Mediaboss Marketing

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) A Connecticut man should not have been arrested years after a non-fatal shooting based on a warrant that only included a general description of the suspect and partial DNA evidence linked to several unknown people, the state's Supreme Court ruled Friday in dismissing the case.

The case called into question so-called John Doe warrants increasingly being used by police to solve cold cases around the country and get around statute-of-limitations issues. Such warrants, which have been ruled valid by many courts, typically include only a DNA profile of an unknown suspect and are used years later to make an arrest after testing links the DNA to a specific person.

The man, Terrance Police, appealed and the Connecticut high court ruled 7-0 that the warrant for his arrest was unconstitutional because the DNA evidence it referenced was not from a single person known to be the suspect, but rather from several people who may or may not have been the perpetrators.

Senior Justice Christine Keller, who authored the decision, said it is believed to be the first such ruling of its kind in the country on John Doe warrants issued based on DNA profiles from multiple unknown people. The decision said Police's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.

In the present case, the arrest warrant affidavit did not alert the judicial authority to the fact that the DNA profiles did not include the perpetrators unique DNA profile but, rather, were mixed partial profiles generated from the touch DNA of at least four different individuals, three of whom evidently had no involvement in the crimes at issue whatsoever, Keller wrote.

Nor did it apprise the judicial authority of the statistical probability that any person chosen at random from the general population would have those DNA profiles, she wrote.

Police, of Waterbury, was charged in May 2018 with assault and robbery in connection with an October 2012 shooting outside a Norwalk supermarket that injured a woman. His arrest came about seven months after the five-year statute of limitations expired, but was based on the John Doe arrest warrant signed by a judge a year earlier.

A month before his arrest, the mother of his child told authorities that Police confessed to her that he shot the woman. New testing was ordered comparing Police's DNA to samples found at the crime scene, and it linked Police to the shooting, officials said.

Police pleaded no contest to the charges in 2019 on the condition that he could appeal, and he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

His public defender, Mark Rademacher, said he expects Police to be released from prison within the next week because of the Supreme Court ruling. He called the case a cautionary tale of over-reliance by law enforcement on complex DNA evidence that leads them to not undertake other investigation techniques.

Assistant State's Attorney Timothy Sugrue said prosecutors are reviewing the ruling and will determine whether an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is warranted.

See original here:
Court tosses shooting conviction based on 'John Doe' warrant - Jacksonville Journal-Courier

As I noted back in March, when Project Veritas discovered what was clear from the start that SDNY had relied on material obtained from emails involving James OKeefe and two other Project Veritas associates to get warrants to obtain their phones they tried to claw back not just the emails but also the phones.

[B]efore obtaining warrants to seize James OKeefes phones, DOJ had first obtained emails that provided the evidenceto get the warrants for his phones.

The Government disclosed many of its covert investigative steps in theex partecontext of the Affidavit, including each email search warrant it had obtained pursuant to the SCA in this investigation.

This is preciselywhat SDNY did with Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani, and its what Magistrate Judge Sarah Cavewas talking aboutwhen she referred to the considerable detail in the affidavit.

Third, the Court has reviewed the Materials in camera and observes that they contain considerable detail about individuals who may have already provided information to the Governmentvoluntarily or involuntarilysuch that unsealing of the Materials could subject [them] to witness tampering, harassment, or retaliation.

PV revealed that in amotionasking Judge Analisa Torres to claw back this information.

In March, DOJ told PV to wait until they were indicted to complain (heres my thread on that response).

Days later, on March 30, PV tried again, petitioning Judge Torres to force the government to return all their phones and their emails.

Tick tock, tick tock.

On April 11, Judge Torres set a briefing schedule: the government had to file a response by May 6, and PV should file their reply by May 20.

Tick tock, tick tock.

Right on schedule, the government filed its response last night. The response is 28-pages long, much of which is dedicated to explaining to PV how the Fourth Amendment works and asserting that SDNY is quite confident the magistrates rulings findings there was probable cause that these accounts and devices would contain evidence of enumerated crimes will hold up. The discussion includes a particular focus on how SDNY already has precedents approving investigations that first obtain emails covertly and then seize phones overtly, as they did with Rudy Giuliani and (while they dont rely on the precedent) did with Michael Cohen before that.

To the extent that the Movants are attempting to raise arguments with respect to execution of the warrants for email account data, there is no legal basis for such challenges at this stage of an ongoing grand jury investigation. Last year, Judge Oetken denied a similar challenge where the circumstances were materially the same: in the course of a multi-year, covert investigation, the Government obtained electronic data pursuant to judicially-authorized search warrants issued under 18 U.S.C. 2703, the Government had reviewed that electronic data prior to the overt execution of search warrants for electronic devices, and a Special Master was appointed to oversee the review of the contents of the electronic devices (but not the electronic data obtained previously). Specifically, Judge Oetken ruled:

Giuliani and Toensing also seek pre-indictment discovery of the Governments privilege and responsiveness designations in connection with the 2019 warrants [obtained covertly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2703]. They cite no legal authority for this request, and the Court is aware of none. If there is a criminal proceeding, any defendants will be entitled to discovery under Rule 16. There is no basis for compelling the Government to produce this information now, during an ongoing grand jury investigation.

Finally, the Court sees no legal basis for Toensings request for detailed information about the filter team review process, at least at the pre-charge phase of this matter.

In re Search Warrants Executed on Apr. 28, 2021, 2021 WL 2188150, at *2. The circumstances confronted by Judge Oetken are indistinguishable from those presented here. The Movants offer no authority contrary to Judge Oetkens ruling, and the Government is aware of none. To the extent the Movants may potentially be entitled at some point to the disclosures that they seek, any such entitlement would only be triggered, if at all, by the filing of an indictment charging them in connection with the investigation, and not before.12

12 Or, potentially, by the filing of a civil claim, should one exist, that survives a motion to dismiss and proceeds to discovery.

Just for good measure, though, SDNY makes it clear they had reviewed all the emails before obtaining the overt warrants on OKeefe and his flunkies, which makes it a good bet they relied on the email content to show probable cause to get the phone warrants.

With respect to the subscriber, non-content, and content information for email accounts referenced by the Movants, which were obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and orders and warrants issued by federal magistrate judges pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (the SCA), 18 U.S.C. 2703, the Governments review of those materials was completed months ago, before the Movants initiated this Part I matter in November 2021.

Ive stated repeatedly this was what happened here, only to have a PV lawyer claim I was wrong.

I was not wrong.

As I said, the bulk of this filing is just a primer in how the Fourth Amendment works, as applied. It is thorough, but it mostly feels like T-crossing.

More specific to the facts at hand, however, SDNY accuses PV of attempting to bypass the Special Master process they themselves demanded and Judge Torres approved last year.

Consisting of equal parts rhetoric, speculation, and inaccurate factual assertions, the motion is little more than a misguided attempt to end-run the Special Master process that this Court put in place and prematurely litigate the merits of the Governments prior investigative steps.

[snip]

With respect to the devices that are subject to the Special Masters review, the Movants attempt to put these arguments before the Court while the same arguments are pending before the Special Master appears to be an improper end-run around the Special Master. As explained above, these very arguments were fully briefed as of April 20, 2022, and are in the process of being decided by the Special Master. The Movants should not be permitted to short-circuit the process that this Court put in place, at their request, and which will adequately safeguard any potentially privileged materials that were contained on the devices.11

11 In the event the Court finds any of these issues material to the resolution of the motion, the Court should defer consideration until after the Special Master has issued a ruling on the same.

Even if Torres is sympathetic to poor James OKeefes plight (and she accorded him better treatment than Rudy Giuliani got in the same court), shes likely to be pissed about this aspect of things, that she went to the trouble of approving a Special Master and splitting the costs to pay for Barbara Jones services, only to have PV demand more.

And heres why that matters: as SDNY noted, Jones isas we speak making final decisions about what SDNY gets.

The Special Masters responsiveness review has largely been completed, with the contents of only one device currently under review. The parties have submitted briefs outlining their positions regarding the law and principles that should be applied to the Movants objections to the release of the items that the Special Master has deemed responsive to the search warrants to the investigative team. 2

2 The Movants submitted their briefs to the Special Master on April 1, 2022, the Government submitted its response on April 13, 2022, and the Movants submitted a reply on April 20, 2022.

Tick tock, tick tock.

Project Veritas was, almost certainly, already preparing their briefing for Jones when they demanded this end-run around the Special Master process. They had, almost certainly, reviewed what was about to be turned over to SDNY and how, having read the affidavits that PV is still trying to get, Jones interpreted the scope of the investigation. So not only does this timing seem to substantiate SDNYs claim theyre trying to back out of their demands for a Special Master, but it makes it likely that by the time they file their own reply two weeks from now tick tock, tick tock Jones will already have submitted her recommendations regarding what materials SDNY gets.

And until then, SDNY explained in their law school primer to PV about how the Fourth Amendment works in practice, SDNY gets to keep all the evidence implicating a criminal investigation until they decide whether or not to charge anyone.

To the contrary, the electronic devices retained by the Government were obtained pursuant to search warrants issued by a Magistrate Judge after a finding of probable cause, and are currently in the final stages of the Special Masters review process. Similarly, the contents of email accounts were also obtained pursuant to search warrants issued by Magistrate Judges after findings of probable cause, and the Governments review of materials obtained pursuant to those warrants was completed months ago. There can be no dispute that the Governments investigation is ongoing, that these materials include evidence relevant to that investigation, and that, if a prosecution results from the investigation, these materials will have evidentiary value.

[snip]

Third, the Governments retention of the items and materials at issue is reasonable because its investigation remains ongoing and the return of the property sought would impair the Governments investigation. The electronic devices at issue either have been determined by the Special Master to contain responsive items, are currently under review by the Special Master, or have not yet been reviewed by the Special Master due to technical impediments. Similarly, the email account content has been reviewed by the Government and has been determined to contain material responsive to the search warrants. See, e.g., In re Search Warrants Executed on Apr. 28, 2021, 2021 WL 2188150, at *2 (denying pre-indictment motion to return to movants the results from earlier search warrants of [movants] iCloud and email accounts because, among other reasons, the review of the [earlier] warrant returns is now largely complete). These items and materials are anticipated to have evidentiary value if a prosecution arises from the Governments ongoing grand jury investigation. In light of the character of these items and materials and the status of the Governments investigation, retention of the items and materials is reasonable at least until the Governments investigation is completed or, in the event a prosecution arises from the investigation, until such time that the criminal case reaches its conclusion.

SDNY is not sayingthata prosecution will arise from the materials seized from PV. But they are saying theyve found evidence that would be relevant if they chose to do so.

And, SDNY repeats again in their primer on how the Fourth Amendment works, its only after SDNY makes that decision that James OKeefe will have standing to challenge these searches.

See the rest here:
Tick Tock: SDNY Tells Project Veritas, Again, To Wait Until James O'Keefe Is Indicted to Complain - emptywheel - Emptywheel

On Wednesday, Congress was treated to the unfamiliar spectacle of highly intelligent people, talking with nuance, about platform regulation. The occasion was a hearing, titled Platform Transparency: Understanding the Impact of Social Media, and it served as a chance for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider the necessity of legislation that would require big tech platforms to make themselves available for study by qualified researchers and members of the public.

One such piece of legislation, the Platform Transparency and Accountability Act, was introduced in December by (an ever-so-slightly) bipartisan group of senators. One of those senators, Chris Coons of Delaware, led the Wednesday hearing; another, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, was present as well. Over a delightfully brisk hour and forty minutes, Coons and his assembled experts explored the necessity of requiring platforms to disclose data and the challenges of requiring them to do so in a constitutional way.

To the first point why is this necessary? the Senate called Brandon Silverman, co-founder of the transparency tool CrowdTangle. (I interviewed him here in March.) CrowdTangle is a tool that allows researchers, journalists and others to view the popularity of links and posts on Facebook in real time, and understand how they are spreading. Researchers studying the effects of social networks on democracy say we would benefit enormously from having similar insight into the spread of content on YouTube, TikTok, and other huge platforms.

Silverman was eloquent in describing how Facebooks experience of acquiring CrowdTangle only to find that it could be used to embarrass the company made other platforms less likely to undertake similar voluntary measures to improve public understanding.

Above all else, the single biggest challenge is that in the industry right now, you can simply get away without doing any transparency at all, said Silverman, who left the company now known as Meta in October. YouTube, TikTok, Telegram, and Snapchat represent some of the largest and most influential platforms in the United States, and they provide almost no functional transparency into their systems. And as a result, they avoid nearly all of the scrutiny and criticism that comes with it.

He continued: That reality has industry-wide implications, and it frequently led to conversations inside Facebook about whether or not it was better to simply do nothing, since you could easily get away with it.

When we do hear about what happens inside a tech company, its often because a Frances Haugen-type employee decides to leak it. The overall effect of that is to paint a highly selective, irregular picture of whats happening inside the biggest platforms, said Nate Persily, a professor at Stanford Law School who also testified today.

We shouldnt have to wait for whistleblowers to whistle, Persily said. This type of transparency legislation is about empowering outsiders to get a better idea of whats happening inside these firms.

So what would the legislation now under consideration actually do? The Stanford Policy Center had a nice recap of its core features:

*Allows researchers to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation. If the NSF supports a proposal, social-media platforms would be required to furnish the needed data, subject to privacy protections that could include anonymizing it or white rooms in which researchers could review sensitive material.

*Gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to require regular disclosure of specific information by platforms, such as data about ad targeting.

*Commission could require platforms create basic research tools to study what content succeeds, similar to the basic design of the Meta-owned CrowdTangle.

*Bars social-media platforms from blocking independent research initiatives; both researchers and platforms would be given a legal safe harbor related to privacy concerns.

To date, much of the focus on regulating tech platforms has found members of Congress attempting to regulate speech, at both the individual and corporate level. Persily argued that starting instead with this kind of forced sunlight might be more effective.

Once platforms know theyre being watched, it will change their behavior, he said. They will not be able to do certain things in secret that theyve been able to up till now. He added that platforms would likely change their products in response to heightened scrutiny as well.

OK, fine, but what are the tradeoffs? Daphne Keller, director of the program on Platform regulation at Stanford, testified that Congress should consider carefully what sorts of data it requires platforms to disclose. Among other things, any new requirements could be exploited by law enforcement to get around existing limits.

Nothing about these transparency laws should change Americans protections under the Fourth Amendment or laws like the Stored Communications Act, and I dont think thats anyones intention here, she said. But clear drafting is essential to ensure that government cant effectively bypass Fourth Amendment limits by harnessing the unprecedented surveillance power of private platforms.

There are also First Amendment concerns around these sort of platform regulations, she noted, pointing to the failure in court of two recent state laws designed to force platforms to carry speech that violates their policies.

I want transparency mandates to be constitutional, but there are serious challenges, Keller said. And I hope that you will put really good lawyers on that.

Unfortunately, into every Senate hearing, a little Ted Cruz must fall. The Texas senator was the only participant on Wednesday to exhaust his allotted speaking time without asking a single question of the experts present. Cruz expressed great confusion about why he got relatively few new Twitter followers in the days before Elon Musk said he was going to buy it, but then got many more after the acquisition was announced.

It is obvious someone flipped the switch, the Texas Republican said. The governors they had on that said silence conservatives were flipped off. That is the only rational explanation. (I know the word governors is used somewhat unconventionally here, but I listened to the tape five times and thats what I heard.)

The actual explanation is that Musk has lots of conservative fans, they flocked back to the platform when they heard he was buying it, and from there Twitters recommendation algorithms kicked into gear.

But here even I must sympathize with Cruz, for all the reasons that todays hearing was called in the first place. Absent legislation that requires platforms to explain how they work in greater detail, some people are always going to believe in the dumbest explanations possible. (Especially when those explanations serve a political purpose.) Cruz is what you get in a world with only voluntary transparency on the part of the platforms.

That said, we should still keep our expectations in check there are limits on what platform disclosures can do for our discourse. It seems quite possible that you could explain exactly how Twitter works to Ted Cruz, and he would either fail to comprehend or willfully misunderstand you for political reasons. And even people who seek to understand recommender systems in good faith may fail to understand explanations on a technical level. Transparency isnt a cure-all.

But its a start? And seems much less fraught than lots of other proposed tech regulations, many of which find Congress attempting to regulate speech in ways that seem unlikely to survive First Amendment scrutiny.

Of course, where other countries hold hearings as a prelude to passing legislation, in the United States we typically hold hearings instead of passing legislation. And despite some Republican support for the measure even Cruz said this one sounded fine to him theres no evidence that its gathering any particular momentum.

As usual, though, Europe is much further ahead of us. The Digital Services Act, which regulators reached an agreement on in April, includes provisions that would require big platforms to share data with qualified researchers. The law is expected to go into effect by next year. And so even if Congress dithers after today, transparency is coming to platforms one way or another. Heres hoping it can begin to answer some very important questions.

Originally posted here:
Meta, TikTok, and YouTube may finally have to start sharing data with researchers - The Verge

The leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion this week that would overturn the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade has raised fresh questions about when, if ever, a court ruling can safely be considered settled law.

One bedrock of American law is the doctrine of stare decisis, the principle that courts are generally bound to abide by past rulings. Yet the Supreme Court has also left itself wiggle room, repeatedly noting that adherence to precedent is not an inexorable command.

The current clash over the fate of Roe is the not the first time the court has wrestled with the tension between deference to past rulings and flexibility to maneuver.

Here are five big historical examples of when the Supreme Court has reversed itself.

The Supreme Court ruled in Plessy V. Ferguson (1896) that race-based segregation was legal, a decision that was not overturned for more than 50 years.

The Plessy decision got its name from Homer A. Plessy, who challenged a Louisiana law that created separate rail cars for Blacks and whites, arguing it violated the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause.

In the case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of segregation, so long as it was separate but equal.

In 1951, 13 parents, with Oliver Brown named as a plaintiff, sued Topekas Board of Education in Kansas in a direct challenge to the precedent.

The court in 1954 ultimately overturned Plessy V. Ferguson, establishing that race-based segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children, wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren in the unanimous opinion.

To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone, Warren continued.

The state of New York passed the Bakeshop Act in 1896 in an effort to support labor rights.

The law established limits on workday schedules, including a policy barring an employee in a bake shop from working more than 60 hours in a week.

Joseph Lochner, the owner of a bakery shop, was charged with violating the law, and he took a case challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In Lochner v. New York (1905), the court ruled the law interfered with employer-employee contracts and was government overreach, as well as a violation of the 14th Amendments Due Process Clause.

Until 1937, the rule was the law of the land. Courts adhered to the precedent, striking down similar labor cases.

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) brought labor rights into a fresh spotlight.

The case concerned a new minimum wage hike from the Washington governments Industrial Welfare Committee and Supervisor of Women in Industry. They raised the minimum wage to $14.50 for each work week of 48 hours for female workers.

Elsie Parrish, who worked for West Coast Hotel Company, sued the company for not giving her the new basic minimum wage standard.

The Supreme Court, considering whether a minimum wage law violated the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause, ruled it was constitutional to establish a minimum wage law.

The ruling ended the Lochner era and the courts long avoidance of regulating business.

Michael Hardwick was arrested by a police officer in Georgia in 1982 for sodomy and sued, challenging the states law and naming then-Attorney General Michael J. Bowers in ths suit.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that there was no constitutional protection of sodomy and states could outlaw homosexual intercourse.

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the court reversed the decision entirely. In a 6-3 ruling, justices ruled for John Lawrence, who had been convicted under a sodomy law. The court said making it a crime for two men to have sex violated the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause.

The decision would also pave the way toward the landmark 2015 ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S.

In the 1949 case. Wolf vs. Colorado, Julius A. Wolf, Charles H. Fulton and Betty Fulton were charged with conspiracy to perform an abortion.

Wolf challenged the evidence used against him, arguing it was seized illegally and in violation of his Fourth Amendment right.

The court, however, said illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from court by default.

Years later, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) saw another stunning reversal from Supreme Court precedent.

In that case, justices ruled in favor of Dollree Mapp, who was convicted of possessing obscene materials during an illegal police search of her home for a separate investigation into a missing fugitive.

Mapp had challenged the case and evidence against her based on a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The justices concurred with her argument.

The ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the State tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest, wrote Justice Tom Clark in the majority opinion.

Having once recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise, Clark added.

Pace V. Alabama (1882) concerned Tony Pace, an African American man, and Mary Cox, a white woman, who were charged with adultery and fornication in Alabama under a law that severely punished interracial relationships.

Pace took a legal challenge to the Supreme Court, arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause.

Justices ruled that Alabamas law was not in conflict with the Constitution, despite more severe punishments levied against African-Americans in violation.

In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court reversed that ruling in another case nearly 100 years later.

Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a White man, were arrested in Virginia and sentenced to a year in jail for violating a law banning inter-racial marriages.

Loving challenged the statute, arguing it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed.

Under our Constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the majority opinion.

Original post:
Five times the Supreme Court reversed a precedent - The Hill

Slim Smith

My dad was not an educated man, at least as far as formal education goes. But neither was he a dummy.

By the time I got my drivers license, my parents were in their late 50s and were not in a mood to stay up late into the night on weekends to make sure I came home at a decent hour.

From wisdom gleaned from raising my five older siblings, my dad settled on a different kind of curfew for me.

I was free to stay out as late as I wanted. The curfew was enforced on the other end. Up by 8 a.m., a curfew applied without exception

Even today, I marvel at the brilliance of that strategy.

For starters, my parents could get a good nights rest. Second, it instilled in me a sense of discipline that every child needs to develop as they approach adulthood. Mom and Dad wont be around forever, after all.

So, on those occasions when I was tempted to stay out until 2 or 3 in the morning, I was forced to make a cost/benefit analysis: a few more hours hanging with my pals versus a few fewer hours of sleep. More often than not, I was home around midnight.

Picking peas on a hot Saturday morning on four hours sleep is pure misery. And staying awake during the Sunday sermon was difficult even for a well-rested teen.

So, in the end, my dads unorthodox concept of curfews achieved what it was intended to do.

I was reminded of this after Tuesdays Columbus City Council meeting, when Ward 2 councilman Joseph Mickens made a passionate plea for the police department to increase enforcement of a curfew for kids under the age of 18, an ordinance that has been on the books since the 1990s but rarely enforced. According to the CPD logs, there was only one citation for violating the curfew so far this year.

According to the ordinance, on weekdays, it is illegal for minors to remain in or upon any public street, highway, park, sidewalk or other public space between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 12:01 a.m. and 5 a.m. on Friday or Saturday nights.

On a first offense, violators will be taken to the Juvenile Detention Center, and they will be released to their parents or guardian without charges. If it happens again, the parents will be fined $50 or will have to complete five hours of community service. A third offense results in a $100 fine or 10 hours of community service. Subsequent offenses face a $500 fine or 50 hours of community service.

Minors with a parent or guardian are exempt. Minors may be out after curfew in a window 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after work, if they are employed, while going directly between home and work. The exemption also applies within 30 minutes of the end of a school- or church-sponsored event.

In making his argument, Mickens quoted former city councilman Bill Gavin, who said Nothing good ever happens after midnight. To that, I will simply respond that Gavin never met Betty Ann Tompkins

I do not mean to sound flippant. The recent shooting death of a 16-year-old in the early morning hours Sunday and the general increase in violent crime is unnerving. We are all searching for answers, and Mickens request for enforcing the curfew is a good-faith response.

I just dont like the idea, for several reasons.

First, it is not the governments job to tell parents how to raise their children. A parent may have their own ideas about what constitutes a decent hour. Those decisions are best made in the home.

Second, I have serious concerns about how the curfew would be enforced. I suspect it would be applied most vigorously among Black children in Black neighborhoods.

Third, I fear the curfew could be used as probable cause to violate Fourth Amendment rights that guard against unreasonable search and seizure.

Fourth, the idea that a kid whose only offense is to be Black in a poor neighborhood after a certain hour can be detained and hauled off to the juvenile detention center seems ridiculously harsh.

Finally, and most importantly, I believe the resources required to fairly and effectively enforce this curfew could be put to a far better use. Hiring more police officers and increasing patrols seems a far better response to the crime issue.

A publicity campaign to encourage parents to establish their own curfews would be a far better approach.

I endorse the out of bed by 8 a.m. model.

Slim Smith is a columnist and feature writer for The Dispatch. His email address is [emailprotected]

Slim Smith is a columnist and feature writer for The Dispatch. His email address is [emailprotected]

See the rest here:
Slimantics: Curfew is a well-intentioned, but misguided, response to crime - The Dispatch - The Commercial Dispatch