Mediaboss Marketing

ANDERSON A man suspected of trying to sell look-alike substances at Hoosier Park Racing & Casino has had his drug-related conviction reversed, based on a claim of violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

In the 2015 case, Michael D. Johnson was patted down by a gaming enforcement agent at Hoosier Park in Anderson, according to The Indiana Lawyer.

A small amount of white powder was found on Johnson, but subsequent testing revealed the white powder was not a drug. It contained a chemical possibly deriving from baking soda.

Johnson was arrested and later charged with dealing in a look-alike substance. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the pat-down search, but the Madison County Circuit Court denied the motion. Johnson then objected at trial to the admission of the evidence found in his pocket, but the trial court determined the officer had completed a search incident to arrest when he removed the item from Johnsons pocket.

The Indiana Lawyer reported that the search stemmed from a man telling a security guard that someone had approached him and asked if he wanted to buy white girl, a slang term for the drug cocaine.

Johnsons description and interaction with the man was confirmed on surveillance footage prior to the gaming enforcement officer bringing Johnson into an interview room to conduct the pat-down search.

Indiana Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence to dispel Johnsons claim of a Fourth Amendment violation.

Original post:
Conviction reversed for phony drug sale at Hoosier Park - Newsandtribune

A man suspected of trying to sell look-alike substances at an Indiana casino has had his drug-related conviction reversed, with the Indiana Court of Appeals finding insufficient evidence to dispel a claim of a Fourth Amendment violation.

The case of Michael D. Johnson v. State of Indiana, 19A-CR-975, began in November 2015, when Brett Eversole was at the Hoosier Park Casino in Anderson. According to a report he gave to a security guard, a black man in a white hat had approached Eversole and asked if he wanted to buy a white girl, meaning cocaine.

The report made its way to gaming enforcement agent Zach Wilkinson, who confirmed the interaction based on surveillance footage that did not have audio. Wilkinson then found Michael Johnson, a black man wearing a white hat, and brought him into an interview room.

Once in the room, Wilkinson told Johnson he would need a pat down, which led Wilkinson to remove what felt like a ball of drugs from the suspects pocket. Johnson was handcuffed and read his Miranda rights, but subsequent testing revealed the white powder was not a drug. Instead, it contained a chemical possibly deriving from baking soda.

Thus, Johnson was charged with dealing in a look-a-like substance. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the pat-down search, but the Madison Circuit Court denied the motion. Johnson then objected at trial to the admission of the evidence found in his pocket, but the trial court determined Wilkinson had completed a search incident to arrest when he removed the item from Johnsons pocket.

Johnson was then convicted on a Level 5 felony charge and sentenced to four years, with three years suspended to probation. But the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed his conviction Thursday, finding the state failed to prove the search of Johnsons pocket was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Johnson does not argue that Wilkinson lacked a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and he does not challenge the decision to perform a pat-down search, Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote. But the encounter did not end with a pat-down.

The agent may have been conducting a carefully limited search of outer clothing to detect weapons when he discerned characteristics consistent with contraband, notwithstanding the fabric barrier. Or Agent Wilkinson, having received information of an attempted sale of contraband, may have reached into Johnsons pocket and examined the item before concluding it was likely contraband, Bailey continued. In the first scenario, Agent Wilkinson would arguably have, without exceeding the scope of a Terry pat-down for weapons, developed probable cause for an arrest. In the second scenario, Agent Wilkinson would have conducted the search before having probable cause for an arrest and thus the seizure did not take place in a search incident to arrest.

Here, the state failed to prove that Wilkinson had probable cause, Bailey said, writing that the evidence does not dispel concern that the ball of powder retrieved from Johnsons pocket was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure.

Though Johnsons conviction was reversed under the Fourth Amendment, in a footnote, Bailey said Johnson also referenced Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. But because he did not develop a corresponding argument, his argument that the search violated the Indiana Constitution was waived.

More here:
Conviction reversed for would-be drug sale at casino - Indiana Lawyer

PEARL RIVER, N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hudson Technologies, Inc. (HDSN) today announced that it has entered into a new revolving credit facility with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, which provides up to $60 million in borrowing capacity from time to time, subject to a borrowing base. In conjunction with entry into the Wells Fargo credit facility, the Company repaid in full its revolving loans from PNC Bank, National Association and the revolving credit facility with PNC Bank was terminated. Furthermore, on December 19, 2019 Hudson entered into a Waiver and Fourth Amendment to its Term Loan Credit and Security Agreement (the Fourth Amendment).

Kevin Zugibe, Chairman and CEO of Hudson Technologies, stated, We are pleased to have entered into a new revolving credit facility as well as to have successfully amended our existing term loan facility. We appreciate the support of our new and existing lending partners and the patience of our shareholders as we finalized these agreements and we look forward to driving improved operating performance as we enter 2020.

The Fourth Amendment waived financial covenant defaults at June 30, 2019 and September 30, 2019 and amended the Term Loan Credit and Security Agreement to reset the maximum total leverage ratio financial covenant through December 31, 2021; reset the minimum liquidity requirement; and added a minimum LTM adjusted EBITDA covenant.

Additional details regarding the new revolving credit facility, the Fourth Amendment to the term loan facility, and related matters, will be provided in a Form 8-K to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

About Hudson Technologies

Hudson Technologies, Inc. is a leading provider of innovative and sustainable solutions for optimizing performance and enhancing reliability of commercial and industrial chiller plants and refrigeration systems. Hudson's proprietary RefrigerantSide Services increase operating efficiency, provide energy and cost savings, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the plants carbon footprint while enhancing system life and reliability of operations at the same time. RefrigerantSide Services can be performed at a customer's site as an integral part of an effective scheduled maintenance program or in response to emergencies. Hudson also offers SMARTenergy OPS, which is a cloud-based Managed Software as a Service for continuous monitoring, Fault Detection and Diagnostics and real-time optimization of chilled water plants. In addition, the Company sells refrigerants and provides traditional reclamation services for commercial and industrial air conditioning and refrigeration uses. For further information on Hudson, please visit the Company's web site at http://www.hudsontech.com.

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

Statements contained herein which are not historical facts constitute forward-looking statements. These include statements regarding managements intentions, plans, beliefs, expectations or forecasts for the future including, without limitation, Hudsons expectations with respect to the benefits, costs and other anticipated financial impacts of the ARI transaction; future financial and operating results of the Company; the Companys ability to remain in compliance with the financial covenants in its credit agreements; and the Companys plans, objectives, expectations and intentions with respect to future operations and services. Such forward-looking statements involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to, changes in the laws and regulations affecting the industry, changes in the demand and price for refrigerants (including unfavorable market conditions adversely affecting the demand for, and the price of, refrigerants), the Company's ability to source refrigerants, regulatory and economic factors, seasonality, competition, litigation, the nature of supplier or customer arrangements that become available to the Company in the future, adverse weather conditions, possible technological obsolescence of existing products and services, possible reduction in the carrying value of long-lived assets, estimates of the useful life of its assets, potential environmental liability, customer concentration, the ability to obtain financing, any delays or interruptions in bringing products and services to market, the timely availability of any requisite permits and authorizations from governmental entities and third parties as well as factors relating to doing business outside the United States, including changes in the laws, regulations, policies, and political, financial and economic conditions, including inflation, interest and currency exchange rates, of countries in which the Company may seek to conduct business, the Companys ability to successfully integrate ARIs operations and any assets it acquires from other third parties into its operations, and other risks detailed in the Company's 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 and other subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Examples of such risks and uncertainties specific to the ARI transaction include, but are not limited to, the possibility that the expected benefits will not be realized, or will not be realized within the expected time period. The words "believe", "expect", "anticipate", "may", "plan", "should" and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date the statement was made.

Story continues

The rest is here:
Hudson Technologies Enters Into New Revolving Credit Facility and Announces Definitive Amendments to Existing Term Loan Credit Facility - Yahoo...

Swalwell Guilty Charge Unintentionally Exposes Absurdity of Red Flag Laws

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)-We can only conclude that youre guilty, Rep. Eric Swalwell told CNNs Wolf Blitzer Tuesday, Fox News reports. He was trying to exploit President Donald Trumps refusal to buckle to Democrat demands on impeachment documents and witnesses.

In America, innocent men do not hide and conceal evidence, Swalwell pressed on. They are forthcoming and they want to cooperate and the president is acting like a very guilty person right now.

I believe the Fifth Amendment was just repealed on live television, Ben Williamson, communications director for Rep. Mark Meadows, tweeted in response.

Innocent men dont serve themselves up to ruthless prosecutors as a matter of basic justice. We dont give them or the police ammunition to use against us, and to detour for a moment, if you have not seen Dont Talk to the Police, featuring Professor James Duane, reserve 45 minutes to watch it soon.

Evidently Swalwell would repeal the Fourth Amendment as well if he had his druthers. Otherwise, why would innocent men require a warrant for police to search their homes?

Our entire adversarial legal system is based on the burden of proof being on the state and defendants having a presumption of innocence. Up until Opposite Day progressives started insanely turning things on their heads, the American standard was Innocent until proven guilty.

And Swalwells major league baseball player refusing a drug test analogy also falls flat. Most jobs these days, to the discredit of Americans for allowing things to devolve this way, require peeing in the cup and other surrendered invasions of privacy and dignity. Still, those are private contractual agreements either party is free to walk away from without fear of self-incrimination and prosecution by the government.

It figures Swalwell, a power freak with contempt for the Second Amendment, would view other Bill of Rights protections as impediments to getting the control he hungers for. Then again, were talking about a monster who advocated the government deploy against American gun owners with nuclear weaponsuntil he backtracked and claimed he was just making a point.

Thats some point, especially when you consider how many innocents would become collateral damage in an act of monstrous evil that only a genocidal maniac would suggest. Hence, we retain the right to keep and bear arms as the ultimate last resort safeguard of the people against tyrannical madmen. And knowing we will not surrender that power drives them howling nuts.

Still, concluding someone is guilty before they have been proven so beyond a reasonable doubt is the shaky foundation upon which the whole red flag law house of cards has been erected. And President Trump himself should be having a hoist on his own petard moment when his own words about that are thrown back at him:

Take the guns first, go through due process second.

Lewis Carrolls classic Alice's Adventures in Wonderland said it best:

No, no! said the Queen. Sentence first verdict afterwards.

Once upon a time, even a child understood the evil absurdity of that. Seeing the enactment of such edicts now being touted as commonsense by Mad Hatters with political power shows us we truly have gone down the rabbit hole and through the looking-glass.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance, is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

The rest is here:
Swalwell 'Guilty' Charge Unintentionally Exposes Absurdity of Red Flag Laws - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

TEMPE, Ariz. Body camera video shows a man, Ivaughn Oakry, with his 1-year-old child in his arms being tased by multiple Tempe Police officers.

Oakry's attorneys sent a notice of claim seeking $5.5 million dollars for excessive use of force, trauma and a violation of Oakry's constitutional rights.

PREVIOUSLY: Video shows Tempe officers tasing domestic violence suspect while he holds 1-year-old

Tempe police were responding to a domestic violence call in June of this year.

Stop touching me, A woman can be heard saying on the 911 call. She would be outside the apartment when police arrived.

Officers went into the apartment when Oakry opened the door.

As the officer attempted to detain Oakry, he backed into his residence, telling the officer he did not want him there.

This officer didnt have a warrant to enter that home. He had no reason to be in that home," said Heather Hamel, Oakry's attorney.

Hamel said the officer was violating Oakry's Fourth Amendment rights by entering the building. Hamel pointed to an analysis by an outside police expert which said the entrance was unlawful.

Hamel further said the use of force against Oakry was unreasonable.

It is never acceptable to tase someone holding a 1-year-old child," Hamel said.

The notice of claim alleges officers did not need to tase at all, let alone three tasers at once. The notice of claim points to a training slide show they allege Tempe has used in the past, telling officers to be "predators not prey."

We brought the video to retired Phoenix Police officer Andy Anderson, who now serves as a police expert. He did not see things the same as Oakry's attorney.

He opens the doorthey have reasonable suspicion to believe he is the individual she has described and her three children are in that home, Anderson said. This isnt something officers train for with an individual who picked up a child while someone is pointing a taser at them.

Earlier this year, the Tempe Police Department said they did not believe its officers used excessive force. The officers involved were only sent to additional training.

Instead, Tempe Police chief Sylvia Moir pointed the finger at the father who picked up his 1-year-old child.

"He made a choice to bring violence into that home," Moir said

Read the original:
Man tased with 1-year old in arms set to sue for $5.5 million - 12news.com KPNX