Mediaboss Marketing

When he took the bench, New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Rowan Wilson was welcomed as a breath of fresh air by progressive lawmakers and activists. That perception may be challenged now that hes joined with the courts conservatives to affirm law enforcements ability to search DNA databanks for the relatives of criminals.

Last week, the court voted 4-3 to allow law enforcement to do the searches, with judges Michael Garcia, Madeline Singas and Anthony Cannataro concurring with Wilsons majority opinion. Two of the courts more liberal judges Jenny Rivera and Caitlin Halligan recused themselves from the case and were replaced by Stephen Lindley and Michael Lynch. Lindley wrote the dissenting opinion, which Lynch and Shirley Troutman joined.

The case was brought by Terrence Stevens and Benjamin Joseph, two siblings with family members who have gone through the criminal court system. They filed suit in 2018 against the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, its executive director Michael Green and the New York State Commission on Forensic Science. The brothers accused the commission of exceeding its power under state law by giving itself the right to crawl genealogy records to find links to suspects.

These individuals (related to people convicted of crimes) are subjected to scrutiny by law enforcement for no other reason other than the possibility that their genes are similar to those of a Databanked Individual, the 2018 suit said.

DNA evidence has been a tool in criminal cases in the U.S. since 1986 New York created its own DNA database in 1996 but in recent years police have been able to rely on ancestry-tracking services to find suspects.

Wilson's opinion said that the state legislature granted the Commission on Forensic Science the right to make changes to policy when it created it.

On the merits, this appeal presents two straightforward questions: (A) does the legislature have the power to delegate rulemaking authority over familial DNA searches to the Commission; and (B) did the legislature do so, he wrote. The Court unanimously agrees that the legislature has that power; the disagreement is whether the Databank Act granted the Commission the authority to promulgate the (Familial DNA Search) Regulations. We hold that it did so.

David Siffert, the legal director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project and an organizer with the progressive court reform group The Court New York Deserves, said that Wilson was caught between preserving the privacy rights of New Yorkers and preserving the power of state agencies.

I think he got it wrong, Siffert said of Wilsons opinion that the Commission on Forensic Science had the authority to allow familial DNA searches. He said that he agreed with the dissenting opinion, which argued that the commission only had the power to regulate full DNA matches, not the partial matches that occur when law enforcement searches for family members with similar DNA. But Siffert, an outspoken supporter of Wilsons nomination, also said that he doesnt think one case should decide the efficacy of a judges work.

He also noted that Fourth Amendment privacy rights werent mentioned in either Wilsons majority opinion or the dissent, even though allowing law enforcement to crawl DNA databases obviously puts peoples genetic privacy at stake. The case focused entirely on whether or not the state Legislature had given the Commission on Forensic Science the authority to regulate DNA searches, without even considering whether those searches would violate the Fourth Amendment which Siffert said was a sign of the general failure of our courts to uphold the Fourth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals decision could prompt the state Legislature to step in to pass a law prohibiting law enforcement from searching DNA databases for potential familial DNA matches. State Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman-Sigal told City & State that the decision calls for clarification by the legislature.

Hoylman-Sigal, a supporter of Wilsons appointment to the Court of Appeals, said that DNA is an emerging technology and legislation hasnt adapted to its advances. He also called for the NYPDs DNA database which is separate from the states DNA database to be shut down. Only one database should exist, overseen by the state, he said

The Manhattan lawmaker added that while it was important to balance privacy concerns with the needs of victims and their families, people shouldnt be routinely treated as suspects.

Antony Haynes, director of cybersecurity & data privacy at Albany Law School, said that law enforcements use of DNA searches can reinforce racial bias.

Since black and brown communities are overpoliced, police databases are more likely to contain their DNA. Allowing police to use family DNA may end up supercharging surveillance of communities of color, sweeping in DNA from uninvolved persons, and potentially furthering racial oppression, Haynes wrote in an email. One of the basic principles of American jurisprudence is to avoid unjustly harming the innocent. Because familial DNA testing targets innocent siblings, parents and children, such use appears to be contrary to this presumption, and would seem to violate the rights to genetic privacy, due process, and equal treatment under New York law.

The decision from New Yorks highest court will have ramifications for the future of policing and privacy in New York. While it may become easier to find criminals and crack cold cases, New Yorkers' genetic information will be increasingly accessible even if theyve never been arrested. Like Hoylman-Sigal, Haynes said that the expanded use of DNA searches by law enforcement was ultimately a balancing act.

For example, in California, law enforcement secretly accessed genetic data from private companies and found the Golden State Killer through family members DNA, he said. On the law and order front, it's wonderful because weve caught a serial killer, but on the privacy front, its terrible because the family members did not really consent to this use. There's a difficult balancing act between the desire to promote law and order and the need to preserve privacy and freedom.

Link:
New York's progressive chief judge joins with conservatives to ... - City & State

LISTEN: Our podcast episode onthe decades-long fight to close the 'boyfriend loophole.'

Editor's Note: If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic abuse, use a safe computer and contact help. Call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 800.799.SAFE (7233), or visithttps://www.thehotline.org. Find more information on the 'boyfriend loophole' from the Giffords Law Centerhere.

On Point'sPaige Sutherland reports on a Supreme Court case being heard on Nov. 7 that has the potential to grant firearms access to hundreds of thousands of domestic abusers who are currently prohibited.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: I'm Meghna Chakrabarti. This is On Point.

On June 25, 2022, advocates against domestic violence won a decades-long fight when President Joe Biden announced that the so-called boyfriend loophole had been closed.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: While this Bill doesnt do everything I want, it does include actions that Ive long called for that are going to save lives.

CHAKRABARTI: The president there when he signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The act now prohibits convicted domestic violence abusers from owning or buying a gun if they dated the victim.

The prohibition used to apply only if the abuser was married, shared a home or had a child with the victim.

This is a change that advocates had been pushing for since 1996 given that at least 600 women in America are shot and killed by an intimate partner every year, and half of the shooters had dated, but didnt marry, their victims.

But there was little to celebrate for advocates. Because just two days earlier on June 23, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling that could dismantle many of our countrys firearms restrictions, including those meant to protect domestic violence victims.

And on this coming Tuesday, November 7th, the Supreme Court is set to hear another case that has the potential to grant firearms access to hundreds of thousands of domestic abusers who are currently prohibited.

For this special podcast extra, On Points Paige Sutherland is here to tell that story.

PAIGE SUTHERLAND: At the center of this case is Zackey Rahimi. Hes 23 years old and from Kennedale, Texas.

In April of 2017, Rahimi started dating Cintia Medina Garcia. They went out for about two and a half years and had a child together, whos now 5 years old.

According to Garcia, verbal and physical abuse was a part of their relationship from the start. And it never stopped.

On January 16, 2020, Garcia petitioned for a protective order against Rahimi. In that petition she details the abuse she says she suffered, paragraph after paragraph.

Garcia refers to Rahimi as Zack. Her words are read here by a colleague:

Zacks violence towards me has sent me to the emergency room. Zack has broken my cell phone so that I could not seek help or call the police. Zack has taken my keys to prevent me from seeking help or calling the police. Zack has pulled a gun on me. Zack has fired a gun in my direction. Zack has threatened to kill me.

SUTHERLAND: And then she goes on to say:

I need a protective order because I am afraid that Zack will kill me and my son.

SUTHERLAND: The protective order was granted. Under federal law, it barred Rahimi from buying and possessing firearms. It also required him to turn in guns already in his possession. Something he never did.

NEWS CLIP: Suspect Zackey Rahimi, NIBIN, the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, linked him to a string of shootings that occurred over a stretch of months.

SUTHERLAND: This string of shootings took place in and around Arlington, Texas between December 2020 and January 2021.

Thats almost a year after Garcias protective order was granted.

The shooting spree includes the time Rahimi allegedly sold drugs to someone and then fired multiple shots into their home. Another time, Rahimi got into a car accident, and then allegedly shot at the other driver. Then there was the time he allegedly fired multiple shots in the air after his friends credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant.

Given that most of these incidents were in public with witnesses present, police identified Rahimi pretty quickly.

On January 14, 2021, an Arlington Police Detective obtained a warrant to search Rahimis home. There, officers found a loaded pistol along with a loaded rifle. And in the top drawer of Rahimis dresser they found the domestic violence protective order, signed by Rahimi, stating that he was prohibited from having firearms.

Rahimi was arrested. And on September 23rd, he pleaded guilty to violating his firearms ban and was sentenced to 73 months in federal prison.

Shortly after sentencing, Rahimis lawyers appealed, arguing that the federal firearms ban Rahimi was subject to is unconstitutional.

Rahimi's lawyers were not the first to make such a claim. Most recently, in 2020, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard a similar argument in U.S. v. McGinnis. In that case, the court ruled under the long-established two-part test for Second Amendment cases, which was created under the Supreme Courts decision in D.C. vs. Heller back in 2008.

Kelly Roskam is the director of law and policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, a research organization seeking to reduce gun violence. She explains how that two-part test has long worked.

ROSKAM: So first, the court asks, does the regulation on firearm possession and usage burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment?

I need a protective order because I am afraid that Zack will kill me and my son.

SUTHERLAND: The court then moves on to the second part of the test. Is this regulation in line with an important government interest?

ROSKAM: Think of it like a sliding scale of how important a government interest is and how closely the law is tailored to achieve that government interest. Strict scrutiny being extremely exacting requiring a close fit for an extremely important government interest and intermediate scrutiny, requiring a less close fit, but still for an important government objective.

Most cases after Heller applied intermediate scrutiny, this middle level of scrutiny and upheld the vast majority of gun violence prevention laws by finding that the law was sufficiently related to the compelling government interest of public safety.

SUTHERLAND: For both McGinnis and Rahimi, the court applied intermediate scrutiny. Stating quote reducing domestic gun abuse is a compelling government interest.

The court determined the firearm regulation passed the two-part test. So, its constitutional. Thus, Rahimi lost his appeal.

But something momentous happened that very same month. On June 23 last year, the grounds on which the courts have based their Second Amendment opinions on for decades shifted, in a big way.

NEWS CLIP: The Supreme Court here significantly expanding gun rights and really expanding the scope of the Second Amendment for the first time since 2008.

SUTHERLAND: The case referenced in that clip from CNN was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen in which the Supreme Court set a precedent that gun laws should be consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. The two-part test was no more.

So, Rahimi went back to court.

This time Rahimis legal team only had to prove that the firearm ban for those with domestic protective orders against them was a restriction the founding fathers would not have seen as legitimate.

Heres Rahimis lawyer James Matthew Wright during oral arguments in August last year.

JAMES MATTHEW WRIGHT: The founding generation was intimately familiar with the scourge of domestic violence. They never addressed that problem through any sort of firearms restriction. They did address the problem through other means, typically societal pressure, but also shaming punishments, etc. No disarmament, no bans.

The founding generation was intimately familiar with the scourge of domestic violence. They never addressed that problem through any sort of firearms restriction.

SUTHERLAND: On February 2nd this year the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because there was no historical tradition of firearm restrictions for domestic abusers, the federal firearms ban was unconstitutional. Heres Kelly Roskam again.

ROSKAM: The court says at the time of the founding it was considered a private matter: domestic violence. It was not something that they considered a danger to public safety. Therefore, there is no national historical tradition of firearm regulation of persons subject to domestic violence protective orders. And therefore, it is unconstitutional.

APRIL ZEOLI: I think this absolutely places the ability to have a gun over domestic violence victims.

SUTHERLAND: Thats April Zeoli, an associate professor at the Institute for Firearm Injury and Prevention at the University of Michigan, where she focuses on domestic violence related firearm restrictions.

She says that the Fifth Circuit ruling has the potential to unravel decades of advocacy work for domestic abuse survivors.

ZEOLI: People who are victimized by their intimate partners rely on these firearm restrictions to help keep them safe. This is not abstract. This is not, you know, an esoteric legal question. This is people's lives. Literally, their lives, their level of fear, their ability to feel safe.

SUTHERLAND: Zeoli also points out, at the time of the founding, most of the victims of domestic violence who need such protections didnt have a say on what laws did or didnt get passed because they were women.

For now, the Fifth Circuit ruling only applies to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, where its jurisdiction lies. But in the coming days, the Supreme Court will hear this case. And if they uphold this ruling, anyone in the country with a domestic violence protective order against them could potentially own and buy a gun.

Rahimi, however, won't be able to exercise his 2nd Amendment right quite yet. Hes currently in jail awaiting his other state charges.

I reached out to the lawyers of both Cintia Medina Garcia and Zackey Rahimi, and they both declined to talk to me or connect me with their clients.

Immediately after the Fifth Circuit ruling advocates against domestic violence started ringing alarm bells. Their message: Without this firearm regulation, people will die.

Ruth Glenn is the President of Public Affairs at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Here she is speaking at a Senate hearing back in March.

RUTH GLENN: Some abusive intimate partners will legally access firearms they were previously forbidden from possessing, and some will use those firearms to terrorize or even kill their victims or others.

Some abusive intimate partners will legally access firearms they were previously forbidden from possessing, and some will use those firearms to terrorize or even kill their victims or others.

SUTHERLAND: In a 49-page amicus brief filed in August - dozens of domestic violence advocacy organizations laid out their main arguments for why they believe this ruling should be overturned and the firearm ban reinstated nationwide.

One, those with protective orders against them are dangerous and shouldnt be able to have guns. According to a 2003 study by the American Journal of Public Health, when a male domestic abuser has access to a gun there is a five times greater chance their female partner will be killed.

And Kelly Roskam of Johns Hopkins says, contrary to the Fifth Circuits ruling, this is not just a private matter, its also a public safety issue. And she says thats something the founding fathers would have paid attention to.

ROSKAM: So my colleague at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, Lisa Geller, found that 68% of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence or killed an intimate partner in the mass shooting. So this is not something that only happens within the privacy of private homes. This is something that affects all of us directly.

68% of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence or killed an intimate partner in the mass shooting.

SUTHERLAND: And ultimately, advocates say, this firearm ban works. Heres Professor Zeoli again.

ZEOLI: studies have found that these laws are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide consistently. You know, multiple different studies done in multiple different ways have found these results. And that's why I'm comfortable saying it looks like they work. It's not just one study, you know, it's many at this point.

SUTHERLAND: But advocates could have an uphill climb in convincing the conservative leaning Supreme Court that such domestic violence protections are compatible with the Second Amendment under the new Bruen test.

In his written opinion in the Rahimi case, Fifth Circuit judge Cory Wilson writes that the governments reasoning for taking away a domestic abusers right to buy and own a gun would be like justifying taking that right away from speeders, political nonconformists, people who dont recycle or people who don't drive an electric car.

Another hurdle advocates say they need to counter is an argument that domestic violence protective orders are too consequential to be decided in civil court.

As judge Cory Wilson wrote in his ruling, the resulting prohibition disarms people who have quote merely been civilly adjudicated.

Attorney John Davis echoed this point in an amicus brief on behalf of the Center for Prosecutor Integrity. Thats a nonprofit focused on improving due process. He told us that because civil proceedings have a lower bar and move more quickly, they can potentially prejudice criminal proceedings.

JOHN DAVIS: We are not at all sympathetic to the accusations made against Mr. Rahimi, but in fact, none of them were proven. And it's quite common for those accusations to get out as gossip, just to try to prejudice a court in advance that he's a bad person. Therefore, he does not deserve due process. And we don't have a civilization if we follow that.

SUTHERLAND: Davis points out that besides losing ones Second Amendment right, once a protection order is granted that person may lose access to their home, their children, incur lawyer fees as well as reputational harm before the accusations are fully vetted.

DAVIS: And one of the difficulties is the political perception that we don't need the Constitution where we're addressing a worthwhile social problem like domestic violence.

It's not just the Second Amendment rights, this just happens to be the right we're addressing in this case. It applies to many, many other First, Second Amendment rights, Sixth Amendment rights, Fifth, Fourth Amendment rights because this involves seizure of a person's property, the whole panoply of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the easy forfeit of all of those rights based upon a very lax proceeding such as a restraining order proceeding.

SUTHERLAND: Thats why Davis argues that if domestic abusers are to be disarmed, it should be through the criminal justice system.

But advocates like Professor April Zeoli say that system does not move quickly enough to protect potential victims.

ZEOLI: If I am in danger, I call the police. And then I have to wait to see what happens. Were there charges made? And if charges are made when is there going to be a trial or is there a guilty plea and will there be a verdict of guilty. And all of that if you get through the entire process, through to, you know, a guilty verdict that takes months and months and sometimes longer than that. So this restraining order is a flexible and quick tool to use to increase your safety right now.

SUTHERLAND: Professor Zeoli also adds that although protective orders are granted through civil proceedings, there still is due process.

ZEOLI: Many people think that a restraining order is an incredibly easy thing to get. All you really have to do is fill out your name and the name of the person you want it against, and voila, you have a restraining order. It is, in fact, not that easy. In fact, in Michigan, you know where I am. Just about half of restraining order petitions are denied. So these are not being rubber stamped. A judge does evaluate them.

SUTHERLAND: Judge Cory Wilson writes in his opinion that the ban quote embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society, but that it does not outweigh the burden it puts on ones Second Amendment rights.

With the Supreme Courts conservative tilt and its recent ruling in Bruen, they may reach that same conclusion. And given Rahimis lengthy police record, legal experts ask: If the firearm ban cant be upheld for him, who could it be upheld for? For On Point, Im Paige Sutherland.

Read more here:
Should domestic abusers have gun rights? | On Point - WBUR News

On Oct. 30, the Biden administration released an Executive Order(EO) on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. In part, the EO discusses the need for a bipartisan comprehensive federal privacy law. This is encouraging and adds to the much-needed dialogue for Congress to pass a privacy and security law that protects allAmericans.

There are concernsthat the EOs encouragement to regulatory agencies to wield their authority to protect Americans from privacy-related artificial intelligence (AI) risk could harm AI innovation. In past years, various federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, have already had broad interpretations of their authority. That is why a call from the Biden administration for a bipartisan comprehensive federal privacy law is a critical step toward mitigating Americans privacy and data risk with AI technologies. Because any regulatory enforcement action should come from guardrails that Congress setsnot wobbly legal interpretationsby regulatory enforcers to get their hand in the cookie jar.

This year, President Joe Biden released an AI Bill of Rightsand an op-edemphasizing the need for serious federal protections for Americans privacy. There was optimism that his 2023 State of the Union addressmight provide a clear path forward on a comprehensive federal privacy and security law. However, President Biden never illuminated a path forwardbeyond generic statements on Big Tech, privacy and protecting children.

Bipartisanship is essential in passing a comprehensive federal data privacy and security law

The EOs emphasis on bipartisanship is essential. Passing a comprehensive federal privacy and security law has been a decade-long journey with little output. R Streets Cyber team, looking for areas of bipartisan compromises on a comprehensive federal privacy and security law, extensively engagedwith over 130 stakeholders including Congress, the private sector, consumer groups and privacy advocates. We were encouraged that many of those compromises were included in the 117th Congresss American Data Privacy and Protection Act(ADPPA), including preemption with state action carve-outsand a limited private right of action. The ADPPA was a strong solution to promote global competitiveness, reduce data security and national security risks, and provide all Americans with privacy protections. Ultimately, the ADPPA never crossed the finish linebut if Congress chooses to act, there is no need to start from scratch since the ADPPA is a good bipartisan solution.

AI needs a comprehensive federal privacy and security law

AI has been used in our daily lives for yearsfrom assisting pilots with flyingus safely from the West Coast to the East Coast to helping drivers evade traffic jams safely. If we allow AI innovation to flourish, technology will exponentially benefit our society in ways we might not be able to imagine today. In order to mitigate AI risks, a comprehensive federal data privacy and security lawmust be passed to protect Americans data. It is an essential step toward harnessing the power of AI technologies while limiting exposure to privacy and national security risks.

Move beyond the AI panic with a nuanced approach to data protection and use

In addition to the call for a privacy law, the EO directs several actions to mitigate Americans privacy risks from emerging AI technology, including:

The Biden administrations focus on developing privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) is an important approach. The innovation of PETs, coupled with a comprehensive federal privacy and security law, allows data to be utilized for societal good. A fearmongering approachto data collection often ignores the datas positive impacton society. Consumer data has fueled internet innovation, creating accessibility to information that was once only available to privileged individuals. For example, consumer health data significantly contributes to innovation in the health tech industryand brings vast health improvements to society. A smartwatch can save a life, a telehealth provider can reach rural areasvoid of health care options and online pharmaciescan provide high-cost prescription medication at a discount. Undoubtedly, there have been many failures by industryand governmentto protect sensitive data, and these failures should not be ignored. Researching the many forms of PETs, such as differential privacy, data clean roomsor unified ID 2.0, is a decisive step toward offering strong privacy protections while providing data utility to spur innovation.

However, many data privacy concerns exist outside of industries collection and use of personal data, including law enforcements access to data. The EOs directive to evaluate how federal agencies, such as law enforcement, utilize commercially available data is critical to protecting Americans constitutional rights. In a March Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce hearing, Rep. Kelly Armstrong (RN.D.) commented on law enforcement purchasing data from data brokers and evading Fourth Amendment obligations. While noting that law enforcement should use every lawful tool available, he emphasized that Congress must set the guardrails on what tools are permitted. However, there are complexitiesto be considered when law enforcement accesses data, such as investigating crimes related to online sexual exploitation of a child using analytics tools powered by consumer data. Further, any comprehensive federal privacy and security law should take a nuanced approachto which third-party entities are considered data brokers.

This year, one narrative on these issues has held: data privacy and security legislation is popularamongst stakeholders of different political ideologies. Industry also understands that building consumer trust through data privacy and security is economically advantageous. Thus, getting an ADPPA-like bill across the finish line can be a political victory for Congress members willing to negotiate openly with industry, civil society and different-minded political opponents to reach a bipartisan solution to a comprehensive federal privacy and security law.

View post:
The Biden administrations latest executive order calls for a ... - R Street

AUSTIN On Thursday, Oct. 26, 2023, the Texas Public Safety Commission (PSC), along with Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Steven McCraw, presented several prestigious awards to DPS personnel, including a Medal of Valor, two Purple Hearts, five Directors Citations, nine Lifesaving Awards and two Unit Citations. The Awards were presented at the Public Safety Commission meeting at DPS Headquarters in Austin. Four Directors Awards were also given to law enforcement personnel outside the department.

These awards are a testament to the courageous acts that take place every day by the men and women who serve Texas, said DPS Director Steven McCraw. To hear their stories and know the actions theyve taken in order to save a life and put others first is truly remarkable. It is an honor to be able to recognize them here today.

The following individuals were recognized:

Texas Ranger Thomas Arnold was awarded the Medal of Valor in recognition of his courage during a violent and life-threatening situation on Oct. 13, 1971. That night, a man wanted for assault with intent to commit murder, attempted to murder a Euless Police (EPD) Officer during a traffic stop. He fled the scene and went into a home in Bedford, taking the family inside hostage. A teenager inside was able to escape and alert authorities, leading to a standoff the following day.

Ranger Arnold was involved with the all-night manhunt for the suspect, and when he got information about the standoff in Bedford, headed toward the scene. Prior to the Rangers arrival, the suspect forced the family into their vehicle at gunpoint and ordered the mother to drive. Still on his way, Ranger Arnold became involved in the pursuit of the vehicle, which eventually ended when an EPD officer blocked the road. Ranger Arnold disregarded his own safety and parked his DPS vehicle directly behind the hostage vehicle in order to communicate with the suspect. The mother, a 5-year-old child and the father were all in the vehicle, with the suspect holding a sawed-off shotgun to the back of the fathers head.

Officers tried but failed to negotiate the safe release of the hostages. Ranger Arnold realized the suspect had no intention of surrendering, so he positioned himself in the right spot in order to minimize the risk to the hostages if he was indeed forced to take a shot on the suspect. As the situation deteriorated, the suspect became distracted and momentarily moved the shotgun from the fathers head. Ranger Arnold seized the opportunity and fired one round through the rear windshield, striking the suspect. Ranger Arnold left cover and moved toward the vehicle while drawing his sidearm and placing himself between the suspect and fleeing hostages. Ranger Arnold instinctively, and with steadfast resolve, fired three shots into the suspect, ending the terrifying incident and allowing the family to escape unharmed. For his heroic actions, Ranger Arnold is awarded posthumously the Medal of Valor. Ranger Arnolds widow, Martha, and his son, Tom Jr., were present to accept the award.

Senior Trooper Kenneth Pittman, Training Operations Division Tactical Training Center, was awarded a Purple Heart in recognition of his great personal sacrifice and professional performance during which he sustained serious injury. On Jan. 11, 1987, Trooper Kenneth Pittman was on routine patrol in Midland County when he became involved in a vehicle pursuit. During the pursuit, the assailants opened the back doors of the van and fired a shotgun, striking the windshield of Trooper Pittmans patrol unit. The broken glass injured Trooper Pittmans eyes and impaired his vision, causing him to drive off the road and through a fence. Once his vehicle stopped, the assailants drove up to the crash site and fired two additional rounds at Trooper Pittman, one striking the drivers side window and the other hitting the left rear of the patrol unit. Trooper Pittman was able to exit the vehicle and return fire despite his impaired vision, striking one of the assailants. That person was helped back into the van and the assailants fled the scene.

Trooper Pittman was transported to Midland Memorial where he underwent treatment to remove the glass fragments from his eyes, as well as treatment for several bruised ribs and a twisted knee. Approximately one month later, Trooper Pittman returned to full duty.

Trooper Curtis Putz, Texas Highway Patrol Division Corsicana, was awarded a Purple Heart. On Jan 31, 2023, Trooper Curtis Putz was seriously injured in the line of duty due to icy road conditions in the North Texas Region. As he was applying personal protective equipment outside of his patrol unit at the scene of a crash, another vehicle lost control on the ice and collided with Trooper Putzs patrol unit, putting him between his vehicle and the concrete barrier. The crash caused the patrol unit to run over Trooper Putz and pin him underneath. Fellow Troopers, firefighters and tow truck operators who were already on scene, used various tools to raise the patrol unit off Trooper Putz and ease his breathing. Then, additional resources deployed to extricate him from under the unit and triage his condition until he could be transferred to the hospital for continued treatment. Trooper Putz has undergone numerous surgeries and a tremendous amount of rehabilitation on his road to recovery.

In recognition of his personal sacrifice and professional performance in which he sustained serious bodily injuries, Trooper Curtis Putz is hereby awarded the Purple Heart.

John Burris, Tierra Caradine, Steven Hill, John Lockhart, Driver License Division Dallas South, and Frank Pritchett, Driver License Division Rockwall, received a Directors Citation for their decisive action and response in a life-threatening situation. On May 9, 2023, License and Permit Specialist Shireda Lewis was processing a customer for an identification renewal when external checks indicated the customer had a warrant for assault with a deadly weapon. The team informed Texas Highway Patrol Trooper Stephen Lister of the active warrant, and as he attempted to make the arrest, the subject tried to escape. As Trooper Lister pursued the subject, both fell to the floor and Trooper Lister suffered a broken kneecap, rendering him incapacitated. Driver License employees Frank Pritchett, Tierra Caradine, John Lockhart, John Burris and Steven Hill immediately came to his aid and assisted in apprehending the subject. The employees detained the subject, who made two more attempts to flee before other law enforcement officers arrived at the office to take the subject into custody. For their quick actions, these employees are awarded a Directors Citation.

Trooper Brandon Aquino, Texas Highway Patrol Division Port Lavaca, Trooper Cole Duvall, Texas Highway Patrol Division Mineral Wells, were awarded a Lifesaving Award, and Deputy Elizabeth Aguirre, Kinney County Sheriffs Department was awarded a Directors Award. On May 9, 2022, Trooper Brandon Aquino assisted the Kinney County Sheriffs Department with a vehicle pursuit that ended with shots being fired. The subject sustained multiple gunshot wounds, some causing arterial bleeding. Trooper Aquino, along with Trooper Cole Duvall and Kinney County Sheriffs Deputy Elizabeth Aguirre, provided lifesaving efforts without hesitation. Trooper Aquino assisted in successfully applying multiple tourniquets and chest seal bandages, stabilizing the subject until EMS personnel arrived on the scene. These three individuals are recognized for their decisive and professional response to a life-threatening situation which resulted in the saving of a life

Trooper Crystal Hall, Texas Highway Patrol Division Burnet, was awarded a Lifesaving Award, and Officer Ashley Doran, Llano Police Department, Doctor Richard Debehnke, M.D. and Tristan Monks, Lake Travis Fire Department were awarded Directors Awards. On Jan. 13, 2023, Trooper Crystal Hall responded to a radio broadcast of an 83-year-old female that was choking at a local restaurant. When Trooper Hall arrived, Lake Travis Firefighter and Paramedic Tristan Monks, Doctor Richard Debehnke and Llano PD Officer Ashley Doran were already performing chest compressions on the victim. Trooper Hall immediately collaborated with these personnel to continue lifesaving medical attention. When EMS arrived, they employed a CPR machine and a four-lead ECG cardiac monitor. With continued medical treatment, the victims pulse returned, and she became alert and began communicating with personnel. The victim was flown to a medical center where she made a full recovery.

Trooper Troy Bridier, Texas Highway Patrol Division Stephenville, was awarded the Lifesaving Award for his response to a life-threatening situation on March 3, 2022. That day, Trooper Bridier responded to the scene of a male subject experiencing serious bleeding following a job site injury. The victim was lying on his back with his feet elevated and a co-worker was applying pressure to the wound located on the subjects right inner thigh when Trooper Bridier arrived. He immediately applied a tourniquet and continued to monitor the subject while communicating to responding personnel. Shortly after, Bluff Dale Volunteer Fire Department EMTs arrived and assisted in applying a second tourniquet. Erath EMS then arrived on the scene to continue medical care and transported the victim to a local hospital for additional care.

Trooper Justin Craig, Texas Highway Patrol Division Longville, received a Lifesaving Award for his actions on Dec. 26, 2022. Trooper Craig overheard a report from the Longview Police Department regarding a drug overdose in progress. He was nearby and was the first on the scene when he discovered an unconscious subject in the drivers seat of an SUV. As a drug recognition expert, Trooper Craig realized the subjects cold clammy skin, shallow breathing and pulse, and extremely constricted pupils were indications of a narcotics-related overdose. Trooper Craig administered Narcan to the subject as quickly as possible. When Longview PD Officers arrived, Trooper Craig requested assistance to remove the subject from the vehicle and placed him on the ground in a recovery position. When the subjects symptoms did not subside, he administrated additional Narcan. EMS personnel arrived shortly thereafter and transported the subject to a medical center. While in transport, the subject began to regain consciousness, and by the time Trooper Craig arrived at the medical center, the subject was fully alert and able to communicate.

Trooper Toby Clifton, Texas Highway Patrol Division Henderson, was awarded the Lifesaving Award for his actions on Jan. 19, 2023. Trooper Clifton arrived on the scene to assist Rusk County Sheriffs Deputies with a welfare check of a suicidal subject. He observed Deputies struggling with the subject who was covered in blood. After assisting, Trooper Clifton noticed the subject had arterial bleeding from his right forearm. Without hesitation, Trooper Clifton applied a tourniquet to the upper bicep, which significantly slowed the loss of blood. Trooper Clifton also applied a pressure dressing to further address the injury. Ultimately, the subject became somewhat compliant and was able to be transported to a local hospital where physicians were able to repair the artery.

Trooper Stephen Cantu, Texas Highway Patrol Division Rio Grande City, Trooper Sandra Mendoza, Texas Highway Patrol Division Luling, and Trooper Ramon Martinez, Texas Highway Patrol Division Brownsville, were all awarded Lifesaving Awards for their quick-thinking actions on Jan. 29, 2023. That day, Trooper Martinez was conducting a commercial vehicle inspection when a bus driver approached and requested assistance with a passenger displaying erratic behavior. The subject was escorted off the bus and Trooper Martinez requested EMS assistance as he suspected a drug overdose. Five minutes later, the subject lost consciousness. Troopers Cantu and Mendoza arrived on the scene and assisted Trooper Martinez with administering Narcan. The subject regained consciousness and stopped the erratic behavior. Trooper Mendoza remained with the subject until EMS personnel arrived and could provide additional medical attention. The subject told paramedics he had consumed a substance containing fentanyl. The Troopers quick actions likely saved the mans life. (Trooper Martinez was not present at the ceremony today.)

Texas Ranger Jesse Perez, Texas Rangers Division San Antonio, was presented a Lifesaving Award for his actions on May 2, 2023, during Operation Lone Star. Ranger Perez was assigned to the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Team to support the Texas Rangers Special Operations Group in the Eagle Pass rail yard. Ranger Perez heard radio traffic from a US Border Patrol Agent regarding an undocumented female that had been struck by a northbound train, which amputated her leg. He immediately responded and began providing first aid, applying his DPS-issued tourniquet to her upper left leg. Ranger Perez placed the subject into the recovery position until other resources could arrive; however, due to the rural area and the lack of a level one trauma center, Ranger Perez requested a medical air evacuation. While waiting for EMS, Ranger Perez obstructed the subjects view of the injury and began talking with her to keep her calm and control her breathing. SRT-5 members arrived on the scene and prepared to safely transport the injured subject from the elevated bridge, down a steep embankment and across a field to a waiting EMS unit. After transport, SRT- 5 members secured a landing zone for the incoming aircraft, and Ranger Perez escorted the EMS unit to the landing zone. The subject was flown to a hospital in San Antonio for continued treatment.

Two Unit Citations were also awarded during the ceremony. The following units were recognized:

The Northwest Texas Regions Sergeant Area 5A11 are Troopers strategically stationed throughout the regions 71 counties, focusing criminal interdiction efforts on those smuggling narcotics and other contraband across Texas.

Sergeant Area 5A11 is comprised of one sergeant, one corporal and seven Troopers that support criminal interdiction operations throughout the region including narcotic detector canine handlers. From Jan. 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2022, this area had 735 canine deployments for illicit drugs and currency, which resulted in the seizure of more than 7,300 pounds of marijuana, more than 4,000 pounds of THC products, nearly 500 pounds of methamphetamine, nearly 400 pounds of cocaine, 11 pounds of heroin, 30 pounds of fentanyl, nearly 225 pounds of PCP and over 1 million dollars. Sergeant Area 5A11 Troopers credit their success to their criminal interdiction techniques such as roadside interview, vehicle searches and their knowledge of fourth amendment search and seizure case law. They are recognized statewide for their expertise in canine handling and successful drug and illicit currency seizures. Several Troopers have also placed in the states top ten canine teams.

Those being recognized for their tremendous work and dedication include Sergeant Tony Miller, Corporal Shane Bearden, Trooper Jerome Ingle, Trooper Shannon Tanck, Trooper Chase Neville, Trooper Christopher Lambert, Trooper Darik Heider, Trooper Clayton Blacksher, and Trooper Donald Strange.

A second Unit Citation was given for the extraordinary work done in Criminal Investigations Area 1C4. It began after an incident the morning of Oct. 9, 2020, when a female was found murdered in her home in New Boston, Texas. The victim was 35 weeks pregnant, and after she was viciously beaten, but still alive and conscious, her baby was cut from the womb. The New Boston Police Department requested assistance from the DPS CID and the Texas Rangers.

CID Lieutenant Andrew Venable assembled his personnel and coordinated with Texas Rangers Josh Mason and Chris Baggett to assist. A suspect was identified, and they discovered that a Texas Highway Patrol (THP) Trooper had conducted a traffic stop on the suspect that same morning, shortly after the murder. The suspect had the baby and claimed she had just given birth and was on her way to a hospital. EMS personnel transported the suspect and baby to a nearby Oklahoma hospital. Authorities contacted officers from the Idabel Oklahoma Police Department and Special Agents from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to detain the suspect there. Texas DPS CID Special Agent Dustin Estes obtained preservation orders for the suspects and victims social media accounts, other CID and THP personnel began a canvas of the area in a search for witnesses and evidence, and local officers and Ranger Mason traveled to Idabel, Okla. to interview the suspect. She confessed to being involved in the mothers murder.

DPS CID personnel did extensive work on social media accounts, phone records and online searches. They discovered the suspects research regarding how to fake a pregnancy, C-section deliveries and how to care for a newborn infant. They also found GPS information that proved the suspect had conducted surveillance at teen pregnancy centers and womens clinics, and evidence that the suspect performed vehicle registration inquiries on potential victims.

Due to the exemplary performance of DPS CID personnel, the Bowie County District Attorney requested that DPS CID remain involved in the remainder of the investigation, grand jury proceedings, court preparation and additional endeavors. The evidence gathered by these personnel all proved to be extremely invaluable contributions to the successful outcome of the investigation and ultimate conviction of the suspect. The outstanding collaboration, teamwork and dedication exhibited by these officers and prosecutors is to be commended.

Due to this tremendous work, CID Lieutenant Andrew Venable, CID Special Agent Briscoe Davis, CID Special Agent Eric Estes, CID Special Agent Dustin Estes, CID Special Agent Chris Barker, CID Special Agent Ben Allison (retired), Texas Ranger Joshua Mason, Bowie County Assistant District Attorney Kelley Crisp, Bowie County Assistant District Attorney Lauren Richards and District Attorney Investigator Lance Cline are hereby awarded a Unit Citation.

Please join us in congratulating all of the award recipients for their work in making Texas a safer place. Additional photos can be found on the DPS Facebook page.

###(HQ 2023-062)

Originally posted here:
DPS Presents Purple Hearts, Medal of Valor and Other Prestigious ... - the Texas Department of Public Safety

Washington, D.C. U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.), a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, has joined forces with Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct an investigation into the potential risks, constitutional issues, and privacy concerns raised by the Securities and Exchange Commissions (SEC) Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT).

The CAT, a system designed to track trades across American markets, has been in operation for over a decade, offering regulators access to valuable investor information and trade activity data. However, among the vast amounts of data collected by CAT, there lies a critical concern the personally identifiable information (PII) of every investor trading on U.S. stock exchanges. The collection of such sensitive information raises substantial consumer privacy concerns, as it can be employed to construct a comprehensive profile of an individuals trading activity and may be vulnerable to potential data breaches.

In their letter addressed to Gene Dodaro, the Comptroller General, Senators Britt and Kennedy have called for a comprehensive GAO investigation to report on various key aspects of the CAT, including the constitutionality and legality of the collection of personal and financial information, the cyber vulnerabilities associated with the CAT database, and an estimation of the number of individuals who will have regular access to the information stored in the database.

The Senators have expressed their concerns over the CATs collection of PII, as it poses potential threats to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures. The mandated production of certain information, as per the Fourth Amendment, has previously been a matter of legal contention. The Senators contend that there are legitimate reasons for individuals not to want their financial transactions regularly submitted to a government registry, and they believe the SEC has not adequately addressed these concerns.

The GAOs forthcoming report, as requested by Senators Britt and Kennedy, will delve into several critical dimensions:

An analysis of the constitutionality and legality of collecting American investors personal and financial information by a regulator in a centralized database without evidence of wrongdoing. An examination of the cyber vulnerabilities associated with the CAT database. An estimation of the total number of individuals with regular access to data collected under CAT, their professional affiliations, and the screening or background check processes implemented by the SEC and FINRA to vet those with access to the CAT database. A comprehensive list of publicly reported cyberattacks on federal government agencies over the last three years and an analysis of compromised or potentially compromised American investors PII, including the cost associated with repairing the identities of affected individuals. An analysis of the legal entities that retail investors may hold liable for a cyberattack on the CAT, should such an incident result in the theft of American investors account numbers, identities, and/or securities holdings, along with an assessment of the potential costs based on previous identity theft data.

The Senators have requested a response from the GAO no later than November 15, 2023, emphasizing the importance of this matter. This collaborative effort by Senators Britt and Kennedy underscores the significance of safeguarding the privacy and constitutional rights of American investors in the digital age.

Original post:
Senators Katie Britt and John Kennedy Call for Investigation into ... - Calhoun County Journal