Mediaboss Marketing

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

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

Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Department of Justice and a constitutional scholar, has identified 12 impeachable offenses committed by Donald Trump. But, as he notes, many of these constitutional violations are not unique to the Trump administration. They have been normalized by Democratic and Republican administrations. These long-standing violations are, for this reason, ignored by Democratic Party leaders seeking to impeach the president. They have chosen to focus exclusively on Trumps attempt to get the Ukrainian president to open an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in exchange for $400 million in U.S. military aid and a visit by the Ukrainian leader to the White House. Ignoring these institutionalized violations during the impeachment inquiry, Fein fears, would legitimate them and lead to the death of democracy.

In a letter on Friday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also signed by Ralph Nader and Louis Fisher, Fein warns that Trump is shattering our entire constitutional order. He lists as the presidents most serious constitutional violations the defiance of congressional subpoenas and oversight; spending billions of dollars on a southern border wall not appropriated for that purpose; continuing or expanding presidential wars not declared by Congress; exercising line-item veto power; flouting the Emoluments Clause; and, playing prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to kill any person on the planet based on secret, unsubstantiated information. But he also notes that many of these violations are not unique to Trump and were also carried out by Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

Many of the Democrats in the past have been complicit in these violations, Fein said when I reached him by phone in Washington, D.C. They have unclean hands. They have acquiesced in illegal surveillance, as revealed by Edward Snowden. The most serious constitutional violations are the ones that are institutional usurpations. These usurpations [by both parties] have permanently weakened, if not eviscerated, the power of the legislature versus the executive.

We have a Congress whose members, by and large, do not want the responsibilities the Constitution entrusts them with, Fein continued. They like to give away everything to the president and then clamor if something goes bad. The most worrisome constitutional violations are, unfortunately, ones many members of Congress rejoice in. It enables them to escape making hard choices that might compromise their ability to win reelection. But you cant rely on a past dereliction to justify its perpetuation indefinitely.

If we take a narrow approach to impeachment, that will mean that all the more egregious violations will be viewed as having been endorsed and not rebuked and successive presidents will feel they have a green light to emulate Trump on everything except a Ukrainian shakedown, Fein said. This is dangerous for the country. This could boomerang, even if we get rid of Trump, by endorsing these usurpations forever. This would be a return to a one-branch government like the monarchy we overthrew in 1776. The unwitting result is to further the [power of the] executive rather than diminish it, which is what should be happening.

Bush and Obama bequeathed to us nine illegal wars, if we include Yemen. None were declared by Congress, as is demanded by the Constitution.

Bush and Obama bequeathed to us nine illegal wars, if we include Yemen. None were declared by Congress, as is demanded by the Constitution. Bush placed the entire U.S. public under government surveillance in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which makes it a crime for the government to surveil any American citizen without authorization by statute. Under the Executive Order 10333 the president spies on Americans as if they were foreigners, although this surveillance has not been authorized by statute. Bush embarked on a global program of kidnapping and torture, including of foreign nationals, which Obama continued. Bush and Obama carried out targeted assassinations, usually by militarized drones, across the globe. And Obama, reinterpreting the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act, gave the executive branch the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens. The killings began with drone strikes on the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and, two weeks later, his 16-year-old son. Such a violation denies U.S. citizens due process. By signing into law Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, Obamawhose record on civil liberties is even more appalling than Bushs gutted the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military as a domestic police force.

These two presidents, like Trump, violated treaty clauses that required Senate ratification. Obama did this when he signed the Iran nuclear deal and Trump did this when he walked away from the deal. Bush and Obama, like Trump, violated the appointments clause of the Constitution by appointing people who were never confirmed by the Senate as required. The three presidents, to override Congress, all routinely abused their right to use executive orders.

At the same time the courts, a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate power, have transformed the electoral system into legalized bribery through the Citizens United ruling, handed down by the Supreme Court in 2010. Corporations pouring unlimited money into elections was interpreted by the court as the right to petition the government and a form of free speech, essentially overturning the peoples rights by judicial fiat. Also, the courts have steadfastly refused to restore basic constitutional rights including our right to privacy and due process. The constitutional rot is in all three branches, Fein said.

The 12 impeachable offenses committed by Trump and singled out by Fein are:

1. Contempt of Congress

Trump made clear his contempt of Congress when he boasted, I have Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.

President Trump has repeatedly and unconstitutionally systematically undermined the congressional oversight power, including the ongoing congressional impeachment inquiry of the President himself, by instructing numerous current and former White House staff and members of the executive branch to defy congressional subpoenas on an unprecedented scale far beyond any previous President, Fein wrote to Pelosi. Without congressional authority, he has secretly deployed special forces abroad and employed secret guidelines for targeted killings, including American citizens, based on secret unsubstantiated information. He has unconstitutionally endeavored to block private persons or entities from responding to congressional requests or subpoenas for information, e.g., Deutsche Bank. He has refused to provide Congress information about nepotistic or other security clearances he granted in opposition to his own FBI security experts. He has refused to disclose his tax returns to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee contrary to a 1924 law, 26 U.S.C. 6103 (f).

2. Abuse of the Powers of the President and Abuse of Public Trust

Unlike prior presidents, he has made presidential lies as routine as the rising and setting of the sun, confounding civil discourse, truth and public trust, the memo to Pelosi reads. He has disrespected, belittled, and serially preyed upon women, mocked the disabled, incited violence against the mainstream media and critics, and encouraged and displayed bigotry towards minorities and minority Members of Congress, including intercession with Israel in serious violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, Article I, section 6, clause 1, to deny two Members visitor visas.

3. Appropriations Clause, Revenue Clause

Congress has consistently voted much less money than President Trump requested to build an extensive, multi-billion-dollar wall with Mexico, the memo reads. In violation of the Clause and the criminal prohibition of the Anti-Deficiency Act, President Trump has committed to spending billions of dollars far in excess of what Congress has appropriated for the wall. The congressional power of the purse is a cornerstone of the Constitutions separation of powers.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution requires all revenue measures to originate in the House of Representatives.

In violation of the Clause, President Trump has raised tens of billions of dollars by unilaterally imposing tariffs with limitless discretion under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the memo reads. He has become a Foreign Trade Czar in imposing tariffs or quotas or granting exemptions from his trade restrictions in his unbridled discretion to assist political friends and punish political enemies. Literally trillions of dollars in international trade have been affected. Riches are made, and livelihoods destroyed overnight with the capricious stroke of President Trumps pen.

4. Emoluments Clause

Article I, section 9, clause 8 prohibits the President (and other federal officers), without the consent of Congress, from accepting any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state.

President Trump has notoriously refused to place his assets in a blind trust, the memo reads. Instead, he continues to profit from opulent hotels heavily patronized by foreign governments. He has permitted his family to commercialize the White House. He has compromised the national interest to enrich family wealth on a scale unprecedented in the history of the presidency.

5. Treaty Clause

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 requires Senate ratification of treaties by two-thirds majorities. The text is silent as to whether treaty termination requires Senate ratification, and the Supreme Court held the issue was a non-justiciable political question in Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

President Trump flouted the Treaty Clause in terminating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia unilaterally, the memo reads. The treaty assigned the termination decision to the United States. The President alone is not the United States under the Treaty Clause.

6. Declare War Clause

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 empowers Congress alone to take the nation from a state of peace to a state of war. That power cannot be delegated.

In violation of the Declare War Clause, President Trump has continued to wage or has initiated presidential wars in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and has used special forces offensively in several African nations, the memo reads. President Trump has claimed authority to initiate war against any nation or non-state actor in the worldnot in self-defenseon his say-so alone, including war against North Korea, Iran, or Venezuela.

7. Take Care Clause; Presentment Clause

Article II, Section 3 obligates the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In violation of that trust, President Donald J. Trump deliberately attempted to frustrate special counsel Robert Muellers investigation of collaboration between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia to influence the presidential election, Fein points out. Among other things, the President refused to answer specific questions relating to his presidential conduct; endeavored to fire the special counsel; dangled pardons for non-cooperating witnesses; and, urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal decision to better protect his presidency. In all these respects, the President was attempting to obstruct justice.

President Trump has also systematically declined to enforce statutory mandates of Congress by arbitrarily and capriciously revoking scores of agency rules ranging from immigration to the Consumer Financial Protection Board to the Environmental Protection Agency in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act or otherwise, the memo reads. He has routinely legislated by executive order in lieu of following constitutionally prescribed processes for legislation.

In violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, Mr. Trump has dismantled and disabled scores of preventive measures to save lives, avoid injuries or disease, help families, consumers, and workers, and detect, deter, and punish tens of billions of dollars of corporate fraud, the memo continues. He has disputed climate disruption as a Chinese hoax, compounded the climate crisis by overt actions that expand greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, and excluded or marginalized the influence of civil service scientists.

8. Due Process Clause

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.

In violation of due process, President Trump claims power, like his immediate two predecessors, to act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to kill American citizens or non-citizens alike, on or off a battlefield, whether or not engaged in hostilities, whether or not accused of crime, and whether or not posing an imminent threat of harm that would trigger a right of preemptive self-defense, the memo reads.

9. Appointments Clause

President Trump has repeatedly appointed principal officers of the United States, including the National Security Advisor and Cabinet officials, who have not been confirmed by the Senate in violation of the Appointments Clause, Article II, section 2, clause 2, the memo reads. On a scale never practiced by prior presidents, Mr. Trump has filled as many as half of Cabinet posts with Acting Secretaries who have never been confirmed by the Senate.

10. Soliciting a Foreign Contribution for the 2020 Presidential Campaign and Bribery

President Trump has endeavored to corrupt the 2020 presidential campaign by soliciting the President of Ukraine to contribute something of value to diminish the popularity of potential rival Joe Biden, i.e., a Ukrainian investigation of Mr. Biden and his son Hunter relating to potential corrupt practices of Burisma, which compensated Hunter handsomely ($50,000 per month). In so doing, Mr. Trump violated the criminal campaign finance prohibition set forth in 52 U.S.C. 30121, Feins memo reads.

President Trump solicited a bribe for himself in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201 in seeking something of personal value, i.e., discrediting Joe Bidens 2020 presidential campaign with the help of the President of Ukraine to influence Mr. Trumps official decision to release approximately $400 million in military and related assistance, it adds.

11. Violating Citizen Privacy

Government spying on Americans ordinarily requires a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause to believe crime is afoot, the memo reads. President Trump, however, routinely violates the Fourth Amendment with suspicionless surveillance of Americans for non-criminal, foreign intelligence purposes under Executive Order 12333 and aggressive interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

12. Suppression of Free Speech

President Trump is violating the First Amendment in stretching the Espionage Act to prosecute publication of leaked classified information that are instrumental to exposing government lies and deterring government wrongdoing or misadventures, including the outstanding indictment against Julian Assange for publishing information which was republished by the New York Times and The Washington Post with impunity, the memo reads.

The Republic is at an inflection point, the letter to Speaker Pelosi reads. Either the Constitution is saved by impeaching and removing its arsonist in the White House, or it is reduced to ashes by continued congressional endorsement, whether by omission or commission, of limitless executive power and the undoing of checks and balances.

Read the original:
The End of the Rule of Law: The 12 Impeachable Offenses Committed By Trump - Common Dreams

SALT LAKE CITY The Utah Court of Appeals has upheld the controversial police practice of stop and frisk.

In a ruling published Friday night, the Court acknowledged a close case, but ultimately sided with police in a challenge to the practice, which has largely come under scrutiny in other states for targeting minorities. This case involves a challenge by Bryant Robert Mitchell, a member of a white supremacist gang, who was searched in a traffic stop in Ogden last year.

Mitchell was in a vehicle that was stopped after police saw him stand up in the passenger seat of the car and yell at another person in a convenience store parking lot.

Officers later testified that Mitchell looked very upset and aggressive, and that he began to open the door of the Blazer before it had come to a stop. One of them testified that Mitchells screaming sounded indicative of an intent to get into a confrontation or a fight with the person that he was talking to,' Utah Court of Appeals Judge Ryan Harris wrote.

Police obtained consent to search the vehicle from the driver, and another passenger had a warrant, the ruling said.

Immediately after Mitchell exited the vehicle, one of the officers frisked him. During the pat-down, the officer discovered a switchblade-style knife in the pocket of Mitchells shorts. Because he was a convicted felon, Mitchell was not allowed to possess such a weapon, so the officers then arrested Mitchell for unlawfully possessing the knife. After arresting Mitchell, the officers conducted a more thorough search of his person and discovered a ball of a black tar like substance that was later confirmed to be heroin, Judge Harris wrote.

Mitchell was ultimately charged with drug and weapons possession, and the weapons charge was dropped in a plea deal. He challenged the search as a violation of his Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure.

In addition to the facts already described, one of the officers testified that, in his experience, gang members typically carry weapons, and that this knowledge was among the reasons he had decided to frisk Mitchell. For his part, Mitchell testified that his profane words to the man in the parking lot were not intended to be aggressive, and that he was just attempting to greet an old friend whom he had not seen in a while, the ruling said. (The ruling noted that police heard Mitchell shout come here you mother-er.)

In his appeal, Mitchell argues he gave no sign that he was going to be violent. The Court acknowledged the usual signs were not there. He was wearing very little clothing, officers saw no bulge in his pockets that could be perceived as a weapon, nor did he make any movement that police could have perceived as a threat. Prosecutors countered that Mitchell was an admitted member of a violent gang, had acted aggressively toward someone else and appeared to be on the verge of a fight and that police were in the process of arresting someone else when the search took place.

The Court said each factor alone isnt enough, but took the situation in its entirety.

While we consider this a close case, we are ultimately persuaded by the States position that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct aTerry frisk, Judge Harris wrote.

Rulings by appeals courts can often have impact or set precedent for other cases that make their way through the judicial system.

Read the ruling here:

Read the original here:
Utah Court of Appeals upholds the controversial police practice of stop and frisk - KSTU FOX 13 Salt Lake City

Want the best of VICE News straight to your inbox? Sign up here.

Right now, cops can easily track and pull over millions of people not because theyre swerving or speeding, but because theyre driving a car registered to a person with a suspended license. But that doesn't mean the driver is the one with the suspended license.

The Supreme Court could soon put an end to those traffic stops to uphold drivers Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches or seizures.

The case, Kansas v. Glover, addresses whether cops can pull someone over because the car theyre driving is registered to someone with a suspended license. To initiate these stops, police rely on the assumption that a cars driver is also its owner, but drivers often share cars with their family members or friends. And being pulled over can subject them to searches or arrests they may not have otherwise had to deal with.

Thats especially dangerous for people of color, according to advocates. Black men like Philando Castile, Walter Scott, and Samuel Debose were shot and killed by police in what started as routine traffic stops.

The consequences for black drivers here are enormous when an officer is operating on an assumption that may or may not be true, said said Lisa Foster, the co-director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, which participated in a brief urging the Supreme Court to put an end to the stops. We know that black drivers get pulled over in some studies, at ten times the rate of white drivers; we know black drivers are more likely once theyre pulled over to be searched.

Police say pulling someone over for a suspended license is necessary because the driver might be actively committing a crime, and the officer can always let the person go if theyre wrongly identified. Officers also want to be able to freely use automatic license plate readers which have become standard in even the smallest police departments over the last decade to pull someone over when its too difficult to manually scan a license plate, search for a description of the driver, and match that description.

But at least 11 million licenses across the country are suspended solely because of unpaid court or traffic debts and not because the indebted person is a dangerous driver, according to the Free to Drive campaign. That doesnt even include people who have lost their licenses over unpaid child support, minor drug crimes, or other non-traffic offenses.

The consequences for black drivers here are enormous."

Before automatic license plate readers, cops often only discovered a drivers license was suspended after they had pulled them over for some other traffic violation. And if the Supreme Court affirms the practice of pulling over anyone suspected of driving with a suspended license, police will essentially have a database of cars ready to stop, according to William Maurer, the managing attorney for the Institute for Justices office in Washington state. The non-profit law firm joined with the Fines and Fees Justice Center in urging he Supreme Court to reconsider the stops.

It creates a two-tiered justice system: People who are able to afford the fines and fees debt that accompany things like traffic tickets and parking tickets will not feel this intrusion, Maurer said.

The case stems from a 2016 traffic stop where a Kansas police officer scanned the license plate of a pickup truck and noticed it was registered to a person with a suspended license. Based on the assumption that the owner of the truck was also the person driving the car, the officer pulled over Charles Glover Jr., who wasnt committing any other traffic violation. It turned out the car was Glovers, and he was cited for driving unlawfully.

But Glover appealed, arguing his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officer didnt have a good enough reason to pull him over. The car couldve just as easily been driven by someone who wasnt Glover, but the officer wouldnt have had any way of knowing until they had already initiated the traffic stop. The Kansas Supreme Court took Glovers side, but the state appealed to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in Glovers favor, several state attorneys general, the National Fraternal Order of Police, and even the Trump administration argue that public safety would be put at risk. But if the decision is struck down, they say cops will have the official greenlight they need to to make more routine traffic stops and keep suspended drivers off the road.

During arguments earlier this month, the Supreme Court appeared to lean toward the side taken by police and prosecutors. Justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said that officers use common sense when they assume the driver of a car is also its owner and shouldnt have to rely on much else.

Reasonable suspicion does not have to be based on statistics, it does not have to be based on specialized experience. As we've said often, it can be based on common sense, Roberts said.

Cover image: Policeman pulls over a driver for speeding, getting out of police car to write a traffic ticket. (kali9 via Getty Images)

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Read more:
Cops Can Pull Drivers Over Who Aren't Breaking the Law. The US Supreme Court Could Change That. - VICE