Mediaboss Marketing

Courts are frequently called upon to apply the Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures to police procedures. Marylands Court of Special Appeals this week reviewed whether the use of fare inspections on a light rail train violated the Fourth Amendment in a case called Kenneth Carter v. State of Maryland.

The opinion indicates that Maryland Transit Authority police gathered on the platform of a Baltimore light rail station, for the purpose of doing a fare inspection to see if passengers had paid for their fare. There was no evidence of any signs posted in the stations that such fare sweeps may be done. Failure to pay the fare is a crime subject to a $50 fine. When the train pulled into the station, an officer entered each train and announced that each passenger had to show their ticket proving they had paid the fare.

Carter approached an officer and admitted he had no ticket, and was directed to another officer on the platform who obtained his identification. A record check showed a possible warrant outstanding for Carter, who then tried to flee and was tackled. During the melee the police found that Carter had a gun, and it turned out he was a convicted felon. At trial, defendants motion to suppress evidence because of an illegal detention was denied, and he was convicted of firearms offenses and resisting arrest.

The appellate Court noted that in determining whether an investigatory detention by police had occurred, it would look at such factors as the use or show of force or authority by the police so that a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave or refuse to answer questions. Here, the appellate Court found that by announcing to all passengers that they could not leave the train until producing proof of fare payment, Carter had in fact been detained even before he admitted he had no ticket.

Since one of the officers at trial admitted that they used fare checks as a means of enforcing outstanding warrants, the appellate Court declared this police misconduct in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the motion to suppress evidence should have been granted, and the convictions were reversed.

Thomas Patrick Ryan is a partner in the Rockville law firm of McCarthy Wilson, which specializes in civil litigation.

Post Views: 228

See more here:
Fare Inspections and the Fourth Amendment - Montgomery County Sentinel

U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police may forcibly and warrantlessly carry out blood draws on unconscious drivers suspected of drunk driving.

The Courts 5-4 decision in Mitchell v. State of Wisconsin found that an unconscious driver suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol constitutes an emergency situation that allows police to ignore the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement and draw blood from that suspect without consent or a warrant, regardless of whether there is an opportunity to obtain a warrant.

In an amicus brief filed in the case, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had argued that implied consent laws, which suggest that merely driving on a state-owned road implies that a person has consented to police sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood draws, should not be used as a means of allowing police to bypass fundamental Fourth Amendment protections for privacy and bodily integrity.

All of those freedoms we cherish the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will, said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People.

What this ruling makes clear is that our so-called Fourth Amendment rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the governments ongoing power grabs.

In May 2013, the Sheboygan, WI, police received a call that Gerald Mitchell was in distress. Mitchell had driven his van to the shore of Lake Michigan and consumed 40 pills and a mixture of vodka and soda.

Police found Mitchell walking unsteadily along the lake, although his van was parked elsewhere. Mitchell was given a roadside sobriety test, which showed that he had a blood-alcohol concentration of .24. He was taken into custody and driven to the police station where he was placed in a holding cell.

While in the cell, Mitchell began to fall asleep or pass out, although he could be roused if stimulated.

Wanting another test of Mitchells blood-alcohol level but unsure if Mitchell could cooperate with a breath test, police took Mitchell to a hospital to have his blood drawn and tested.

Mitchell was unconscious upon arriving at the hospital. Police then read an unconscious Mitchell his rights under Wisconsins implied consent law, including his right to refuse to submit to a blood or breath test, and then proceeded to have a hospital technician forcibly draw his blood.

Upon being prosecuted for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Mitchell moved to suppress the blood test results on the ground that his blood was taken without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

After losing in the Wisconsin state courts, Mitchell appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the forced blood draws violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Although the Supreme Court has previously ruled that forced, warrantless blood draws are unconstitutional, it justified the blood draw in Mitchell as dependent on exigent circumstances. Twenty-eight states have laws similar to Wisconsins implied consent law.

The Supreme Courts opinion and The Rutherford Institutes amicus brief in Mitchell v. State of Wisconsin are available at http://www.rutherford.org. Affiliate attorneys D. Alicia Hickok, Mark Taticchi, D. Alexander Harrell, and Matthew C. Sapp of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in Philadelphia and Dallas assisted The Rutherford Institute and CATO in presenting its arguments.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated.

Read the original here:
SCOTUS rules in favor of warrantless blood draw - Overton County News

Imagine the RI State Veterinarian and the RI SPCA demanding to enter your home without a search warrant, and if you denied them access, being fined $350 per day until they obtained a search warrant.

Just such legislation, House Bill No. 5297, was introduced in the last General Assembly session. It would have taken your Fourth Amendment rights away.

Opposing the legislation was the Defenders of Animals Inc., and the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union. The RI ACLU stated: We do not believe the General Assembly can give the DEM, much less a private entity, the power to enter peoples homes based on a written complaint raising a vague concern about an animals care or welfare.

Moreover, the legislation was disguised as an attempt to target unlicensed rescuers; however, the wording included any person who renders a service to any animal.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on Dec. 15, 1791. It deals with protecting people from the searching of their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants.

The RI DEM and the RISPCA have no business taking that protection away nor should elected officials ever again consider such a proposal.

Dennis Tabella

The writer is director of Defenders of Animals Inc.

Follow this link:
Letter: Animal abuse bill was unconstitutional | Opinion - The Independent

People get so upset when they hear Dallas-Fort Worth is using facial recognition technology for flights, yet at the same time, they are Snapchatting their face with reindeer antlers, Tuma said. Its the same technology and were doing it all day on Snapchat, but we freak out when the government does it.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Part of the publics consternation over law enforcement probing peoples digital lives and the relative ease with which they are allowed to do so is the lack of knowledge surrounding court rulings and the Fourth Amendment, according to one criminal justice expert.

The evolution of law enforcements authority in this area may surprise people, said Christopher Hill, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Oklahoma whose research areas include criminology, criminal justice and juvenile justice.

Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have been dealing with the application of the Fourth Amendment since at least 1914 in a case called Weeks v. U.S., Hill said. From brief stop and frisk encounters, to searches and seizures at public schools, there has been a lot of court activity surrounding police power and the Fourth Amendment.

Hill pointed to three other notable cases that illuminate that activity.

In a 1998 appeal case for an insider securities trading conviction United States v. Smith the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided evidentiary issues involving the illegal interception of voicemail.

The court said in its ruling that the intersection of two laws the 1968 Wiretap Act and the 1986 Stored Communications Act is a complex, often convoluted area of the law. This case turns, at least in part, on issues at the very heart of that intersection.

(Story continued below...)

More here:
If it's in writing, don't think it's a secret - Oklahoman.com

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