Archive for the ‘Fourth Amendment’ Category

SFPD officer sued for alleged excessive force incident at the Westfield Mall – Mission Local

A formerly homeless man is taking the San Francisco Police Department to court over a 2018 incident in which the man was celebrating his new employment at a festive dinner when a police officer allegedly attacked him for no apparent reason, sending him to the hospital with a broken leg and ankle.

Clifford Bonnet, 46, additionally ended up jailed on charges that were later dropped.

Bonnet filed his lawsuit last week in the U.S. District Court of Northern California against the City and County of San Francisco, the SFPD, and SFPD Officer Jordan King for the incident that took place last year at the Westfield Mall.

The lawsuit alleges that, on Oct. 20, 2018, Bonnet went out to dinner at Bazille, a restaurant in Nordstroms at the mall. Bonnet was allegedly celebrating a new job and his journey out of homelessness. He ordered a steak though when he asked for a steak knife, the restaurants management first denied him a knife and then delivered him a large chefs knife that wasnt suitable for eating.

The restaurants management then told Bonnet to leave, the lawsuit charges. Mall security was called, and soon after, SFPD Officer King arrived. King allegedly told Bonnet to stand up, and Bonnet allegedly complied.

Without warning, Defendant Officer King rushed Mr. Bonnet and knocked him to the ground, the lawsuit, filed by attorneys in the Law Offices of John L. Burris, claims. Defendant Officer King proceeded to physically attack Mr. Bonnet, who was unarmed.

King allegedly twisted and contorted the 135-pound Bonnet, breaking his left tibia and ankle. Bonnet allegedly passed out, but was nevertheless forced to stand up by King, who handcuffed Bonnet. Paramedics transported Bonnet to San Francisco General Hospital, where he purportedly waited six hours to be treated. The suit states that doctors there said Bonnet required emergency surgery for his injuries yet was released back into SFPD custody. He did not receive the surgery and, instead, spent three days in county jail.

Bonnet was booked for resisting arrest and battery on a peace officer, said District Attorney spokesman Alex Bastian but the DA did not pursue the charges.

After his release from jail Bonnet received the surgery needed on his leg, according to the lawsuit.

Well review the lawsuit thoroughly when weve been served with it, and respond accordingly in court, said City Attorney spokeswoman Meiling Bedard.

Bonnet alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, as well as negligence, excessive force, and battery on the part of Officer King is suing for general monetary damages, punitive damages against King, wage loss, and other damages.

This incident is only the latest to a collection and trend of excessive force incidents committed by SFPD officers who are not facing any punishment as a result of their dangerous and unjustifiable actions, the lawsuit states.

The complaint noted the case of Brandon Simpson, whom the city awarded $50,000 in a settlement, for an incident where four officers beat him on the street in the Tenderloin in December 2015. It also mentions the case of Sean Moore, a mentally disabled man whom police officers shot on his front porch in January 2017, severely injuring him. That trial is set for April.

Follow this link:
SFPD officer sued for alleged excessive force incident at the Westfield Mall - Mission Local

Progressives in Congress just capitulated on the Patriot Act it’s time to push back – Salon

Last week, the Democratic leadership put an extension of the Patriot Act into a continuing resolution that averted a government shutdown. More than 95 percent of the Democrats in the House went along with it by voting for the resolution. Both co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Mark Pocan, D-Wis., voted yes. So did all 11 of the CPCs vice chairs.

It didnt have to be that way. House progressives could have thrown a monkey wrench into the Orwellian machinery. Instead, the cave-in was another bow to normalizing the U.S. governments mass surveillance powers.

Theres no other way to spin this, a progressive staffer on Capitol HilltoldThe New Republic. This was a major capitulation. The Progressive Caucus has touted itself as an organization that can wield power and leverage the votes of its 90 members. And they didnt lift a finger. Democratic leadership rammed this down their throats.

A gag reflex was needed from progressive lawmakers, who should have put up a fight rather than swallow rationales for going along with Speaker Nancy Pelosis maneuver. With the Fourth Amendment on life support, basic civil liberties wereat stake.

There were opportunities to push back if CPC leaders had moved to throw down a gauntlet.

"You could go through and name any strategy for me, and I would tell you why it would fail, Jayapal said. But if you don't put up a fight, you're sure to fail. And showing some strength on a matter of principle can build momentum while marshaling grassroots support in the process.

With a show of resolve, just a few dozen Democrats could have blocked the resolution. Instead, it passed the House on Nov. 19 by a231-192 margin, thus extending the Patriot Act for three months instead of letting it expire.

No votes came from all four members of "the Squad" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.

The list of yes votes from House members with progressive reputations was stunningly long. Here are just a dozen: Karen Bass, Ral Grijalva, Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Jim McGovern, Jerrold Nadler, Chellie Pingree, Jamie Raskin, Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters and Peter Welch.

One factor: Even the best progressives in the House spend a lot more time with congressional colleagues and leaders than they do with constituents. Call it an occupational hazard. Peer pressure and conformity tend to be cumulative. The power of the Democratic leadership is quite tangible and often stern, whereas the power of constituents is routinely diffuse and unrealized.

To the extent that progressives at the grassroots dont effectively pressure members of Congress, party authorities like Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer maintain a tremendous advantage. To the extent that avoiding conflict with the Democratic leadership is more important than standing up for principles, even the best progressive incumbents succumb to the Capitol bubble. Given the strength of that bubble, it can only be burst with methodical intervention from the grassroots.

Pocan was on target when hecommenteda year ago: People in D.C. think were the center of the universe, but were not the people who elect us are the center of the universe. Its when you have that kind of activism in the districts, youre really going to be impactful.

In the case of the Patriot Act-laden continuing resolution, which President Trump signed into law shortly after passage, the contrasts between avowed commitments and conformist acquiescence were striking among many progressive luminaries in the House. A few examples:

Its telling that Khanna, Lee, Lofgren and Jayapal and so many other self-identified progressives in the House chose to take the path of least resistance last week when faced with a choice of whether to buck their partys leadership or facilitate the extension of the Patriot Act that they have long opposed. Heightening the sad irony is the fact that the newly reauthorized provisions have enabled far more aggressive surveillance than was envisioned when the Patriot Act first passed at which time Lee, McGovern, Nadler, Schakowsky, Waters and others who just voted for the reauthorization felt compelled to oppose it.

Last week, they followed leadership that was determined to merge the odious act with the continuing resolution.An amendment, offered by independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, would have separated the Patriot Act extension from the resolution -- but the House Rules Committee (chaired by McGovern), in step with Pelosis marching orders, killed that amendment.

If even 20 more House progressives had signaled a willingness to vote against the continuing resolution unless it was separated from Patriot Act reauthorization, they would have been in a strong position to demand standalone votes on each measure. That would have underscored serious opposition to the Acts surveillance programs enhancing progressive leverage in the House andincreasing the chances of reform when the issue of further Patriot Act extension comes back to Congress in a few months.

Instead, leading progressive lawmakers chose to sidestep a historic opportunity to do the right thing by registering clear opposition to the Patriot Act. Such retreats end up eroding rather than building the power of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Rolling back key aspects of the military-industrial-surveillance complex cannot be accomplished without putting up a huge fight. Postponing confrontations with party leaders might seem prudent, but such caution has negative consequences. Sooner or later, grassroots activists become exasperated when Democrats in Congress dont match progressive statements with actions. Just being a member of the Progressive Caucus is not enough.

Read more here:
Progressives in Congress just capitulated on the Patriot Act it's time to push back - Salon

The billboards trying to make you think not buy a product – The Guardian

A photograph shows two young women sitting on the steps of an ornate building, columns and marble steps peek out behind them. One is braiding the hair of the other. Go off sis! the picture says.

Each element of the photo holds meaning: the hair-braiding is a nod to black women and how they build relationships with each other. Having the girls sit on the stairs of the Cleveland Museum of Art, one of the biggest art institutions in the country, as if it is their stoop at home plays with the idea of who is welcomed at such prestigious art institutions.

In a second photograph, a young black man shrouded in blue and red light looks into a mirror. The words The fourth amendment run across the photograph, reminding people of their constitutional rights against searches of their homes without a warrant. A third image shows two girls in a park where redlining historically segregated communities.

The images are being displayed to thousands of people around Cleveland this month on several billboards in the city created by For Freedoms, a national art-as-activism platform supporting artists that sparks civic engagement, in partnership with Guardian US and Guardian Cities.

The public art has been created as part of a new Guardian series, City Champions, which launched on Monday this week, and which seeks to highlight 25 inspirational people and organizations in the city who are all tackling various social justice issues at a grassroots level, seeking to make Cleveland a better place to live.

We always want the billboards to be a question mark, to ask questions, to encourage people to think critically about what kind of information is being put out to the public, said Eric Gottesman, co-founder of For Freedoms.

For Freedoms is no stranger to this kind of messaging in US cities.

In 2018, ahead of the 2018 midterms, the organization launched its 50 State Initiative, a campaign to bring 52 unique billboards to 50 states, Washington DC and Puerto Rico to encourage non-partisan civic engagement and discourse about equality through art.

All the photographs in the project were taken by Cleveland-based artist Amanda D King in collaboration with other local artists based in Cleveland, including Noelle Richard and Matt Chasney. King is one of the Guardians City Champion honorees for her not-for-profit, Shooting Without Bullets, a production company that promotes young black and brown artists, like Bonner and Jordan.

While King says that she hopes Clevelanders will look at the billboard and feel proud of their city and the champions fighting for its issues, she hopes that it will encourage people to see the possibility Cleveland has to be a model city for others in the US.

If we can address issues in Cleveland, then we can find a pathway for equity, specifically racial equity, across the country, King said. If we pay more attention to Cleveland Clevelands government, Clevelands population we might be able to become a better country.

Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to join the discussion using #citychampions, catch up on our best stories or sign up for our weekly newsletter

Here is the original post:
The billboards trying to make you think not buy a product - The Guardian

Amazon: Cops Can Get Recordings From Ring, Keep Them Forever, And Share Them With Whoever They Want – Techdirt

from the prime-video dept

Even more alarming news has surfaced about Amazon's Ring doorbell/camera and the company's ultra-cozy relationship with police departments.

Since its introduction, Ring has been steadily increasing its market share -- both with homeowners and their public servants. At the beginning of August, this partnership included 200 law enforcement agencies. Three months later, that number has increased to 630.

What do police departments get in exchange for agreeing to be Ring lapdogs? Well, they get a portal that allows them to seek footage from Ring owners, hopefully without a warrant. They also get a built-in PR network that promotes law enforcement wins aided by Ring footage, provided the agencies are willing to let Ring write their press releases for them.

They also get instructions on how to bypass warrant requirements to obtain camera footage from private citizens. Some of this is just a nudge -- an unstated quid pro quo attached to the free cameras cops hand out to homeowners. Some of this is actual instructions on how to word requests so recipients are less likely to wonder about their Fourth Amendment rights. And some of this is Ring itself, which stores footage uploaded by users for law enforcement perusal.

If it seems like a warrant might slow things down -- or law enforcement lacks probable cause to demand footage -- Ring is more than happy to help out. Footage remains a subpoena away at Ring HQ. And, more disturbingly, anything turned over to police departments comes with no strings attached.

Statements given to Sen. Edward Markey by Amazon indicate footage turned over to cops is a gift that keeps on giving.

Police officers who download videos captured by homeowners Ring doorbell cameras can keep them forever and share them with whomever theyd like without providing evidence of a crime, the Amazon-owned firm told a lawmaker this month.

Brian Huseman, Amazon's VP of Public Policy, indicates the public is kind of an afterthought when it comes to Ring and its super-lax policies.

Police in those communities can use Ring software to request up to 12 hours of video from anyone within half a square mile of a suspected crime scene, covering a 45-day time span, Huseman wrote. Police are required to include a case number for the crime they are investigating, but not any other details or evidence related to the crime or their request.

Ring itself maintains that it's still very much into protecting users and their safety. Maybe not so much their privacy, though. The company says it takes the "responsibility" of "protecting homes and communities" very seriously. But when it comes to footage, well that footage apparently belongs to whoever it ends up with.

Ring "does not own or otherwise control users videos, and we intentionally designed the Neighbors Portal to ensure that users get to decide whether to voluntarily provide their videos to the police.

It's obvious Ring does not "control" recordings. Otherwise, it would place a few more restrictions on the zero-guardrail "partnerships" with law enforcement agencies. But pretending Ring owners are OK with cops sharing their recordings with whoever just because they agreed to share the recording with one agency is disingenuous.

Ring's answers to Markey's pointed questions are simply inadequate. As the Washington Post article notes, Ring claims it makes users agree to install cameras so they won't record public areas like roads or sidewalks, but does nothing to police uploaded footage to ensure this rule is followed. It also claims its does not collect "personal information online from children under the age of 13," but still proudly let everyone know how many trick-or-treaters came to Ring users' doors on Halloween. And, again, it does not vet users' footage to ensure they're not harvesting recordings of children under the age of 13.

The company also hinted it's still looking at adding facial recognition capabilities to its cameras. Amazon's response pointed to competitors' products utilizing this tech and said it would "innovate" based on "customer demand."

While Ring's speedy expansion would have caused some concern, most of that would have been limited to its competitors. That it chose to use law enforcement agencies to boost its signal is vastly more concerning. It's no longer just a home security product. It's a surveillance tool law enforcement agencies can tap into seemingly at will.

Many users would be more than happy to welcome the services of law enforcement if their doorbell cameras captured footage of criminal act that affected them, but Ring's network of law enforcement partners makes camera owners almost extraneous. If cops want footage, Ring will give it to them. And then the cops can do whatever they want with it, even if it doesn't contribute to ongoing investigations.

These answers didn't make Sen. Markey happy. Hopefully, other legislators will find these responses unsatisfactory and start demanding more -- both from law enforcement agencies and Ring itself.

Filed Under: doorbell, ed markey, police, privacy, ring, videosCompanies: amazon, ring

Read more:
Amazon: Cops Can Get Recordings From Ring, Keep Them Forever, And Share Them With Whoever They Want - Techdirt

Shes On The Left, Hes On The Right. In Congress, These Unlikely Friends Are Out To Cause Trouble. – BuzzFeed News

WASHINGTON Reps. Mark Meadows and Pramila Jayapal couldnt be more different.

Meadows is a white Republican from North Carolina and a founding member of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, a group of lawmakers best known for ousting former House speaker John Boehner and holding up significant pieces of legislation to try to defund Planned Parenthood.

Jayapal is a progressive woman of color from Washington state who came to the House after years of liberal activism. Shes the cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and one of the only members of Congress to talk publicly about her experience having an abortion.

Yet the two have forged a bond born out of a common trait: the desire to be a huge pain in the ass to party leadership.

Meadows, who has done it for years, has a long track record of stirring up trouble. Now, with Democrats in the House majority, hes ready to help Jayapal do the same.

Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan talk with the media, April 11.

It began in April, when a budget fight was tearing the Democratic Party apart. Progressive leaders were demanding that a bill to set budget caps for the year be pulled further to the left, to moderates dismay. Jayapal and her cochair, Rep. Mark Pocan, built enough support among progressives to kill the bill; ultimately, Democratic leaders had to delay the vote.

It was in the midst of this fight that an unexpected ally approached Jayapal: Meadows wanted to share some tips.

He came up to me and he was like, I need to tell you all the experiences of the Freedom Caucus so you don't get screwed by your caucus the same way we were screwed by ours, Jayapal said in a recent interview with BuzzFeed News.

I need to tell you all the experiences of the Freedom Caucus so you don't get screwed by your caucus the same way we were screwed by ours.

Meadows was first elected in 2013, swept into Congress as part of the tea party wave under former president Barack Obamas tenure. Two years later, the Freedom Caucus, as FiveThirtyEight noted at the time, didnt have a website or an official roster, but it was powerful enough to end Boehners career. In the summer of 2015, Meadows even wrote a House resolution declaring the speakers office vacant, arguing that the Speaker uses the power of the office to punish Members who vote according to their conscience instead of the will of the Speaker.

The Freedom Caucus was large enough that, without its support, Boehner didnt have the votes to pass legislation or to keep his gavel. They cant tell you what theyre for. They can tell you everything theyre against, Boehner said of the caucus in an interview with Politico in 2017. Theyre anarchists. They want total chaos. Tear it all down and start over. Thats where their mindset is.

Later, when former speaker Paul Ryan took up the post, the conservative hardliners made their presence and their priorities known. He lasted three years.

So Meadows knew a thing or two about fighting with party leadership, and he wanted to share what he could with Jayapal. She doesnt need strategy tips from the Freedom Caucus chairman, Meadows recently told BuzzFeed News. Still, he has tried to share his experiences with her, he said. (Meadows is no longer the chair of the caucus, though he chaired it from January 2017 until October this year.)

She's [a] very capable and talented and thoughtful member. I have great respect for her, he said. But, he added, there are certain tactics and strategies and misdirections that you become aware of after you've been here a little bit longer, and so to the extent that I can share my historical perspective, it always makes for members to have better-informed decisions.

The advice is coming at the moment progressive leaders in Congress need it the most.

This year, theyve brawled with Democratic leadership about funding for immigrant detention and prescription drug pricing, among other issues. But Jayapal has a problem though it doesnt sound like a problem at first: About 40% of the Democratic Caucus counts itself among the CPCs ranks. Unlike Meadows Freedom Caucus, Jayapals group is too large and ideologically diverse to wield its votes in a fight against leadership. The group was founded in 1991, long before modern progressive ideals like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All existed and many of its members still dont support those ideas.

But a new, informal subcaucus is emerging, one that could look a lot more like the Freedom Caucus at least as far as powerful voting blocs go formed with new progressive members like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, who came to Congress with the explicit purpose of bucking leadership and pulling the party to the left.

You can't do anything just by building a movement on the outside.

Jayapal welcomes it, and she hopes the next election will bring the CPC more members who share that spirit.

[I] would like to get a bigger core group of people that are, you know, really coming, representing young people, representing folks of color, [and] who are willing to take some riskier and courageous stands to leverage power, she told BuzzFeed News. And who also understand both the outside and the inside game. Like, you can't do anything just by building a movement on the outside; you do have to have champions on the inside as well, and you certainly can't do anything on the inside without building a movement on the outside.

In her ideal future, the core group will make the Green New Deal and Medicare for All the party line; the group also aims to overturn the Hyde Amendment which prevents federal funding for abortion and maintain a firewall of progressive votes to push back against President Donald Trumps immigration agenda.

Jayapals dream future is Meadows nightmare.

In recent weeks, his own mission has been to spread the anti-impeachment gospel. Hes been a leading voice as the inquiry roars on, defending Trump, arguing the closed-door hearings are antidemocratic, and dutifully popping in front of TV cameras to express his unflinching support for the president. And though hes not on the Intelligence Committee, Meadows has been attending the hearings, live-tweeting through them and railing against Democrats along the way.

But he maintains great affection for Jayapal because he sees in her a worthy adversary.

Their first interaction, the Washington Democrat said, was in a hearing related to former special counsel Robert Muellers report while Republicans were still in the majority. There, she tried to ask a few questions and Meadows repeatedly tried to stop her, arguing her line of questioning was outside the scope of the hearing.

Right afterwards he came up to me and he said, You're excellent at that, or something like that. And I was like, Oh, thank you, and then kind of forgot about it, Jayapal said.

Not long after, on the House floor, Meadows came to compliment her again.

He said, You're the smartest new member we have, she recalled. I was standing next to [Democratic Rep.] Ro Khanna, so I said, I think you said that to Ro, also, and he said, Well, he's almost as smart. You two are the smartest, and I said, See, Mark, this is what you do. It kind of started like that, you know, silly.

Later, their conversations got more serious.

In July in the midst of yet another Democratic Party blowup, which began with House Speaker Nancy Pelosis support for the Republican version of a must-pass border funding bill and spiraled into an all-out war waged in the press Trump tweeted about the Squad, as Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley have come to call themselves on the Hill.

So interesting to see Progressive Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run, Trump tweeted early one morning. Why dont they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.

Days later, he had a new target for his racist ire.

Rep. Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous, he wrote.

Jayapal, who immigrated to the US as a teenager, was devastated and infuriated by the attacks.

It just shows that Trump will never have the kind of grace and dignity that Cummings has, she said in an interview on MSNBC. Though she wasnt surprised, she said she was so incredibly disturbed.

Reps. Elijah Cummings (right) and Mark Meadows after a House Oversight Committee meeting, June 12.

So she went to Meadows, perhaps the only person in DC who was close friends with both Cummings and the president. (Cummings has since died. Meadows eulogized him last month, saying, "He's called a number of things a father, a husband, friend, chairman. For me, I was privileged enough to be able to call him a dear friend.) Though theyve agreed not to share the details of that conversation, Jayapal said she was comforted by the discussion.

You know, Mark is somebody who does think with his head as well as his heart about people, she said. We connected over what it feels like for me as an immigrant to hear the president's nasty remarks. He actually has a lot of empathy and feels things, I think, quite deeply on a personal level, but also listened to what I had to say.

Anybody who's willing to stand up for their constituents instead of leadership here, whether it be Republican or Democrat, I can applaud.

In interviews with BuzzFeed News, Jayapal and Meadows both said they disagree on 90% of issues, but added that they try to find ways to work together on civil liberties and Fourth Amendment issues the 10% where their political ideologies overlap.

Meadows said he enjoys working with Jayapal, because she is willing to do hard work and invest in her district.

And just because she has different constituents than I do shouldn't make me think less of her, he said. And so it's really a great admiration for the kind of member she's become. Listen, anybody who's willing to stand up for their constituents instead of leadership here, whether it be Republican or Democrat, I can applaud.

And politics aside, they just like each other.

I mean, I probably never would be friends with him if we werent here, because I wouldnt necessarily run into him, Jayapal said with a smile, but if I met him at a party, I probably would be.

Visit link:
Shes On The Left, Hes On The Right. In Congress, These Unlikely Friends Are Out To Cause Trouble. - BuzzFeed News