives OLC tremendous influence in setting the parameters of how the government acts. In fact, officials who act in accordance with an OLC opinion typically have immunity from punishment if their actions are later determined to be illegal.

Even worse, much of OLCs work goes on in secret. The office takes the position that its opinions are exempt from open records laws, and while it does proactively publish a certain number of them, there is often a substantial delay before the public sees OLCs justifications for government actions.

The offices tendency to expand presidential power has led to executive actions that have directly harmed people, undermined rights, and stifled Congresss efforts to oversee the executive branch.

The offices failings are best illustrated by its most notorious opinions. It advised the CIA that torture was permissible, despite federal and international law that explicitly prohibited it. The office approved warrantless surveillance of Americans communications despite the clear requirements of the Fourth Amendment. More recently, it signed off on a drone strike against a U.S. citizen abroad, despite serious constitutional concerns stemming from due process rights.

An exhaustive list of harmful OLC opinions would be far too long to print, but an additional smattering illustrates the massive scope of the offices damage. It has approved military action without congressional approval; barred the Food and Drug Administration from regulating the drugs used for lethal injections; blocked an inspector general from reporting to Congress the misconduct that led to former President Donald Trumps first impeachment; effectively nullified the laws governing succession of leadership at federal agencies; and in a line of opinionsdating back to the 1980s, blocked Congressfrom carrying out its constitutionally mandated oversight function at nearly every turn.

What measures are necessary to ensure the office consistently respects the rule of law? A good place to start is the recommendations in our recently published policy agenda for Congress and the new administration. There, we set out four categories of commonsense reforms to bring the office in line: increased transparency, a review of past opinions, process improvements within OLC, and congressional pushback.

First, Congress should require OLC to release all of its non-classified opinions. Increasing transparency at OLC has long been a Project On Government Oversight (POGO) priority, and has enjoyed support from both sides of the aisle in Congress in the past. If the public and Congress dont know how the executive branch is interpreting the law, they cannot hold it accountable or fix laws that are too vague. OLC, for its part, has said that such a requirement would be unconstitutional, but Congress, and if necessary the courts, have a say in that as well.

Visit link:
Rubber Stamp or Rule of Law? - Project On Government Oversight

The Supreme Court of the United States issued an order list on Monday morning which contained an increasingly common occurrence: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch banding together in order to opine on what they view as the need for criminal justice reform.

The underlying case concerns Martin Longoria, who, in 2018, was indicted for the crime of being a felon in possession of several firearms, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Longoria challenged the government on Fourth Amendment grounds by noting that the FBI had searched his apartment without a warrant. The defense moved for suppression as a remedy for the alleged constitutional violation but the district court denied the motion because it found that Longorias wife had consented to the search.

Instead of pleading guilty, the defense and the prosecution agreed on a stipulated bench trial. Which, in effect, can often be considered tantamount to a guilty plea. The constitutional right to a jury is waived and, instead of outright pleading guilty, the government and a criminal defendant agree on the facts underlying the case which allows a judge plenary power to determine guilt or innocence.

In Longorias case, the decision to sign off on a stipulated bench trial was made in order to retain his Fourth Amendment-based suppression challenge regarding the FBIs warrantless search.

Longoria was found guilty and, despite the suppression issue, his case now concerns sentencing under the federal guidelines.

The prosecutions pre-sentencing report argued for a base level of 20, which is in the lower level of the highest zone considered by judges when sentencing federal criminal defendants. Additionally, the prosecution argued for various enhancements which, in sum, would have resulted in a lengthy prison sentence of between five and six-and-a-half years in prison. The judge gave Longoria the full sentence available under the guidelines. Longoria appealed.

The discrete legal issue before the nations high court is the proper interpretation of 3E1.1(b) of the guidelines, which is commonly known as the Acceptance of Responsibility section.

This administrative regulation provides that a defendant is eligible to receive an additional point off of their base sentencing level if their offense level is at least 16 and they timely notify the government that they intend to plead guilty (or the effective equivalent) thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently.

The government declined to entertain Longorias request for the one-point reductionwhich can be equivalent to several years in prison depending on the casebecause they had to prepare for his suppression hearing. In the prosecutions argument, preparing for that full-blown suppression hearing was the equivalent of preparing for an actual trial, even though the hearing only lasted one day, and therefore the governments resources were not spent effectively. The government did not argue that Longorias bench stipulation trial should not be considered equivalent to a guilty plea.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the government. The panel of bipartisan judges (appointed by former presidentsGeorge W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump) based their reasoning on a former case which held that a suppression hearing [could be] in effect the substantive equivalent of a full trial.

Longoria appealed to the Supreme Court, pointing at a 2013 amendment to the guidelines which says that [t]he government should not withhold [an acceptance of responsibility] motion based on interests not identified in 3E1.1, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive his or her right to appeal.

Notably, Longoria also cited this amendment in his original appealbut the Fifth Circuit chose to ignore the plain language of the text because the amendment does not clearly overrule the conditional precedent cited to deny leniency for criminal defendants in the notoriously conservative circuit.

The justices denied to hear Longorias case as welleffectively agreeing with the Fifth Circuit and leaving the sentence intact. Sotomayor and Gorsuch issued a statement that is not a dissent, but rather a commentary expressing the idea that the Supreme Court should weigh in on the subject for the sake of uniformity at least.

The two reform-minded justices also credited Longorias argument:

This petition implicates an important and longstanding split among the Courts of Appeals over the proper interpretation of 3E1.1(b). Most Circuits have determined that a suppression hearing is not a valid basis for denying the reduction, reasoning that preparation for a motion to suppress is not the same as preparation for a trial, even if there is substantial overlap between the issues that will be raised. A minority of Circuits have concluded otherwise. In this case, for example, the Fifth Circuit accepted the Governments refusal.

So, why not a full dissent?

Because they want the U.S. Sentencing Commission to have an actual chance at clearly overruling the Fifth Circuit first.

The Sentencing Commission should have the opportunity to address this issue in the first instance, once it regains a quorum of voting members, Sotomayor wrote. The present disagreement among the Courts of Appeals means that similarly situated defendants may receive substantially different sentences depending on the jurisdiction in which they are sentenced. When the Commission is able, it should take steps to ensure that 3E1.1(b) is applied fairly and uniformly.

A footnote explains the crux of the matter here: Currently, six of the seven voting members seats are vacant. The votes of at least four members are required for the Commission to promulgate amendments to the Guidelines.

[image via screengrab/CBS]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

See the original post:
Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch Team Up to Argue for Criminal Justice Reform - Law & Crime

Brackney said Woods re-engagement of Gilmore after apparently turning to leave, and not explaining to Gilmore why he wanted to see a license, made the incident that followed a violation of department policies.

Wood immediately re-engaged. Wood failed to articulate or justify his reason to reengage and reacted solely upon being challenged, Brackney said.

Gilmore, through his attorney Jeff Fogel, filed complaints with police accusing Wood of bias-based policing and violations of the Fourth Amendment for detaining, handcuffing and searching him and using excessive force.

Police ruled the bias charge unfounded because there were no racial slurs used or race-based reason for Wood to talk with Gilmore

Brackney said the internal affairs investigation found that Woods force in the takedown was not excessive because his seeking a drivers license for someone who he had seen driving was legitimate.

Wood articulated in his reports, although he did not articulate it to Mr. Gilmore, that he observed Mr. Gilmore driving, Brackney said. A license is required to drive a vehicle.

In a Feb. 23 letter to police, Fogel disagreed.

Race need not be the sole basis for detention or interdiction to violate the Fourteenth Amendments equal protection clause, he wrote. One would need to look at Officer Woods history with the department and any other evidence that may touch on his treatment of Black people. You did no investigation of this question and offer no reason why Officer Wood acted the way he did.

Here is the original post:
Officers who police say violated rights and policies are off the force - The Daily Progress

Reader submissions, Special to The Desert Sun Published 10:53 a.m. PT March 21, 2021

A screenshot shows an animal rights activist attempting to stop a member of the S at Rancho Mirage from shooting birds on March 4.(Photo: video courtesy of Bettina Rosmarino)

Re: "Rancho Mirage bird shoot canceled," Page A1, March 20.

How could anyone with a soul and a heart kill an innocent bird or any animal? These barbarians forget that they are Gods creatures and they will not be forgiven when they die and try to get into heaven.

Killing innocents who have done nothing wrong to be shot out of the sky to suffer a very cruel death? It is likely they will be going where it is very hot for eternity.

Much gratitude goes out to the animal activists who tried to stop them.

Lisa Robertt, Indio

Re: Letters, March 9.

Seriously? Mr. Berger really thinks that throngs will visit the art museum because of the road closure and "Forever Marilyn"?

As a museum member of many years, I agree that throngs of hundreds did visit the museum after or before viewing Marilyn when she was placed downtown in the past. Unfortunately, that only happened on Thursday nights when the museum was free.

The rest of the time, meh, not so much.

Reinstall "Forever Marilyn" where it isnt a travesty in front of the museum and keep Museum Way open as a needed traffic diversion from Palm Canyon. Win-win.

Barb Kaplan, Palm Springs

Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo revealed himself to be the worst of all possible combinations, that of ignorance and arrogance, causing the deaths of thousands in New York, we are now seeing the same ignorance and arrogance repeated by the Biden administration.

Our southern border is being invaded by South America. And while the Biden administration saysCOVID-19 testing is being done, nothing is being said about those who are crossing the border undetected. Those people are making their way into the population, spreading out and spreading whatever infectious diseases they may have.

According to the Border Patrol, theres more to worry about than COVID-19. I have the distinct impression that many who voted for Biden are about to experiencebuyers remorse, on a scale no language can describe.

Charles Gabriele,Bermuda Dunes

The first year I voted in a presidential election was 1956. I voted for Eisenhower. The Republican Party platform for that election included federal assistance to low-income communities, protection of Social Security, asylum for refugees, extension of the minimum wage, increased coverage for unemployment benefits, strengthening of labor laws so that workers could easily join unions, and assuring equal pay for equal work.

Today, this would be labeled a radical leftist socialist agenda."Liberal" and "progressive" have become nasty words.The party that once stood for the abolition of slavery, voting rightsfor women and fiscal responsibility has become the party of white supremacy, voter suppression and huge tax cuts for the persons who need them the least.

Both parties have moved to the right of Eisenhower.

Dwight Fine, Palm Springs

Recently, everything gets politicized or someone's feelings come into play. Should we wear a mask? Is it ok to take the vaccine?Was the election a fraud?

Why not let the scientists and doctors decide the medical issues?If the doctor says to wear a mask, then you must wear a mask. Why would a politician know more than a doctor or a biologist? Read Dr. Mona inthis paper and you are covered. Why turn the election into a political item?What is the evidence and what does it point to?Who cares whether you are a Republican or a Democrat?Let's look at the facts and get to the truth.

So, look only at nonpartisan news, and assess the facts with your brain, and do your own thinking.There are a lot of angry people around whose brain capacity is obliterated by emotions, opinionsor political leaning.Learn to listen to the other side they can't always be wrong, because if they are, there is something wrong with your line of reasoning.

Opinions, feelings, and politics don't count. Your brain does, and if you use it wisely, a lot of discord can be eliminated, and we can move forward. This is how we heal our country, no matter what anyone says.

Alan Goldstein, Rancho Mirage

The recent opinion piece (Bob Henry, Valley Voice, March 1) on repealing the second amendment was very disturbing. Removing guns from law-abiding citizens and giving government control over guns reeks of pure socialism and the unlimited control of individual rights.

The authors of the Constitution personally all suffered the injustices of tyranny and the denial of individual rights. The Bill of Rights was written to ensure the freedoms they were denied could be restored for the new nation. The authors were acutely aware of the evils of total government control and without protections written in law that our freedoms could be again taken away.

Repealing the Second Amendment would turn many Americans into criminals. The next step would be to remove the guns from owners.That would require search and seizure so repealing the Fourth Amendment's rights would be necessary.Where would it end?

The author of the opinion piece, a retired public school educator, contends no one needs guns for their protection as we have police for that. Unfortunately, the police are being defunded by liberal progressives who believe we don't need them. It is unfortunate for the youth of America that public education and higher learning schools offer too much political and social bias from "educators."

James Dravage, Indio

Read or Share this story: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2021/03/21/letters-kudos-those-who-stopped-bird-shoot-and-marilyn-wont-help-museum/4775007001/

View original post here:
Letters: Kudos to those who stopped the bird shoot. And Marilyn won't help the museum. - Desert Sun