Mediaboss Marketing

Last month, the City of McMinnville was dropped as a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit. The suit alleged excessive force, false arrest and unreasonable seizure associated with the incident and requested $500,000 from Colwell and $500,000 from McMinnville. The suit arose from an incident involving former McMinnville Police Officer Justin Colwell. Colwell, who currently works at the Warren County Sheriff's Department, is alleged to have handcuffed a Black man in his own yard while responding to a call regarding a woman suspected to be involved in a domestic incident.

In March, an unopposed motion by plaintiff David J. Martin dismissed the City of McMinnville from the suit. Bailey Barnes and Michael Galligan are representing Martin with Cassandra Crane representing Officer Colwell. Daniel Rader, IV represented the City of McMinnville until it was removed from the suit last month in an unopposed motion. Rader said the city did not settle and was voluntarily dropped from the suit. The $1 million lawsuit was initially filed Feb. 23, 2022.

The suit references the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 which it says serves a critical, necessary purpose in protecting the essential interests and basic humanity of citizens who have been deprived of constitutional or statutory rights by those acting under color of state law.

Martins suit looks to the judicial system as is his right under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983, to shield him from abuse when the state is unwilling or unable to do so on its own."

In a filing from April 11, 2022, the City of McMinnville took offense to the mention of the KKK saying it was solely to create a salacious perception by the public at large or within the news media, and not for any legitimate legal purpose.

Martin alleges Officer Colwell used excessive force and violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure when Martin was allegedly painfully and tightly handcuffed in the back of a squad car on his own property. Colwell claims he was operating on reasonable suspicion (a lower bar to prove than probable cause) when he made a Terry stop, detaining Martin because he refused to respond to basic questions regarding the domestic incident Colwell was called to the area for.

In Colwells response to the suit he said he felt Martin had seemingly implicated he was involved by asserting his Fifth Amendment right. McMinnvilles position was the city is not vicariously responsible for the conduct of Officer Colwell.

Colwells defense is he was conducting a Terry stop but may not have met the conditions for a lawful one. In Terry v. Ohio it was ruled that if an officer believes the suspect is armed based on experience and knowledge they may conduct a limited search for weapons. In Floyd v. The City of New York, courts held that a Terry stop was not constitutional as it was being used as a pretext for racial profiling. Only a non-invasive examination of the exterior clothing layer is considered lawful even in jurisdictions, like Tennessee, where a Terry stop is not considered an illegal stop-and-frisk.

Martin was in his own yard, shirtless and wearing flip flops according to Galligan, which may make Colwells defense hard to prove. Colwells defense hinges on being able to prove reasonable suspicion that Martin was armed and dangerous and/or in commission of a crime or that hes shielded by qualified immunity due to his position as a law enforcement officer.

Martin, who is in his 60s, made a complaint to the McMinnville Police Department about pain in his ankle from a prior injury and pain from allegedly being aggressively handcuffed, causing his hands to swell in pain.

McMinnville Police Department conducted an internal affairs investigation and determined Colwell followed departmental protocols. This is despite the fact that Colwell had been warned about not wearing a body-worn camera and not using a dashcam. A recurring disciplinary issue that is uncontested is that Colwell allegedly had a habit of not following department policy regarding dashcam and body-worn cameras. No bodycam or dashcam footage of the interaction with Martin is available as a result of this lapse.

Sgt. Joseph Butler was instructed to inform Colwell, who admitted he often didnt wear a body-worn camera, to begin doing so. The suit alleges that Sgt. Justin Shrum ordered Butler to take a body camera to Colwell. McMinnville claimed the reason Colwell still didnt have a bodycam or dashcam operating was because of a miscommunication and due to an equipment shortage. The bodycam should have been received by Colwell about a month before the incident with Martin.

In its response, McMinnville did not deny the prior incident described but argued the statute of limitations had passed, disparaging the claim as an attempt to try an entirely separate, distinct and unrelated incident.

Colwell admitted taking off his badge during a previous incident which resulted in a write-up: I will not let suspects or the public get under my skin. The previous incident occurred in June 2020. Colwell responded to a call regarding a suspect who had recently received major back surgery and had a rod put in their back. The suit alleges the rod in the suspects back resulted in them needing a walker for mobility which made performing a field sobriety test difficult. Colwell searched the suspect and found a pill in their pocket, asked them to have a seat in the squad car and, when they didnt get in the back seat quickly enough due to their mobility issues, Colwell allegedly used force to push the suspect into the back seat.

Things continued to verbally escalate with the suspect at one point calling Colwell fat which sparked an expletive-laden response from Colwell who allegedly threatened to kill the suspect. Colwell admits to having taken his badge off during the exchange. McMinnville Police Department did not require Colwell to attend any sort of de-escalation or anger management classes.

The trial itself is set for Oct. 17, 2023 at 10 a.m. and is expected to take three to four days to complete. Colwells lawyer, Crane, responded to a request for comment: Mr. Colwell vehemently denies any wrongdoing in this case. I am unable to comment further on pending litigation.

See the rest here:
Former MPD officer sued - McMinnville - Southern Standard

On March 7, a bipartisan group of 13 senators, including Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), introduced the RESTRICT Act in Congress amid concerns from some lawmakers that the popular social media app TikTok could be used by the Chinese government to spy on Americans. If signed into law, the RESTRICT Act could potentially ban TikTok in the United States.

Since the bill was first introduced, several viral social media posts have claimed that the RESTRICT Act could also give the U.S. government access to Americans personal data from their home devices, such as Ring security cameras, Amazon Echo and Google Nest.

this is way worse than I thought #gaming #savetiktok #tiktokban #restrictact #tech #techeducation

Would the RESTRICT Act give the federal government access to data from your home devices?

No, the RESTRICT Act would not give the federal government access to data from your home devices

Sign up for the VERIFY Fast Facts daily Newsletter!

The RESTRICT Act would not give the federal government access to the personal data found on individual Americans home security or smart devices, according to both the bills sponsor and critics of the legislation. Instead, the act allows the government to investigate potential national security threats by analyzing foreign-owned technology companies, not individual users in the U.S., whose data is protected by the Constitution.

Many of the viral social media posts that have shared this claim focus on Section 5 of the RESTRICT Act. According to the bills text, Section 5 directs the Secretary of Commerce to review wireless networks, various access points, cloud storage and other types of technology that were made by countries that the U.S. considers to be foreign adversaries, such as China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, to ensure it is not being used to spy on Americans or steal their data.

If the Secretary of Commerce determines the technology does threaten national security, then the bill says Congress must be publicly notified. Lawmakers could then decide to impose privacy or corporate transparency requirements on the specific product or ban it altogether.

In an email, a spokesperson from Sen. Mark Warners office told VERIFY that the claims in regard to the federal government having access to Americans home devices are false. On March 31, Warner also addressed some of what he calls misconceptions about the RESTRICT Act in a thread on Twitter.

This bill doesnt give the government any power to track what youre searching! In fact, it is aimed at COUNTERING foreign surveillance from authoritarian nations, Warner said. This bill takes on big, systemic threats to our national security not individual users.

Even organizations that oppose the bill, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), agree that the RESTRICT Act would not give the government access to Americans private data on their home devices.

Is the RESTRICT Act a surveillance bill that would allow the government access to your devices? Not exactly, the EFF wrote in an April 4 report about the bill.

EFF explains that under the RESTRICT Act, the Secretary of Commerce could demand information from a company owned by a foreign adversary if they are under investigation. That company could be required to share some user data with certain government entities. But the EFF says there are some important confidentiality requirements protecting this type of data.

The ACLU also told VERIFY that the Fourth Amendment already protects most Americans personal information from the federal government.

As of April 7, Congress has not taken any action toward passing the RESTRICT Act since it was introduced in March. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco have endorsed the bill.

The VERIFY team works to separate fact from fiction so that you can understand what is true and false. Please consider subscribing to our daily newsletter, text alerts and our YouTube channel. You can also follow us on Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. Learn More

Text: 202-410-8808

Read more from the original source:
No, the RESTRICT Act wouldnt give the government access to data from your home devices - WCNC.com

Washinton, DC, has been accused of using unconstitutional and discriminatory tactics to enforce its gun laws.

Last week, a federal judge ruled a class-action suit against city officials over alleged targeting of Black men in poorer sections of the city for unwarranted scrutiny can move forward. The lawsuit claims police would use pre-texts to stop the men without probable cause to believe theyd committed a crime and then search them without permission or a warrant. This was all done in pursuit of getting guns off the street.

Its a familiar story. Infamously, Michael Bloomberg instituted an even more aggressive version of this stop and frisk strategy during his time as New York City mayor. At least until it was ruled unconstitutional for targeting minorities. The scandal surrounding Baltimore, Marylands Gun Trace Taskforce reached new lows using similar methods, combined with outright corruption, in their own pursuit of racking up gun seizures.

But these enforcement schemes all have something in common beyond a blatant disregard for the Fourth Amendment rights of their victims: theyre the result of gun laws that are nearly impossible for many to actually comply with.

And thats no coincidence. Its the intended design of many of the laws in question. But its also the part of the story that often goes unexamined.

Understandably, a lot has been made about the uneven nature of enforcement in these situations. However, there is little discussion of how the strict gun laws being enforced create incentives for unfair enforcement, often against people who arent actually dangerous.

Take the gun-carry laws of Baltimore and New York when stop and frisk and the Gun Trace Taskforce were at their height. Both had particularly onerous may-issue permitting laws. That meant it was nearly impossible for anyone who wasnt wealthy or connected enough to obtain a permit to legally carry a gun since officials could, and almost always did, reject applicants for any reason they saw fit.

So, most normal people couldnt legally carry a gun on them.

At the same time, officials and police want to reduce gun crime. So, they focus resources on low-income neighborhoods where gun crimes happen most.

Naturally, residents of those areas are often highly-motivated to carry a gun for their protection. But, since its impossible to do so legally, many choose to do so illegally.

Inevitably, these competing incentives result in the arrests of many people who may not be dangerous. When combined with a view from officials that anyone with a gun was a potential threat to the community, which was often the case, the ends for getting any and all firearms off the streets are viewed as justifying the means by which thats accomplished.

This all remains true even in DC, where the courts have forced them to adopt a shall issue permitting regime. Because even though officials cant reject applicants for any reason they want anymore, the city has adopted an application process that costs hundreds of dollars and takes upwards of six months to complete. And it combined that with a mountain of restrictions on where you can carry, including a prohibition on all public transit.

The result is a process that is possible to complete but highly impractical for those same residents who live in low-income, high-crime sections of the city.

Of course, due to factors stretching back generations, those areas are generally minority neighborhoods. Thus, even though officials and officersmany of whom are themselves minoritiesarent trying to enforce laws in a racially discriminatory way, thats the result regardless. And, as New York public defenders argued in Bruen, it means that many urban minorities routinely have their Second Amendment rights violated.

In fact, DCs current permitting system may make enforcement even more inequitable. At least before it was nearly impossible for anyone to get a permit. Now, the onerous but completable process makes it more likely that affluent applicants will have the time, money, and mobility to get approved. Their less-affluent neighbors are less likely to do so.

That means areas of the city where people are illegally carrying a gun, whether to further a criminal act or just to protect themselves without first obtaining a permit, will skew even more toward poor, minority neighborhoods. Ensuring police prioritize protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of all city residents will go a long way to offsetting that outcome. But it probably wont solve the problem in the long term.

The reality is that making it extremely difficult for law-abiding residents of any income level to legally defend themselves will always result in some people who arent a danger to the community.

View original post here:
Analysis: How Strict Enforcement of Strict Gun Laws Begets ... - The Reload

April 6, 2023

By Larry Keane

Rights Still Matter, Even in New York

A New York court affirmed that Due Process rights must be taken into consideration when enforcing so-called red flag laws and vacated New Yorks Gov. Kathy Hochuls executive order for enforcing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or red flag orders. That is consistent with what NSSF has said from the beginning about ERPOs. If an individual is going to be deprived of fundamental constitutional rights, they must be afforded the opportunity to examine and challenge evidence brought against them they must be afforded due process of law.

In New Yorks case, the court requires that any red flag order must be accompanied by a determination from a physician or psychiatrist. Thats already part of New Yorks laws. The court noted that New Yorks Mental Hygiene law that states, a persons liberty rights cannot be curtailed unless a physician opines that a person is suffering from a condition likely to result in serious harm. Further, in order to extend any such curtailment of liberty beyond 48 hours, a second doctors opinion must be obtained and such an opinion must be consistent with the first doctors opinion.

This is a critical distinction to how Gov. Hochul wanted New Yorks red flag law to be administered. Her Executive Order allowed for a police officer, district attorney, family or household member, school administrator or a school administrators designee which includes guidance counselors or school social workers to petition for red flag orders. There was no requirement that a licensed medical professional to opine on the mental state of the individual in question. Her Executive Order required state police to file red flag orders on individuals when there is probable cause to believe the respondent is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself, or others

That left courts in the position of determining someones mental health state, without medical evidence to make that determination.

The Courts ruling now requires that the supporting documentation must include a doctors determination. Whats more, is the Court recognized that Second Amendment rights are foundational individual liberties and the state must clear a high bar when taking action to deprive someone of those rights.

Second Amendment rights are no less fundamental than Fourth Amendment rights (the right to liberty), and must be provided the same level of due process and equal protection, wrote Judge Craig Steven Brown.

Thats not just the U.S. Constitution that protects that right but also existing New Yorks Mental Hygiene Law. The court went further. It concluded that anyone subjected to a red flag order for more than 48 hours must have a second and concurring determination from another doctor.

NSSF has never opposed so-called red flag laws, so long as they provide procedural and substantive due process. Of the 19 states and the District of Columbia that have these laws on the books, none include sufficient or adequate due process protections. A New York Supreme Court has now held that they must be included.

The firearm industry wants to keep firearms out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted to responsibly possess them. That includes prohibited individuals, those suffering through a mental health crisis or suffering suicidal ideations and unsupervised children. Red flag laws have utility in protecting the public but must be carefully administered so these orders arent abused to disarm lawful gun owners.

The bar must be higher than mere accusations that someone is likely to harm themselves or others. ERPOs that would deprive a citizen of their constitutional rights must provide meaningful due process protections including allowing an individual to examine and rebut any evidence presented to a court for consideration. For that reason, NSSF has significant concerns with ex parte orders, which are issued without notice to the individual who is the subject of the order. And, on the truly rare occasion when there are exigent circumstances to justify an ex parte order, due process requires a very prompt post-deprivation hearing.

The New York judge got it right with this decision. We should be providing all the tools necessary for law enforcement to protect the public against criminals and mentally-deranged individuals that have no respect for life or law. Those protections, though, should never come at the cost to our foundational freedoms including Due Process and Second Amendment rights.

Categories: BP Item, Featured, Government Relations, Top Stories

Visit link:
New York Court Rules Due Process Must be Considered for 'Red ... - National Shooting Sports Foundation

I must confess that when I hear someone say that a legal case was decided on a technicality, my blood pressure goes up. I understand that it often appears at first glance that a nitpicking rule, or procedure, should not affect the outcome when a decision on the merits of the matter seems preferable and more just.

But a quick look at history indeed, a quick look at the history of the present moment around the world reveals that procedural justice is not a nuisance invented by lawyers and ivory tower academics. The truth is that procedural justice is at the very heart of the rule of law and thus is essential to freedom, fairness, and democracy.

No system of justice can operate properly if the rules of the game are not fair and do not apply equally to everyone, regardless of their political orientation or views of myriad subjects.

The bad guys deserve precisely the same level of protection as the good guys. The whole point of the rule of law is that everyone is operating pursuant to the same rules, rules which are fair, logical, and known to all participants. The unbiased application of legal norms and rulesrules of procedure, rules of evidence, rules relating to the suppression of illegally seized evidence, and many othersis essential to ensure fair outcomes. Our country has always prided itself on the principal that all who enter the legal system will begin at the same starting line.

Let me take a common hypothetical example of how the importance of legal technicalities can be misunderstood.

Police arrest an individual, lets call him Mr. Drugdealer, and charge him with a crime. The principal evidence of guilt is a bag of cocaine seized from the defendants residence. The defense files a motion seeking to prevent the use of the drugs at trial on the grounds that they were illegally seized in violation of the United States Constitution.

Following a hearing, a judge agrees with the defendants argument, suppresses the use of the cocaine by the state, and the state, lacking evidence, dismisses the case. The local newspaper predictably editorializes that it is travesty that Mr. Drugdealer walked away unscathed in the face of obvious guilt due to a legal technicality, and that the judge should be removed from the bench. After all, isnt it 100 percent clear that the defendant is guilty?

In this case, the legal technicality was the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Rather than lament the outcome, I believe it should be celebrated as a sign that the restrictions placed on the state by the Constitution are being honored and fairly applied.

What the newspaper failed to appreciate in this case is that while prosecuting criminals is a very important goal of society, it is not the only very important value at stake. The opposing value, expressed in the United States Constitution and state constitutions as well, is ensuring the privacy of people and the sanctity of their residence, and place limits on the police authorities. I remember a former law professor of mine who once stated that what some people called legal technicalities should really be viewed as tiny constitutions, designed to protect the rights of everyone, no matter their status in society.

The Founding Fathers, veterans of the Revolutionary War, understood what it meant to live in a society in which state power is unrestrained. They had lived under British rule, enduring taxation without representation, being forced to quarter troops in their homes, and various other indignities. The Constitution they drafted is largely premised on the proposition that a healthy dose of distrust of government power is a good and necessary thing.

So it is no accident that one of the first things totalitarian leaders do is change the technical rules to their own advantage, or abolish laws and procedures that stand in their way. The new rules they create may give an outward appearance of fairness, but they are a fraud. They are designed to strip the opposition of its rights and to ensure that enemies of the state are crushed.

The next time you hear someone complain about a legal technicality, please hesitate before you assume that the system has malfunctioned. Consider the possibility that the legal technicality should not be viewed as a nuisance, but as an essential ingredient in ensuring fair play, equal justice, and protection of the rule of law.

Without legal technicalities, democracy cannot exist. Without legal technicalities, and people who understand the essential role they play, our glorious experiment in freedom will be in mortal danger.

Link:
Opinion: Democracy can't exist without "legal technicalities" - The Connecticut Mirror