Mediaboss Marketing

Nearly <https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/> every American<https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/> owns a cell phone that can track their every movement and store sensitive information. But this convenience doesnt mean Michiganders give up their expectation of privacy. On Nov. 3, voters have a chance to ensure that our right to privacy in digital matters is respected by law enforcement when they vote on Proposal 2.

This ballot proposal would require law enforcement to acquire a search warrant before accessing a persons electronic data and communications. This may seem like a commonsense protection of privacy. But, currently, law enforcement is able to access Michiganders data essentially at will.

This issue has been a big deal in Michigan for the better part of a decade. In 2011, as a result of suspected criminal activity in Detroit, the <https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-carpenter-supreme-court-decision> FBI acquired<https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-carpenter-supreme-court-decision> several months worth of Timothy Carpenters cellphone location records without a warrant. These records revealed over 13,000 locations Carpenter had visited, yet the FBI didnt even have to ask a judge to get that information.

Fortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union took on Carpenters case, which went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In 2018, the court held that Fourth Amendment protections apply to cellphone location records and that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before accessing this sensitive information.

But heres the problem: The Supreme Courts decision only applied to location data. It didnt apply to the rest of the data that people access every day financial documents, photos, calendar appointments, and more. Law enforcement can still access this information without a warrant. In fact, law enforcement could conceivably access enough information to put together a profile of virtually every citizen in the state. Location data may be protected, but so much other data that paints an even better picture of a person is still open to access and abuse.

One thing is certain: Americans dont like the status quo. Approximately <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/> 88% of Americans<https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/> say it is important that there isnt anyone watching or listening to them without their permission. Unfortunately, the law hasnt caught up.

Other states have taken steps to solve this problem. It started in Missouri in 2014. After the passage of a bill in the state legislature, a remarkable 75%<https://time.com/3087608/missouri-electronic-privacy-amendment/> of voters added much broader data protections to the state constitution through a referendum.

Last year, Utah followed suit. Lawmakers introduced a bill stating that a government entity may not obtain, use, copy, or disclose any third-party data without first obtaining a warrant unless the owner has consented or a judicially recognized exception to a warrant exists. After unanimous support from the Utah Legislature, the bill became law.

Now Michigan has a chance to set the standard. In June 2019, Michigan state Sen. Jim Runestad introduced <http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zoatowoaywtmbnhskxax21bk))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SJR-G> Senate Resolution G<http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zoatowoaywtmbnhskxax21bk))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SJR-G>, which is similar to the protection enacted in Missouri. After a year in the Michigan Legislature, it passed and has become <https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Search_Warrant_for_Electronic_Data_Amendment_(2020)> Michigan Proposal 2: Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment<https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Search_Warrant_for_Electronic_Data_Amendment_(2020)>.

Justice Samuel Alito once wrote, It would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth Amendment. Legislatures, elected by the people, are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to the changes that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will take place in the future.

Rather than punt this issue to the slow-moving courts, its imperative that state legislatures continue discussing, as well as passing these updated protections for the electronic communications and data of various individuals.

Jarrett Skorup is director of marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market research and educational institute in Midland, MI. Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute, a free-market think tank in Utah.

Continued here:
Column: Michigan can bring privacy into the 21st century - The Oakland Press

For all the scrutiny of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her writings on abortion rights, gun rights, and Obamacare, little attention has been paid to her rulings on the rights of criminal defendants and prisoners. She has issued opinions in 34 such cases and signed on to other opinions in her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, a relatively thin record, yet one demonstrating a willingness to rule both for and against police, prosecutors, and trial judges.

At times she conveys compassion for the convicted and robust regard for the Fourth Amendments restrictions on police searches. She is occasionally willing to strip officers of their qualified immunity from lawsuits. But she can also adopt extremely narrow interpretations language in the Constitution, statutes, and court precedents to uphold questionable convictions and heavy sentences.

In the area of criminal justice and related civil suits, she has issued only five dissents. Four of them were to the detriment of inmates and defendants, and one argued that a non-violent felon should be allowed to own firearms, which current federal law prohibits. In another dissent, in Sims v. Hyatte, she opposed the exoneration of a man whose attempted murder conviction relied entirely on his identification by the victim, who turned out to have been hypnotized before his trial testimonya fact not disclosed to the defense. Two of the three judges overturned the conviction, and the man was released after 26 years in jail.

Otherwise, she has written for unanimous three-judge panels, putting her in the mainstream of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit. Most of her opinions in criminal cases have been slam dunks, not even close calls given the facts and precedents. Some appeals that reached the 7th Circuit seemed like stretches by defense attorneys; others exposed such egregious behavior by authorities that a contrary ruling would have shocked the conscience.

She has ruled several times against qualified immunity, which precludes civil lawsuits against police officers and other government employees unless their actions would be clearly understood by a reasonable official to violate established constitutional or legal norms. The doctrine, which was invented by the Supreme Court, has created a Catch-22: If the use of force, even deadly force in certain situations, has not been deemed a violation in the past, then it cannot be argued that a reasonable officer would regard it as such now. Hence, police officers as individuals can rarely be sued successfully, even as large judgements and settlements have led to payouts by local governments to victims families in New York City, Chicago, and elsewhere.

Barrett has not addressed the concept itself but has applied it for and against officers depending on the cases specific issues. On the one hand, she dissented from a majority opinion in McCottrell v. White, allowing two inmates to sue guards who wounded them by firing shotguns inside a prison cafeteria. On the other hand, in Rainsberger v. Benner, she cast aside qualified immunity, for an Indianapolis homicide detective who lied in an affidavit to get an arrest warrant; the charges were dropped, and the defendant sued. She also joined opinions rejecting immunity for a prison guard in Wisconsin (Howard v. Koeller)who retaliated against a jailhouse lawyer by falsely labeling him a snitch and guards in an Illinois jail (Broadfield v. McGrath) who were sued for using excessive force against a suicidal prisoner. She ordered a new trial in another prisoners unsuccessful lawsuit (Walker v. Price) against guards he claimed had beaten him because the court had denied his repeated requests to help him find a lawyer. She wrote sympathetically of the inmates unsuccessful struggle to represent himself before the jury by video link, given his IQ of 76 and a grade-school level of comprehension.

She has both upheld and overturned tough sentences, usually with close readings of the law and the federal sentencing guidelines. But she also used fussy grammatical nitpicking about the present-perfect tense to dissent from United States v. Uriarte, a 12-3 opinion of the entire 7th Circuit. The case applied the First Step Act, a new reduced-sentencing law, to a convict awaiting a revised sentence after his first was overturned.

In light of calls by Democrats to recuse herself from any election case that might reach the Supreme Court, its worth noting that Barrett ordered a reduced sentence because Judge Colin S. Bruce, a former federal prosecutor, had failed to recuse himself after having chummy, private conversations about other cases with prosecutors from his old office. (United States v. Atwood)

She also rejected a prison sentence that was lengthened based on an unproven assumptionthat a man convicted of stealing guns had sold them to people he supposedly knew were prohibited from having firearms. Nothing in the record suggests that he knew the buyers legal status, she wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. The court plainly crossed the line that separates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible speculation. (United States v. Moody)

A man with both drugs and guns in his house was unduly given an enhanced sentence, she found in United States v. Briggs, for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, as the federal sentencing guidelines provide. But because the district court made essentially no factual findings connecting the guns and the drug possession, she wrote for a unanimous court, the case was sent back down for resentencing.

Barretts several opinions and comments on the constitutional right to be secure against government searches offer the possibility that she might be willing to rescue the Fourth Amendment from near oblivion. Largely because of the war on drugs, the proliferation of warrantless searches of vehicles and frisks of pedestrians led Federal District Judge Paul L. Friedman to tell me a decade ago: I dont think that theres much left of the Fourth Amendment in criminal law. Since 9/11, digital surveillance rationalized by anti-terrorism policies has swept the country as well.

The amendment requires a warrant from a judge, backed by probable cause that evidence of a specific crime will be found in a particular place. But the courts have devised so many exceptions in allowing warrantless searches in so many situations that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, in the amendments words, has been severely undermined.

At her confirmation hearing, Barrett gave this significant response to Republican Senator Ben Sasses question about how the Fourth Amendment would deal with cell phones and other technology that didnt exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791:

No, the Fourth Amendment, so the Constitution, one reason why its the longest-lasting written constitution in the world is because its written at a level of generality thats specific enough to protect rights, but general enough to be lasting so that when youre talking about the constable banging at your door in 1791 as a search or seizure, now we can apply it, as the Court did in Carpenter versus the United States, to cell phones [requiring a warrant to get phone location records]. So, the Fourth Amendment is a principle. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it doesnt catalog the instances in which an unreasonable search or seizure could take place. So, you take that principle, and then you apply it to modern technology like cell phones. Or what if technological advances enable someone with Superman x-ray vision to simply see in your house, so theres no need to knock on the door and go in? Well, I think that could still be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment.

Although Barrett calls herself an originalist akin to her mentor, the late Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked, her answer did not sound very different from what a liberal judge supporting a living constitution would offer. The proof always lies in how the principle is applied to the specifics of a case. But her respect for the Constitutions level of generality, enough to be lasting, suggests that she might not join the most conservative justices who dissented in Carpenter.

Writing for unanimous panels, she overturned two convictions that relied on unconstitutionally seized evidence. In one, United States v. Terry, she ruled that a woman in a bathrobe who answered the door to federal agents did not have authority to consent to a search of a male suspects apartment. The agents had arrested the man, did not have a warrant, and did not ask the woman who she was until well into the search. (She was the mother of his son but did not live there.) They found four cell phones and a drug-dealing ledger. Barrett wrote, A bathrobe alone does not clothe someone with apparent authority over a residence, even at 10:00 in the morning.

In another, United States v. Watson, she threw out a judgment based on a guilty plea because the police, acting on a 911 call from a 14-year-old boy on a borrowed phone, lacked reasonable suspicion to block a car matching his description of boys playing with guns. A passenger with a felony conviction was found to have a gun. Barrett called the 911 call not sufficiently reliable and concluded that his sighting of guns did not describe a likely emergency or crimehe reported gun possession, which is lawful.

Barrett has such a well-schooled intellect that all her opinions are intricately woven out of existing case law and statutory text, soin the criminal justice arena, at leastshe has not departed wildly from the web of precedent that confines her. She said more than once at her hearing that a judge is obliged to rule where the law takes her, which may violate her personal views. But once shes on the Supreme Court and freer to chart her course, then what?

View original post here:
The Criminal Justice of Amy Coney Barrett - Washington Monthly

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed IMPD from the lawsuit, citing that city agencies are protected from certain laws

INDIANAPOLIS A judge has dismissed IMPD from a wrongful death lawsuit in the shooting death of Dreasjon Reed.

The lawsuit alleges four IMPD officers, the city of Indianapolis and IMPD used "excessive force" in violating Reed's Fourth Amendment rights.

The four officers listed are IMPD Chief Randal Taylor, IMPD Deputy Chief Kendale Adams, IMPD Officer De'Joure Marquise Mercer, and IMPD Officer Steven Scott.

IMPD claims Reed was running from police, shot at an officer, and the officer returned fire, killing Reed. The incident was caught on a live video on Facebook that Reed was filming at the time.

Reed's mother, Demetree Wynn, filed the federal lawsuit in June.

On Tuesday, Oct. 27, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed IMPD from the lawsuit, citing that city agencies are protected from certain laws.

"Defendants argue that the IMPD is not a suable entity, and therefore all claims against it must be dismissed. [Filing No. 16 at 3.] Specifically, Defendants assert that although municipal corporations have the capacity to sue and be sued under Indiana law, their individual departments and agencies do not, and courts have consistently recognized that the IMPD is not suable except in the context of lawsuits for access to public records, which is not the case here."

Here are the claims that have been dismissed from the lawsuit:

Following the court's decision, here is what remains in the wrongful death lawsuit:

Continued here:
IMPD dismissed from Dreasjon Reed lawsuit - WTHR

In this Novembers general election, voters will get to decide the fate of six statewide amendments to the Constitution of Alabama.

Yellowhammer News has prepared a guide to each statewide amendment and its impact on Alabama if enacted.

The six amendments mentioned will be on every ballot handed to an Alabamian on Election Day. Other local amendments may appear on the ballot in certain counties.

How the first amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to amend Article VIII of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 177 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, to provide that only a citizen of the United States has the right to vote.

More directly, the Alabama constitution would be changed to say only a citizen of the United States who meets certain qualifications has the right to vote

It currently says every citizen of the United States who meets certain qualifications has the right to vote.

The change that would occur if Amendment 1 passes is primarily technical; legal scholars agree current Alabama law permits only citizens to vote. Proponents of the amendment say the change is a needed clarification.

Alabama Senate Pro Tem. Del Marsh (R-Anniston) sponsored Amendment 1, and it passed the upper chamber unanimously. Marsh told Yellowhammer News at the time that his goal was to affirm that only citizens can vote in Alabamas elections.

How the second amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to increase the membership of the Judicial Inquiry Commission and further provide for the appointment of the additional members; further provide for the membership of the Court of the Judiciary and further provide for the appointment of the additional members; further provide for the process of disqualifying an active judge; repeal provisions providing for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices and appellate judges and the removal for cause of the judges of the district and circuit courts, judges of the probate courts, and judges of certain other courts by the Supreme Court; delete the authority of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appoint an Administrative Director Courts; provide the Supreme Court of Alabama with authority to appoint an Administrative Director of Courts; require the Legislature to establish procedures for the appointment of the Administrative Director of Courts; delete the requirement that a district court hold court in each incorporated municipality with a population of 1,000 or more where there is no municipal court; provide that the procedure for the filling of vacancies in the office of a judge may be changed by local constitutional amendment; delete certain language relating to the position of constable holding more than one state office; delete a provision providing for the temporary maintenance of the prior judicial system; repeal the office of circuit solicitor; and make certain nonsubstantive stylistic changes.

The Fair Ballot Commission summarized in plain language the six primary changes that would be made by Amendment 2:

1. It provides that county district courts do not have to hold city court in a city with a population of less than 1,000.

2. It allows the Alabama Supreme Court, rather than the chief justice, to appoint the administrative director of courts.

3. It increases from nine to 11 the total membership of the Judicial Inquiry Commission and determines who appoints each member (the Judicial Inquiry Commission evaluates ethics complaints filed against judges).

4. It allows the governor, rather than the lieutenant governor, to appoint a member of the Court of the Judiciary (the Court of the Judiciary hears complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission).

5. It prevents a judge from being automatically disqualified from holding office simply because a complaint was filed with the Judiciary Inquiry Commission.

6. It provides that a judge can be removed from office only by the Court of the Judiciary.

Amendment 2 also changes the statutes governing Alabamas constables; these changes are opposed by the Alabama Constables Association.

The amendment was sponsored by State Senators Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) and Cam Ward (R-Alabaster).

Amendment 2 is the result of work done by a task force comprised of legislators and members of the judicial branch of government.

Advocates for the amendment say it simplifies several administrative procedures that govern Alabamas judicial system, which they argue is needed since many of the current procedures were written several decades ago and are no longer relevant.

Opponents of the measure argue that removing municipal courts from small towns with less than 1,000 residents will inconvenience the people who live there.

They also say that removing the legislatures ability to impeach judges the amendment makes the Judicial Inquiry Commission the only institution that can do so takes away the ability of the peoples representatives to get rid of bad judges.

More information on what the Judicial Inquiry Commission is and what it does can be found here.

How the third amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that a judge, other than a judge of probate, appointed to fill a vacancy would serve an initial term until the first Monday after the second Tuesday in January following the next general election after the judge has completed two years in office.

Most simply, the amendment would extend the time that judges who are appointed to fill an empty seat may serve.

If Amendment 3 is approved, appointed judges would run for reelection in the first general election after they have served two years in their appointed job.

Currently, appointed judges run in the first general election to occur after they have served for one year.

Tom Spencer of the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama (PARCA)authored a report on the proposed amendments.

He noted with regards to Amendment 3, This change might make it more attractive for nominees to accept a judicial appointment. At the same time, this change gives the appointee longer to build up the advantage of incumbency before running for a full term.

Judgeships come open when a sitting judge dies, resigns, retires or is removed. The amendment would not apply to probate judges.

Amendment 3 was sponsored by State Representative David Faulkner (R-Mountain Brook) and co-sponsored by State Representative Matt Fridy (R-Montevallo).

How the fourth amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to authorize the Legislature to recompile the Alabama Constitution and submit it during the 2022 Regular Session, and provide a process for its ratification by the voters of this state.

If Amendment 4 is passed, state legislators would have permission to rearrange the state constitution to do four things, per the Fair Ballot Commission:

1. Remove racist language.2. Remove language that is repeated or no longer applies.3. Combine language related to economic development.4. Combine language that relates to the same county.

Only changes in those four categories could be made.

The proposed changes would be submitted during the 2022 legislative session for approval by both chambers of the legislature.

If the updated constitution is approved by the legislature, it would then be voted on by the people of Alabama in the 2022 general election.

Only if the legislature and the people of Alabama give the updated constitution their approval in 2022 would the changes become permanent. Amendment 4 could be thought of as permission for lawmakers and legislative staff to get started on the process.

As such, Amendment 4 will not affect how the state is governed; it only permits cosmetic changes and even those have to be approved by the public in two years.

Proponents say removing racist and redundant language is a worthy change to the states primary governing document.

Amendment 4 comes from a bipartisan place; it was sponsored by State Representative Merika Coleman (D-Birmingham) and co-sponsored by State House Speaker Mac McCutcheon (R-Monrovia), among others.

How the fifth and sixth amendments will appear on the ballot:

Relating to Franklin County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that a person is not liable for using deadly physical force in self-defense or in the defense of another person on the premises of a church under certain conditions.

Statewide Amendment 6 reads in full:

Relating to Lauderdale County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that a person is not liable for using deadly physical force in self-defense or in the defense of another person on the premises of a church under certain conditions.

Both amendments would create special stand your ground laws for the churches in their respective counties.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall already interprets Alabamas statewide stand your ground law as applicable to churches.

Local legislators in both Franklin and Lauderdale counties believe an additional measure stating the stand your ground law applies to churches in their counties is needed as a form of clarification.

The passage of Amendment 5 and Amendment 6 requires a majority of Alabama voters and a majority of the voters in the relevant counties.

The Fair Ballot Commissions breakdown, in plain language, of all six amendments is available here, and the full analysis from PARCA is available here.

The Fair Ballot Commission is an independent state entity that receives technical assistance from several agencies, but primarily the secretary of states office.

Sample ballots for each of Alabamas 67 counties can be found here.

Yellowhammer received guidance from Jason Isbell, a lawyer in Montgomery and a member of the Fair Ballot Commission, in putting this guide together.

Henry Thornton is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can contact him by email: henry@yellowhammernews.comor on Twitter@HenryThornton95

Read more:
A guide to the statewide constitutional amendments on the ballot in November 2020 - Yellowhammer News

Posted on October 30, 2020, at 2:50 p.m. ET

A screenshot from a Chicago Police Department training video.

Regardless of the results of the 2020 election, its possible that the United States will see civil unrest in its aftermath. Some activists fear that police will use the same violent tactics that were used to respond to the Black Lives Matter protests that followed the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd earlier this year.

To find out how police are preparing to respond to postelection protests, BuzzFeed News filed public records requests with six major departments.

So far, only one has responded.

BuzzFeed News received over 100 pages of documents from the Chicago Police Department, as well as a video, showing how police in the most populous city in the Midwest are preparing for unrest on election night. In many ways, Chicago stands in for any large American city since the materials use official protest guidance from the Department of Homeland Security and the US Army that arent particular to Chicago.

A Chicago police spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that every sworn officer will be on duty on Nov. 3 into the morning of Nov. 4.

In a press conference on Oct. 15, Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown said officers have done several workshops preparing for Election Day. Its unclear if these workshops incorporated the material obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The presence of organization within a team can intimidate the opposition.

We're trying as best we can to anticipate any hazard that might happen including a weather hazard, snow might happen in our city, along with anything related to protests [or] embedded agitators that may loot, cause violence, or destroy property, Brown said.

One 64-page document, titled "Crowd Control and Behavior," contains the outline for an eight-hour course in which officers were taught how to control protests and arrest demonstrators.

The presence of organization within a team can intimidate the opposition, it says. Using team tactics has a military type advantage over larger organized groups.

In addition to the documents, Chicago police released a training video that instructs officers how to push and thrust batons at protesters.

One section of the "Crowd Control and Behavior" document outlines strategies for a Mobile Field Force unit, a group of police officers who carry weapons (like batons and pepper spray) and use platoon-style tactics to address civil disorder.

A military bearing demonstrates to the protesters that the MFF is a well-disciplined and highly trained group, the document says.

The document does note that police must be aware of peoples First and Fourth Amendment rights while they protest. But if the public peace is disturbed, police have the legal right to make arrests. The "Crowd Control and Behavior" document notes that mob action is defined under Illinois law as disturbing the public peace or damaging property while in a group.

Military-style tactics are not unusual within US police departments, and the document covers several different formations that police may use to control crowds. The documents refer to a group of police officers as a platoon, which is led by a sergeant or captain. The formations include column, skirmish, wedge, and encirclement.

The "Crowd Control and Behavior" document also defines several types of demonstrator groups and identifies many by name. It labels ACC, Globalize This, South Dakota Radicals, Food Not Bombs, Black Cat Collective, Black Cross, North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists, and Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) as anarchist groups. It defines anarchists as those who believe private property is theft, state property is an object for the protection of corporate interest, and that both must be destroyed for the creation of a society based on mutual aid and individual liberty.

The "Crowd Control and Behavior" document says that these protesters try to manipulate the media and provoke police by prominently positioning children and older people to gain sympathy and negative portrayals of police dispersal and arrest actions. It also claims that protesters accuse the police of misconduct to avoid arrest and gain the sympathy of the media and bystanders.

The document advises that some violent demonstrators may use wrist rockets, catapults, incendiary devices, impact weapons, mirrors, hazardous substances, battering devices, fireworks and rockets, weapons of mass destruction, suspicious packages, golf balls, bottles, cans of soup, and pieces of concrete as weapons during protests.

Its common to see legal observers, such as lawyers or law students, at a protest. But the document says that legal teams may try to intimidate police by telling them that their tactics are illegal.

The document notes that its legal to use pepper spray on protesters who are passively resisting police officers, even if they arent doing anything violent.

Read this article:
This Is How Chicago Police Are Getting Ready For Election Night Protests - BuzzFeed News