Mediaboss Marketing

ACLU of Ohio has tips on what protesters can and can't do during protests

How a grand jury works, why some are contentious

A previous version of this video generalized what occurs if a grand jury decides not to indict; jurisdictions have different protocols.

USA TODAY

Akron is preparing for protests as a special grand jury considers whether the eight police officers involved in the killing of Jayland Walker last summer should be charged.

"Let me say that every person in this country has a constitutional right to assemble and non-violently protest," Akron Police Chief Steve Mylett said in a video statement this week.

Mylett said the city is establishing a dedicated demonstration zone on South High Street that will be blocked to vehicular traffic as a safety measure. Akron PoliceSgt. Michael Murphy Jr.has been designated as the police liaison for protest groups and protest leaders.

The chief also referenced advice for protesters from the ACLU of Ohio on what protesters can and can't do, including what to do if theyre confronted by police officers or public officials during protests or if they're arrested.

Read below to see what the ACLU recommends.

Jayland Walker: Complete coverage of the Jayland Walker police shooting in Akron, Ohio

The ACLU of Ohio said that generally (and not specifically about Akron), challenges from law enforcement to the right to protest have come in many forms, including mass arrests, illegal use of force, curfews and corralling protesters into so-called free-speech zones, with new surveillance technologies increasingly being used to collect information on peoples activities by their association with or proximity to protests.

Even without active obstruction of the right to protest, fear of police intimidation can chill public expression and result in self-censorship, the ACLU said.

You have the First Amendment right to peacefully assemble to protest.

You can protest in public spaces (public forums), such as streets, sidewalks and parks, as long as you arent blocking traffic. If anticipating a group large enough to block pedestrian or car traffic, contact your municipal government for more information.

You can protest without a permit in response to recent events.

Jayland Walker protest arrests: Three plead to lesser charges and one case is dismissed in only Akron felony protest cases

Some events may require permits, like a march that will block traffic or close streets, a rally that uses amplifiers or group demonstrations at certain parks or plazas. If marchers stay on sidewalks and obey traffic and pedestrian signals, their activity is constitutionally protected even without a permit. Marchers may be required to allow enough space on the sidewalk for normal pedestrian traffic and may not maliciously obstruct or detain passersby.

You have the right to distribute literature, chant, hold signs and engage passersby in debate in public spaces without a permit. You can approach pedestrians on public sidewalks with leaflets, newspapers, petitions and solicitations for donations without a permit, as long as entrances to buildings arent blocked and passersby arent physically and maliciously detained.

You can photograph, video or audio record the police in public spaces.

What you say to police or do can be used against you, and it can give the police an excuse to arrest you.

You are required to provide identifying information like your name, address or date of birth to a law enforcement officer upon request, but you don't need to show identification. You can be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to an officer.

Jayland Walker protests: What body-worn police video shows from July 6 protests over Jayland Walker shooting

You dont have to consent to a search of yourself or your car. Cell phones are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and police can't look at phone data or make you unlock your phone without a search warrant. Police can't view or seize property, including photos, videos, or devices, without a warrant, unless they make an arrest. Police can search someones belongings, home or other location, but generally mustobtain consent or a warrant from a judge. If a person is under arrest or there are dangerous circumstances, the police may pat down a person or look through their vehicle to search for a weapon. The ACLU said you should never consent to any search of yourself, your car, your cell phone or your house, as if you do consent, it can affect your rights later in court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ask to see it.

Police mayor can track protest planning on social media, including Facebook and Twitter, and track individuals using their cell phone location. No law prohibits police from lying, including posing as civilians in person or on social media.

Grand jury on police shooting: What to know about the process

The government can limit speech by imposing narrowly drawn time, place and manner restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations; large groups using public parks; or limits on the loudness of sound amplifiers.

Your speech can't be restricted based on content, but the First Amendment doesnt protect speech that incites violence, is obscene or is threatening.

If you endanger others through the manner in which you protest, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks traffic generally requires a permit.

You don't have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people.

Protesting on private property is not protected by the law. You can be arrested if trespassing. Private property owners can also set rules for speech on their property.

Dont interfere with, touch or verbally antagonize the police.

Avoid carrying any drugs or weapons. If you're arrested, you could face additional charges for their possession.

According to the ACLU, the constitution protects actions that symbolically express a viewpoint, like wearing masks and costumes or holding a candlelight vigil. But symbolic acts and civil disobedience that involve illegal conduct may be outside the realm of constitutional protections and can sometimes lead to arrest and conviction. Civil disobedience (violating the law to make a political statement) is not protected speech.

Generally, before making a mass arrest of demonstrators, police must issue a clear and easily heard order that tells everyone to leave the area and how to do so and give the demonstrators the chance to leave. At large demonstrations across the country, police have used less-lethal force against protestors, including sound amplifiers, Tasers, pepper spray, wooden or rubber bullets and physical violence.

Is Akron ready? With Jayland Walker grand jury decision coming, city prepares

To detain a person, the police must reasonably believe that person committed a crime.

Ask if youre free to leave. If yes, calmly and silently walk away.

If youre being arrested, dont run, argue, resist, obstruct or lie, even if you believe youre innocent, as it could result in more charges. Keep your hands where police can see them. State law prohibits going limp in police custody, and its classified as resisting arrest.

The ACLU said you also shouldnt touch any police officer, complain on the scene, tell the police they are wrong, say that you're going to file a complaint or lawsuit or make any statements regarding the incident, as well as think carefully about your words, movement, body language and emotions.

The whole process, from arrest to release on bail, should take about 24 to 36 hours.

The police will ask you for basic biographical information and will take your fingerprints and photograph unless you've been charged with a very minor crime.

You have the right to remain silent, but you must clearly tell the police officer that youre invoking it and then be silent. The ACLU said you should tell the police nothing except your name, address and date of birth, if requested, and dont give any explanations, excuses or stories. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.

If you cant pay for a lawyer, you have a right to a free one, and should ask the police how a lawyer can be contacted. The ACLU recommends that you dont say anything, sign anything or make any decisions without a lawyer.

Within a reasonable time after your arrest or booking, you have the right to make a local phone call. The police can't listen to any calls made between you and a lawyer, but other phone calls could be recorded and what you say could potentially be used against you later in court.

Akron protests: Downtown Akron braces for more possible protests as grand jury reviews Jayland Walker case

If you feel your rights have been violated, write down everything you can remember, including officers badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from and any other details.Get contact information for witnesses.If youre injured, seek medical attention and take photographs of your injuries. File a written complaint with the agencys internal affairs division and civilian complaint board.

If you believe your rights have been violated, contact an attorney. Ohioresidents who believe their rights have been violated can report their concerns to ACLU of Ohio Attn: Intake Department, 4506 Chester Ave., Cleveland, OH 44103 or visit acluohio.org/resources/need-legal-help.

Jayland Walker police shooting: What we still don't know in the Akron police killing of Jayland Walker

Contact Beacon Journal reporter Emily Mills atemills@thebeaconjournal.comand on Twitter@EmilyMills818.

See the article here:
Jayland Walker: What's legal and what's illegal during protests - Akron Beacon Journal

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) Two officers from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department have been indicted in their alleged roles in the April 25, 2022, in-custody death of Herman Whitfield III.

Prosecutor Ryan Mears announced today that a Marion County Grand Jury issued the indictments, according to a press release.

Adam Ahmad has been indicted on charges of involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, battery resulting in serious bodily, battery resulting in moderate injury and battery.

Steven Sanchez has been indicted on charges of two counts of Involuntary Manslaughter, Reckless Homicide, Battery Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, Battery Resulting in Moderate Injury and Battery.

Officers arrived to find the man and his parents in the home. The father told officers that his son was having apsychosis. Officers called for an ambulance, as the father had requested, and began communicating with the son to prepare him for traveling in the ambulance.

According to court documents, Whitfields Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the officers needlessly tasered and then crushed the breath out of a man undergoing a mental health crisis, while callously ignoring his desperate repeated cries, I cant breathe.

On April 25 2022, Whitfields mother called 911 and asked for an ambulance to come to their home on Marrison Place and help her and her husband get mental health care for their son, court papers say.

The criminal cases will take place in Marion County Superior Court.

Earlier today, Chief Randal Taylor learned the grand jury decision regarding the death of Herman Whitfield III.Chief Taylor respects the grand jury process.

As with anyone under indictment, the officers should be considered innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

The officers involved, including those indicted, remain on paid administrative duty status while the internal process continues.

Mr. Whitfields death was a tragedy for all involved, and our thoughts continue to be with those impacted by his loss.

Man in custody dies after IMPD uses Taser, then puts on handcuffs

Coroner: Death of Herman Whitfield III was a homicide

Attorney talks about video of Indianapolis man who died in IMPD custody

Herman Whitfield IIIs family shares body camera footage from night he died

Herman Whitfield IIIs parents call for action after sons death in IMPD custody

Political party holds rally for Nichols and Whitfield III

Go here to read the rest:
IMPD officers indicted for death of Herman Whitfield III - WISH TV Indianapolis, IN

Dear gun nuts. What? What do you mean? I cant say that. Why not? Because it hurts your feelings? Might you remember what Ben Shapiro, the high priest of conservativism, said about facts, right? About how they dont care about peoples feelings. What happened to that right-wing sermon? I always liked it. Sorry, I digress.

After a tragedy like the one at the Covenant School in Nashville, where three children and three adults were shot and killed by 28-year-old Audrey Hale, who identified as a man, used he/him pronouns and preferred to be called Aidan, Americans get a reminder of just how unhinged the firearm fanatics really are. Just let them talk and try not to cringe. There really are people out there who care more about protecting the right to own a gun than our responsibility to keep our children safe.

They stopped making sense years ago. The same people who think we should scale back the First Amendment when theyre offended by an idea, who wiped their feet on the Fourth Amendment in the name of being tough on crime, and who dont let the Eighth Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment preclude the death penalty, those same people think the Second Amendment is sacred and absolute. They think that the right to bear arms somehow extends to being able to buy any gun in any quantity, at any time without any restrictions.

Theyre okay with age limits if were talking about how a person needs to be 21, to walk into a casino, or buy a drink at a bar. But they think that person should be able to buy a rifle at 18. And they dont seem troubled by the fact that since 1791, the year that the Second Amendment was ratified, we have moved swiftly from the musket to the winchester to now the AR-15 assault rifle. As a son of a retired cop who grew up with several guns in the house, literally a rifle sitting above the fireplace, someone raised in farm country full of pickup trucks with gun racks, I dont hate guns. And Im not afraid of guns. But nor do I love guns or worship them.

I am however, quite fond of common sense. What it tells me is that you can support the Second Amendment and consider sacred the rights to use a firearm to defend yourself, your family or your home and still think we should be able to impose limits on what kind of guns get manufactured, bought and owned. One doesnt interfere with the other.

Ive been on the job as a journalist for more than 30 years, and I have seen plenty of cases of activists who dont give an inch or compromise. Everything in their politics is all or nothing. There is no in-between. The pro-abortion lobby thinks that if you impose waiting periods or parental notification laws, or even outlaw the barbaric practice of late-term abortions, well then youre not really pro-choice. The race hustlers believe that if you dont go along with every single hare-brained and divisive scheme they come up with in the name of racial justice, well then, well you must be a racist. That kind of talk gets us nowhere.

Add to that the interference from the National Rifle Association. The NRAs generous political contributions to the GOP over the years have bought the Republican Party. The organization has the receipts. I know this story. In my line of work, I battle almost weekly with powerful special interests with money to spend. They corrode and corrupt everything they touch, from the public schools to the pharmaceutical industry to the legal system and the political arena. The blue team plays this game, and so does the red team. Because in politics, the only color that really matters is green. The result? More guns, more death, more heartache, rinse and repeat.

Here is the original post:
You can support Second Amendment and want gun reform, too ... - Straight Arrow News

United States v. Hayes, 2023 WL 2542654 (10thCir. 2023)

Everybody knows its okay to pick up food after it has been dropped on the floor and exposed to germs and methylethylbadstuff as long as its picked up within five seconds. I read it on the Internet.

Once upon a time, Jillian Clarke, who was a student at the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences, noted that the five-second rule dates back to the time of Genghis Khan, who first determined how long it was safe for food to remain on a floor when dropped there. Ms. Clarke investigated thescientific validity of the five-second ruleduring her apprenticeship in Hans Blascheks University of Illinois laboratory. A British scientist and germ expert, Professor Anthony Hilton of Aston University, also said it is so. Thus, one can rely on a high school student, a British professor who probably has a cool accent and the ancient founder of the Mongol empire as the authority for the five-second rule.

But does the five-second rule apply toextending a traffic stop to permit a dog sniff?

Neoal Hayes was stopped in a wall stop by officers cooperating with Drug Enforcement Agency agents. The timing of the events is important: Watch for the five-second mark.

The first officer told Hayes to exit the car and turn and face the car, give me your hands. As the officer handcuffed Hayes at the rear of the vehicle, he told Hayes he was just checking for weapons. Hayes was a large man wearing long pants and a hooded winter coat.

While another officer watched Hayes passenger, a drug detector dog handler returned to her patrol car to retrieve her dog. When, seconds later, she and her detector dog approached the back of the vehicle, the first officer moved Hayes three steps away from the vehicle. The officer adjusted Hayess handcuffs at the four-minute, 33-second mark on the body camera recording. The officer told Hayes at four minutes, 36 seconds he was not under arrest. As the dog team moved counterclockwise around the vehicle and appeared at the left front corner, the first officer looked to his left, toward the handler and dog. At four minutes, 41 seconds, the dog gave a positive alert to the odor of controlled substances.

A search of the vehicle revealed 2,505 grams of methamphetamine and 10 grams of heroin inside a duffel bag found behind the drivers seat. Inside a backpack, also located behind the drivers seat, officers retrieved a small safe containing methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, Xanax, marijuana, a digital scale, packaging material and a loaded handgun. Hayes entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Hayes was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

As part of his plea agreement, Hayes reserved the right to appeal the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs and firearm. Hayes argued the officer unreasonablyprolonged the traffic stopto pursue an investigation into drug trafficking unrelated to the original purpose of the stop. He claimed the Rodriguezissue thus turns on the legal and factual significance of the five seconds between 4:36 and 4:41 on the body camera video (i.e., the time between the officers advisement that Hayes is being detained, and the dog alert, which occurs five seconds later). Hayes was relying on the rule ofRodriguez v. United States(575 U.S. 348 (2015)), that a stop may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the initial purpose of the stopAuthority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are or reasonably should have been completed.

The court issued aper curiamdecision, meaning all three appellate judges agreed on the outcome. The short decision merely states that the judges conclude the detaining officer did not violate Hayess Fourth Amendment rights in this case. Two judges wrote individual opinions. One opined the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Hayes and investigate drug trafficking, therefore the traffic stop length was not an issue. Another judge stated that the Hayes case is a good example of why, in adjudicating thereasonableness of a seizure, we should avoid drawing bright lines and placing rigid time limitations on law enforcement. This is because reasonableness rather than efficiency is the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.

InRodriguez, the Supreme Court considered a seven-to-eight-minute delay, contrasted with the alleged five-second delay in this case. The rule fromRodriguezremains valid: A stop for a traffic violation may take the time necessary to determine whether to issue a traffic ticket and check the drivers license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobiles registration and proof of insurance. Extending the stopbeyond that timerequires an independent reason to further detain the driver.

Now, thats not to say the five-second rule applies to traffic detention extensions. The takeaway fromUnited States v. Hayes? Courts may be open to some truly minimal, negligibly burdensome delay and may acknowledge thatRodriguezdoes not prohibit all conduct that in any way slows the officer from completing the stop as fast as humanly possible in the name of efficiency.

Read more Ken Wallentine case reviews here.

Go here to read the rest:
Does the five-second rule apply to extending a traffic stop to permit a ... - Police News

The city of Charlotte urges a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit from a man who says he lost two fingers because of police actions during a 2020 protest.

Kyre Mitchell filed suit in January against the city, its police chief and former deputy chief, 17 current and former named Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department officers and supervisors, and 50 other unnamed officers from other law enforcement agencies.

He claims their actions during a May 30, 2020, protest caused the injuries that led to amputation of the middle and ring fingers on his right hand, as well as burns affecting the rest of his hand.

The protest took place in connection with the killing of George Floyd. Police deployed teargas, pepper bullets, and flashbang grenades while dealing with protesters, according to a memorandum the city filed Thursday.

Plaintiff alleges that around 11:30 p.m, while he was standing near other protestors at theintersection of Fifth Street and North Tryon Street, he picked up an object that then exploded in his hand, according to the city memo.

Mitchells suit claims that he saw a police officer standing 50 away, who threw a device that landed directly at his feet. To protect people nearby, he picked up the device and planned to throw it away. The device instead exploded in his hand.

Plaintiff offers multiple theories as to who allegedly threw the object that injured his hand, the city argued in its memo. In one theory, Plaintiff makes identical allegations against each of the thirteen CMPD Officer Defendants and alleges that one or more of these officerspersonally deployed the chemical munitions and the flash-bang grenade that caused the Plaintiffs injuries. In another theory, Plaintiff alleges that his injuries may have been caused by someone else either a different CMPD police officer or law enforcement officers employed by neighboring Cities and Counties who provided aid to the CMPD.

Plaintiff fails to even state the factual basis for his conclusory allegation that the personwho threw the device was a police officer, the citys memo continued. Plaintiff specifically alleges that at least some police officers were dressed in plainclothes on May 30, 2022. Nowhere does Plaintiff describe the person who threw the device that ultimately injured his hand. To the extent Plaintiff is alleging that the person who threw the incendiary device could have been dressed in plainclothes, that further contradicts his speculation as to the identity of the person.

The city also rebuts Mitchells claims against police supervisors. The memorandum cites officers likely protection from liability through qualified immunity. It rejects Mitchells claims that the city or the individual defendants violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

The city also challenges Mitchells attempt to have a federal judge ban Charlotte-Mecklenburg police from using flashbang grenades in the future.

No one doubts the severity of Plaintiffs hand injury, Charlottes memo concludes. But Plaintiff offers nothing more than speculation that his injuries were caused by one of the 17 named defendants in this case, each of whom Plaintiff seeks to hold personally liable. Neither is there any plausible allegation that a policy or custom of the City is to blame.

Mitchell will have a chance to respond to the citys motion before the U.S. District Court for the Western District issues a ruling.

More:
Charlotte moves to dismiss lawsuit from man injured during 2020 ... - Carolina Journal