Mediaboss Marketing

Apples new program for scanning images sent on iMessage steps back from the companys prior support for the privacy and security of encrypted messages. The program, initially limited to the United States, narrows the understanding of end-to-end encryption to allow for client-side scanning. While Apple aims at the scourge of child exploitation and abuse, the company has created an infrastructure that is all too easy to redirect to greater surveillance and censorship. The program will undermine Apples defense that it cant comply with the broader demands.

For years, countries around the world have asked for access to and control over encrypted messages, asking technology companies to nerd harder when faced with the pushback that access to messages in the clear was incompatible with strong encryption. The Apple child safety message scanning program is currently being rolled out only in the United States.

The United States has not been shy about seeking access to encrypted communications, pressuring the companies to make it easier to obtain data with warrants and to voluntarily turn over data. However, the U.S. faces serious constitutional issues if it wanted to pass a law that required warrantless screening and reporting of content. Even if conducted by a private party, a search ordered by the government is subject to the Fourth Amendments protections. Any warrant issued for suspicionless mass surveillance would be an unconstitutional general warrant. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, "Search warrants . . . are fundamentally offensive to the underlying principles of the Fourth Amendment when they are so bountiful and expansive in their language that they constitute a virtual, all-encompassing dragnet[.]" With this new program, Apple has failed to hold a strong policy line against U.S. laws undermining encryption, but there remains a constitutional backstop to some of the worst excesses. But U.S constitutional protection may not necessarily be replicated in every country.

Apple is a global company, with phones and computers in use all over the world, and many governments pressure that comes along with that. Apple has promised it will refuse government demands to build and deploy government-mandated changes that degrade the privacy of users. It is good that Apple says it will not, but this is not nearly as strong a protection as saying it cannot, which could not honestly be said about any system of this type. Moreover, if it implements this change, Apple will need to not just fight for privacy, but win in legislatures and courts around the world. To keep its promise, Apple will have to resist the pressure to expand the iMessage scanning program to new countries, to scan for new types of content and to report outside parent-child relationships.

It is no surprise that authoritarian countries demand companies provide access and control to encrypted messages, often the last best hope for dissidents to organize and communicate. For example, Citizen Labs research shows thatright nowChinas unencrypted WeChat service already surveils images and files shared by users, and uses them to train censorship algorithms. When a message is sent from one WeChat user to another, it passes through a server managed by Tencent (WeChats parent company) that detects if the message includes blacklisted keywords before a message is sent to the recipient. As the Stanford Internet Observatorys Riana Pfefferkorn explains, this type of technology is a roadmap showing how a client-side scanning system originally built only for CSAM [Child Sexual Abuse Material] could and would be suborned for censorship and political persecution. As Apple has found, China, with the worlds biggest market, can be hard to refuse. Other countries are not shy about applying extreme pressure on companies, including arresting local employees of the tech companies.

But many times potent pressure to access encrypted data also comes from democratic countries that strive to uphold the rule of law, at least at first. If companies fail to hold the line in such countries, the changes made to undermine encryption can easily be replicated by countries with weaker democratic institutions and poor human rights recordsoften using similar legal language, but with different ideas about public order and state security, as well as what constitutes impermissible content, from obscenity to indecency to political speech. This is very dangerous. These countries, with poor human rights records, will nevertheless contend that they are no different. They are sovereign nations, and will see their public-order needs as equally urgent. They will contend that if Apple is providing access to any nation-state under that states local laws, Apple must also provide access to other countries, at least, under the same terms.

For example, the Five Eyesan alliance of the intelligence services of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United Stateswarned in 2018 that they will pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions if the companies didnt voluntarily provide access to encrypted messages. More recently, the Five Eyes have pivoted from terrorism to the prevention of CSAM as the justification, but the demand for unencrypted access remains the same, and the Five Eyes are unlikely to be satisfied without changes to assist terrorism and criminal investigations too.

The United Kingdoms Investigatory Powers Act, following through on the Five Eyes threat, allows their Secretary of State to issue technical capacity notices, which oblige telecommunications operators to make the technical ability of providing assistance in giving effect to an interception warrant, equipment interference warrant, or a warrant or authorisation for obtaining communications data. As the UK Parliament considered the IPA, we warned that a company could be compelled to distribute an update in order to facilitate the execution of an equipment interference warrant, and ordered to refrain from notifying their customers.

Under the IPA, the Secretary of State must consider the technical feasibility of complying with the notice. But the infrastructure needed to roll out Apples proposed changes makes it harder to say that additional surveillance is not technically feasible. With Apples new program, we worry that the UK might try to compel an update that would expand the current functionality of the iMessage scanning program, with different algorithmic targets and wider reporting. As the iMessage communication safety feature is entirely Apples own invention, Apple can all too easily change its own criteria for what will be flagged for reporting. Apple may receive an order to adopt its hash matching program for iPhoto into the message pre-screening. Likewise, the criteria for which accounts will apply this scanning, and where positive hits get reported, are wholly within Apples control.

Australia followed suit with its Assistance and Access Act, which likewise allows for requirements to provide technical assistance and capabilities, with the disturbing potential to undermine encryption. While the Act contains some safeguards, a coalition of civil society organizations, tech companies, and trade associations, including EFF andwait for itApple, explained that they were insufficient.

Indeed, in Apples own submission to the Australian government, Apple warned the government may seek to compel providers to install or test software or equipment, facilitate access to customer equipment, turn over source code, remove forms of electronic protection, modify characteristics of a service, or substitute a service, among other things. If only Apple would remember that these very techniques could also be used in an attempt to mandate or change the scope of Apples scanning program.

While Canada has yet to adopt an explicit requirement for plain text access, the Canadian government is actively pursuing filtering obligations for various online platforms, which raise the spectre of a more aggressive set of obligations targeting private messaging applications.

For the Five Eyes, the ask is mostly for surveillance capabilities, but India and Indonesia are already down the slippery slope to content censorship. The Indian governments new Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code (2021 Rules), in effect earlier this year, directly imposes dangerous requirements for platforms to pre-screen content. Rule 4(4) compels content filtering, requiring that providers endeavor to deploy technology-based measures, including automated tools or other mechanisms, to proactively identify information that has been forbidden under the Rules.

Indias defense of the 2021 rules, written in response to the criticism from three UN Special Rapporteurs, was to highlight the very real dangers to children, and skips over the much broader mandate of the scanning and censorship rules. The 2021 Rules impose proactive and automatic enforcement of its content takedown provisions, requiring the proactive blocking of material previously held to be forbidden under Indian law. These laws broadly include those protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality. This is no hypothetical slippery slopeits not hard to see how this language could be dangerous to freedom of expression and political dissent. Indeed, Indias track record on its Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which has reportedly been used to arrest academics, writers and poets for leading rallies and posting political messages on social media, highlight this danger.

It would be no surprise if India claimed that Apples scanning program was a great start towards compliance, with a few more tweaks needed to address the 2021 Rules wider mandate. Apple has promised to protest any expansion, and could argue in court, as WhatsApp and others have, that the 2021 Rules should be struck down, or that Apple does not fit the definition of a social media intermediary regulated under these 2021 Rules. But the Indian rules illustrate both the governmental desire and the legal backing for pre-screening encrypted content, and Apples changes makes it all the easier to slip into this dystopia.

This is, unfortunately, an ever-growing trend. Indonesia, too, has adopted Ministerial Regulation MR5 to require service providers (including instant messaging providers) to ensure that their system does not contain any prohibited [information]; and [...] does not facilitate the dissemination of prohibited [information]. MR5 defines prohibited information as anything that violates any provision of Indonesias laws and regulations, or creates community anxiety or disturbance in public order. MR5 also imposes disproportionate sanctions, including a general blocking of systems for those who fail to ensure there is no prohibited content and information in their systems. Indonesia may also see the iMessage scanning functionality as a tool for compliance with Regulation MR5, and pressure Apple to adopt a broader and more invasive version in their country.

The pressure to expand Apples program to more countries and more types of content will only continue. In fall of 2020, in the European Union, a series of leaked documents from the European Commission foreshadowed an anti-encryption law to the European Parliament, perhaps this year. Fortunately, there is a backstop in the EU. Under the e-commerce directive, EU Member States are not allowed to impose a general obligation to monitor the information that users transmit or store, as stated in the Article 15 of the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). Indeed, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has stated explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their services in a general manner in order to detect and prevent illegal activity of their users. Such an obligation will be incompatible with fairness and proportionality. Despite this, in a leaked internal document published by Politico, the European Commission committed itself to an action plan for mandatory detection of CSAM by relevant online service providers (expected in December 2021) that pointed to client-side scanning as the solution, which can potentially apply to secure private messaging apps, and seizing upon the notion that it preserves the protection of end-to-end encryption.

For governmental policymakers who have been urging companies to nerd harder, wordsmithing harder is just as good. The end result of access to unencrypted communication is the goal, and if that can be achieved in a way that arguably leaves a more narrowly defined end-to-end encryption in place, all the better for them.

All it would take to widen the narrow backdoor that Apple is building is an expansion of the machine learning parameters to look for additional types of content, the adoption of the iPhoto hash matching to iMessage, or a tweak of the configuration flags to scan, not just childrens, but anyones accounts. Apple has a fully built system just waiting for external pressure to make the necessary changes. China and doubtless other countries already have hashes and content classifiers to identify messages impermissible under their laws, even if they are protected by international human rights law. The abuse cases are easy to imagine: governments that outlaw homosexuality might require a classifier to be trained to restrict apparent LGBTQ+ content, or an authoritarian regime might demand a classifier able to spot popular satirical images or protest flyers.

Now that Apple has built it, they will come. With good intentions, Apple has paved the road to mandated security weakness around the world, enabling and reinforcing the arguments that, should the intentions be good enough, scanning through your personal life and private communications is acceptable. We urge Apple to reconsider and return to the mantra Apple so memorably emblazoned on a billboard at 2019s CES conference in Las Vegas: What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone.

More here:
If You Build It, They Will Come: Apple Has Opened the Backdoor to Increased Surveillance and Censorship Around the World - EFF

For years, St. Paul police officer Heather Weyker was swamped. She gathered evidence, cultivated witnesses, filled out the police reports, testified under oathall in connection with an interstate sex trafficking ring run by Somali refugees. But perhaps most impressive is that she did all that while fabricating the same ring she was investigating, which resulted in 30 indictments, 9 trials, and 0 convictions.

Hamdi Mohamud, then a 16-year-old refugee from Somalia, found herself caught up in that scheme in 2011, when one of Weyker's witnesses, Muna Abdulkadir, tried to attack her and her friends at knifepoint. Mohamud called the police, and Weyker intervenedon behalf of Abdulkadir. She arrested Mohamud and her friends for allegedly tampering with a federal witness, and Mohamud subsequently spent two years in jail before the trumped-up charges were dismissed.

While Mohamud lost those two years of her life, Weyker has not paid any pricenot in spite of her position, but because of it. Since the officer conducted her investigation as part of a federal task force, she is entitled to absolute immunity and cannot be sued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled last year.

It's not because the "sex trafficking" investigationwhich consisted of Weyker conjuring fake information, editing police reports, fabricating evidence, and lying under oath, among other thingswas legitimate. On the contrary, the court says it was "plagued with problems from the start" and notes that Weyker employed "lies and manipulation" to put people behind bars. Legally speaking, none of that matters.

What does matter is a line of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has made suing a rights-violating federal officer almost out of the question. Had Weyker acted in her capacity as a state or local cop, Mohamud would have been permitted to bring her claim before a jury of her peers. Yet the most powerful officers are held to the lowest standard of accountability.

Mohamud hopes to change that standard by asking the Supreme Court to hear her case, which she made official last week.

The problem here isn't qualified immunity, the doctrine that shields police officers and other state actors from federal civil suits unless the way the government violated your rights has been litigated almost exactly in a prior court precedent. That's an onerous standard to meet. It has, for example, protected two police officers who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant, because no prior court ruling had said stealing in those circumstances is unconstitutional. The legal principle has been at the center of criminal justice reform efforts over the last year.

But Mohamud cleared that hurdle. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that Weyker's actions so clearly made a mockery of the Constitution that she could not skirt the suit. The 8th Circuit then overturned that decision on appeal, citing Weyker's temporary federal badge, while in the same breath acknowledging the depravity of her actions.

"Qualified immunity makes it very, very difficult to sue government officials," says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest law firm representing Mohamud. "This makes it impossible."

There's a Supreme Court decision that should, in theory, give Mohamud the avenue to redress she needs. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics(1971), the high court allowed a victim to go before a jury after federal cops conducted a drug raid on his apartment without a warrant and later strip-searched him at the courthouse.

But since then the Court has undermined its own decision in almost comical ways. In 2017, the justices ruled in Ziglar v. Abbasi that lower courts should pinpoint "special factors counseling hesitation" when considering suits against federal cops. In practice, that has meant just about whatever a judge can cook up.

Yet even Abbasi notes that Bivens should be applied robustly for Fourth Amendment claims, and Mohamud's suit rests on the Fourth Amendment. That has been lost on the 8th Circuit.

"Bivens is actually a great decision," says Anya Bidwell, another attorney for Mohamud. "It does provide a cause of action for a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. We want Bivens to be interpreted robustly and allow individuals to seek damages for violations of constitutional rights."

Whether or not the Supreme Court will clarify its oscillating guidance remains to be seen. But last year the justices may have given a hint about where they're leaning when they unanimously ruled that a group of Muslim men should have the right to sue a group of federal cops who violated their religious freedom rights. Jaicomo distills Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in that case down to its core: "He [essentially] says the availability of damages against federal officers is as old as the Republic itself."

A decade after wrongly losing the end of her teenage years in jail, Mohamud has not yet been able to make use of that lever against the perpetrator, who is still employed by the St. Paul Police Department. "It simply makes no sense that the Fourth Amendment applies with less rigor for someone who happens to work for the federal government," says Bidwell. "This is unsustainable. It just makes no sense."

Continue reading here:
A Federal Cop Devised a Bogus Sex Trafficking Ring and Jailed This Teen for 2 Years. The Cop Can't Be Sued. - Reason

Five career employees of the government of Puerto Rico sued Gov. Pedro Pierluisi at the federal court in San Juan for violating their constitutional rights by demanding they get vaccinated against COVID-19.

"The government of Puerto Rico is being arbitrary and capricious by coercing and tricking its public employees into getting vaccinated without regard to their fundamental right to personally refuse the vaccine," reads the lawsuit, presented by Jos Dvila Acevedo, the lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Zulay Rodrguez Vlez, Yohama Gonzlez, Leila Liborio Carrasquillo, and Julissa Piero denounce violations against the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, they request a declaratory sentence order and a preliminary injunction. They argue that legal action is not capricious, nor arbitrary.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs contest that the COVID-19 statistics suggest that the local government is "exaggerating the severity of the pandemic." Furthermore, they state that in Puerto Rico, the pandemic has not hindered health operations and that there are fewer cases than in other U.S. jurisdictions.

The government has not responded to THE WEEKLY JOURNAL's request for comment.

Read more from the original source:
Puerto Rico Gov Sued in Federal Court Over Vaccine Mandates - The Weekly Journal

Philadelphias new rule mandating masks in all indoor businesses unless everyone inside is required to prove they are fully vaccinated will go into effect Thursday.

Heres what you need to know.

READ MORE: Philadelphias new mask mandate begins at midnight

The city announced new mask and vaccine requirements for all indoor businesses on Wednesday.

Masks are once again required at all indoor businesses and institutions, whether or not youre vaccinated, unless the business is requiring staff to get vaccinated and is requiring proof-of-vaccination from patrons.

This means all indoor businesses, not just restaurants. Its also indoor offices and any indoor gathering space.

Masks are also required at non-seated outdoor events with more than 1,000 people.

The move comes as more employers, cities, and states are requiring proof of vaccination. As of Sept. 1, the city will also require all new hires to be vaccinated, and current city employees to be vaccinated or wear two masks while at work.

Philadelphias new mask mandate and proof-of-vaccination rule will take effect at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday, Aug. 12.

At cooling centers, which the city opens during heat emergencies and are open during this weeks heat emergency, the mask mandate went into place at noon Wednesday.

No. If businesses require staff to get vaccinated and require proof of vaccination from patrons, they do not have to require masks.

In other words, masks are only required in the indoor spaces that are not checking guests vaccination status and are not requiring staff to get vaccinated.

The new requirements are in place to slow the spread of the highly transmissible delta variant of COVID-19. Nationwide, daily case counts have doubled within the last two weeks. In Philadelphia, the rate of new cases has doubled three times in the last month. And though hospitals here are far from overrun by coronavirus cases like some other parts of the country, for the first time since June more than 100 people are hospitalized due to the coronavirus.

Experts have said vaccine requirements could encourage more people to get inoculated. Currently, 63% of city residents have been vaccinated.

The citys previous honor system, where officials strongly recommended everyone wear masks indoors, hasnt worked, acting Health Commissioner Cheryl Bettigole said, and its difficult for businesses to enforce masking rules based on individuals vaccination status.

I think all-or-nothing is really whats going to work for them at this point, she said.

The reinstated mask requirement is a first step, Bettigole said, adding that the city will reassess based on future case numbers, hospitalizations, and vaccination rates.

READ MORE: Should you laminate your vaccination card? What if you lose it? Here are the dos and donts.

The city is asking that all businesses require people to wear masks indoors, or, if establishments do not want to require masks, have a reasonable system for enforcing proof of vaccination, Bettigole said. That means businesses that do require proof of vaccination should ask to see patrons cards or a photo of the card on their phone.

Meanwhile, all other establishments must require individuals to wear masks regardless of their vaccine status indoors. Businesses enforcing a mask mandate should have signs making it obvious at the entrance, Bettigole said.

Enforcement of coronavirus rules is typically complaint-driven, Bettigole said, with inspectors visiting establishments under scrutiny. If issues are not corrected on site, inspectors can close a business and charge $315 to reinspect and reopen operations. In rare cases, the health department can take a business to court and charge fines of up to $2,000 per day.

If issues arise for a particular business enforcing the new rules, the city is happy to give them guidance, Mayor Jim Kenney said.

In many cases, you may be able to show a photo of your vaccine card on your phone instead of the actual card. Be sure to take pictures of both sides of your vaccine card and keep those pictures stored on your phone.

If youre traveling and need to show your vaccine card to cross a border, however, you should have the original document with you.

According to the city, valid proof of vaccination includes a CDC card, a vaccine record from the health department, vaccine passport apps, or cards from other countries.

In general, having your card on your person for instance, in your wallet or handbag isnt a bad idea, unless you are prone to losing things.

If you cant find your vaccine card and were vaccinated in Philadelphia, you can contact the citys COVID Call Center at 215-685-5488 or covid@phila.gov to get a record of your COVID vaccination status. The staff at the center will determine the fastest way to get you your immunization record. This record is not a copy of the card you received when you were vaccinated, but it will still show proof of vaccination.

READ MORE: How do I get a replacement vaccine card in Pennsylvania?

To be fully vaccinated, you have to have received your final vaccine dose at least two weeks ago.

For those who arent yet vaccinated, its easy to get a shot. There are many places throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey pharmacies, neighborhood rec centers, and more where you can get your free COVID-19 shot. Visit phila.gov to find a vaccination place near you.

If you have already had the coronavirus, you still need proof of vaccination to enter businesses requiring it.

To eat indoors at a space that requires proof of vaccination, you must show your vaccination card. In most cases, outdoor dining, unless explicitly noted by the restaurant, is still open to unvaccinated individuals.

In spaces that dont require proof of vaccination, indoor dining will still remain an option. The difference is masks will be required for patrons and staff (whether unvaccinated or vaccinated) when you arent eating or drinking.

READ MORE: These are the Philadelphia restaurants that require proof of vaccination

Yes and no. If you are in a standing crowd of more than 1,000 people, like a concert with a mosh pit, you must wear a mask regardless of vaccination status, Bettigole said. Additionally, at the Mann Center in Fairmount Park, masks are required at all times, unless youre eating or drinking.

If you are sitting down at a large outdoor event, like a Phillies or Eagles game, you do not currently need to wear a mask, she said, but will need a mask handy for visiting indoor spaces in the stadiums.

READ MORE: Eagles update COVID protocols at the Linc, will require fans and staff to wear masks in indoor spaces

And if you are attending a smaller outdoor gathering with fewer than 1,000 people say, a wedding or party you are not required by the city to wear a mask. However, if you feel more comfortable in your mask at a smaller outdoor gathering, there is nothing wrong with wearing one.

No. A defining feature of last years virus restrictions, the city is shying away from putting capacity limits on businesses for now, Bettigole said, hoping that the mask-or-vaccination rules will be effective without taking a toll on the economy.

We have a weapon now we didnt have last year: We have very effective vaccines and they are readily available and they are free, she said. Were going to have to watch the numbers and see if this works, but we are trying not to hurt our city economically at a time that its just starting to recover.

Unvaccinated people including children under 12 who are too young to receive the shot are not allowed inside businesses requiring proof of vaccination to enter, Bettigole said. In an Aug. 13 press conference, Bettigole clarified that children dining outdoors at restaurants that require proof of vaccination can still enter to use the bathroom.

Quick, masked bathroom trips dont violate the citys regulations, she said.

Also on Aug. 13, Bettigole noted that grocery stores, doctors offices, pharmacies, and urgent care centers must require masks and do not have the option to accept proof of vaccination instead. This allows children under 12 to still enter these spaces.

Philadelphia schools are expected to welcome students back for full-time in-person learning starting Aug. 31, and will require all students and staff to wear masks, regardless of vaccination status. Families not yet comfortable with the return to classrooms can enroll in virtual schooling.

READ MORE: Philly tweaks mask mandate to help parents of young children

Yes. Much like a dress code or a friendly no shirt, no shoes, no service reminder, businesses can require proof of vaccination and masks.

According to Eric Feldman, professor of law and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, requiring proof of vaccination does not violate HIPAA or the Fourth Amendment.

Its quite clear that restaurants, airlines, cruise ships, your local caf, your local university, [or] the school that you may choose to send your child to are all within their legal bounds in asking you to demonstrate that you or your child has been vaccinated, he says.

Staff writer Sean Collins Walsh contributed to this article.

READ MORE: Live your best life in Philly: Read our most useful stories here

The rest is here:
Everything you need to know about Phillys new COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements - The Philadelphia Inquirer

Seven years after the arrest that became his lifes preoccupation, Scott Jordan Jr. is still in disbelief.I was blown away at how that all just unfolded and how I was treated, Jordan said in an interview following the recent jury verdict in a civil rights lawsuit he successfully brought against police in Waldoboro, Maine. Jordan, 43, a corrections officer for 23 years at the Cumberland County Jail, has been fighting his 2014 arrest for what police had portrayed as elder abuse.The case centered around Jordans ailing then-66-year-old, father, Scott Jordan Sr., who had once sold and delivered seafood and later co-owned an antique shop.He bounced around from job to job, Jordan said of his father, who he described as an alcoholic smoker with liver disease and diabetes. Jordan said he spent time and money fixing up his fathers house, in Waldoboro, so it could be sold to pay for medical treatment and that he planned to have his father move in with him.Jordan said, Whenever he needed me, I was always there for him. Jordan said, during a hospital stay, his father feared his assets could be seized and asked his son to assume power of attorney over his financial affairs. On May 15, 2014, Jordan Sr. signed the form.I wasnt even in the room when he signed it, Jordan said. At no point was he concerned with me pocketing cash and absconding to Switzerland or something.Jordan raised $3,000 in a yard sale of his fathers belongings, took possession of his 2003 Chevy Silverado pickup truck--and his guns, two shotguns and a revolver, he says, because his father was expressing suicidal and irrational thoughts.Jordan recounted telling his father: Dad, youre in and out of it. I dont want to see you have an episode and then think Im some burglar, and Im really your son, and you take a shot at me.On July 31, 2014, Jordan Sr. rescinded the power of attorney, and his lawyer subsequently asked Jordan Jr. for an accounting of the fathers belongings. Jordan Sr. also called Waldoboro Police.I received numerous complaints from his father, Senior, that he felt his son was exploiting him financially, Larry Hesseltine, then a Waldoboro detective who picked up the investigation, said in an interview.Hesseltine is now police chief in Wiscasset, capping a 30-year career in law enforcement.He said, I take pride in being that police officer that is out there to help people.He said he had no prior experience dealing with a power of attorney agreement.His son had obtained some property that wanted back, and his son was refusing to return it for whatever reason, Hesseltine said. My time talking with Senior, from August on, til November, the time of arrest, I never once felt Senior was suicidal.In November 2014, Jordan Jr. posted an ad on Craigs List selling the truck for $7,900. After learning that, Hasseltine filled out a search warrant for Juniors home approved by a judge.The crime is theft, Hesseltine said. The fact that he was in law enforcement, in my mind back then, didnt put him above the law. However, as court proceedings would later decide, the warrant neglected to mention the original power of attorney or that Jordan Jr. had offered to give his fathers guns to police for safe keeping. On November 21, 2014, without ever interviewing Jordan Jr., Hesseltine arrested him at his Standish home in front of his 10-year-old daughter.Jordan said, I was in full uniform, armed myself, getting her ready for school, and he took me down like a Colombian drug lord, with my house surrounded.Bail conditions required Jordan Jr. to stay away from his father, who died 10 months later, in September 2015, at 67. The son never saw the father again. Without the key prosecution witness, the Knox County District Attorney dropped all criminal charges. In 2016, Jordan Jr, sued Hesseltine, the police department, and the town for wrongful arrest stemming from what the plaintiff depicted as a faulty search warrant resulting in a wrongful arrest.Jordan said, It was done illegally. He didnt present the facts the way he was supposed to. He didnt fact check anything.The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by their government.For the year his criminal investigation was active, Jordan was suspended from his corrections officer job, six months without pay. Unpaid, on MaineCare, getting Food Stamps, Jordan said.After an eight-day trial in Portland federal court last month, with Hesseltine the only remaining defendant, a jury sided with Jordan and awarded him $15,000 in damages, far less than the $175,000 the town of Waldoboro had offered him to settle the case and keep quiet.Jordan said, Im getting satisfaction. Im getting my name back.Hesseltine was never disciplined and says he acted with guidance from the DA and state attorney general, and until the jury verdict, says no one told hed done anything wrong.I dont agree with the jurys decision, but I have to respect the jurys decision, and going forward, I can only take steps to make sure Im never is this situation again. Hesseltine said. My only regret is I wish I had taken better notes back then. ###

Seven years after the arrest that became his lifes preoccupation, Scott Jordan Jr. is still in disbelief.

I was blown away at how that all just unfolded and how I was treated, Jordan said in an interview following the recent jury verdict in a civil rights lawsuit he successfully brought against police in Waldoboro, Maine.

Jordan, 43, a corrections officer for 23 years at the Cumberland County Jail, has been fighting his 2014 arrest for what police had portrayed as elder abuse.

The case centered around Jordans ailing then-66-year-old, father, Scott Jordan Sr., who had once sold and delivered seafood and later co-owned an antique shop.

He bounced around from job to job, Jordan said of his father, who he described as an alcoholic smoker with liver disease and diabetes.

Jordan said he spent time and money fixing up his fathers house, in Waldoboro, so it could be sold to pay for medical treatment and that he planned to have his father move in with him.

Jordan said, Whenever he needed me, I was always there for him.

Jordan said, during a hospital stay, his father feared his assets could be seized and asked his son to assume power of attorney over his financial affairs.

On May 15, 2014, Jordan Sr. signed the form.

I wasnt even in the room when he signed it, Jordan said. At no point was he concerned with me pocketing cash and absconding to Switzerland or something.

Jordan raised $3,000 in a yard sale of his fathers belongings, took possession of his 2003 Chevy Silverado pickup truck--and his guns, two shotguns and a revolver, he says, because his father was expressing suicidal and irrational thoughts.

Jordan recounted telling his father: Dad, youre in and out of it. I dont want to see you have an episode and then think Im some burglar, and Im really your son, and you take a shot at me.

On July 31, 2014, Jordan Sr. rescinded the power of attorney, and his lawyer subsequently asked Jordan Jr. for an accounting of the fathers belongings. Jordan Sr. also called Waldoboro Police.

I received numerous complaints from his father, Senior, that he felt his son was exploiting him financially, Larry Hesseltine, then a Waldoboro detective who picked up the investigation, said in an interview.

Hesseltine is now police chief in Wiscasset, capping a 30-year career in law enforcement.

He said, I take pride in being that police officer that is out there to help people.

He said he had no prior experience dealing with a power of attorney agreement.

His son had obtained some property that wanted back, and his son was refusing to return it for whatever reason, Hesseltine said. My time talking with Senior, from August on, til November, the time of arrest, I never once felt Senior was suicidal.

In November 2014, Jordan Jr. posted an ad on Craigs List selling the truck for $7,900.

After learning that, Hasseltine filled out a search warrant for Juniors home approved by a judge.

The crime is theft, Hesseltine said. The fact that he was in law enforcement, in my mind back then, didnt put him above the law.

However, as court proceedings would later decide, the warrant neglected to mention the original power of attorney or that Jordan Jr. had offered to give his fathers guns to police for safe keeping.

On November 21, 2014, without ever interviewing Jordan Jr., Hesseltine arrested him at his Standish home in front of his 10-year-old daughter.

Jordan said, I was in full uniform, armed myself, getting her ready for school, and he took me down like a Colombian drug lord, with my house surrounded.

Bail conditions required Jordan Jr. to stay away from his father, who died 10 months later, in September 2015, at 67. The son never saw the father again.

Without the key prosecution witness, the Knox County District Attorney dropped all criminal charges.

In 2016, Jordan Jr, sued Hesseltine, the police department, and the town for wrongful arrest stemming from what the plaintiff depicted as a faulty search warrant resulting in a wrongful arrest.

Jordan said, It was done illegally. He didnt present the facts the way he was supposed to. He didnt fact check anything.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by their government.

For the year his criminal investigation was active, Jordan was suspended from his corrections officer job, six months without pay.

Unpaid, on MaineCare, getting Food Stamps, Jordan said.

After an eight-day trial in Portland federal court last month, with Hesseltine the only remaining defendant, a jury sided with Jordan and awarded him $15,000 in damages, far less than the $175,000 the town of Waldoboro had offered him to settle the case and keep quiet.

Jordan said, Im getting satisfaction. Im getting my name back.

Hesseltine was never disciplined and says he acted with guidance from the DA and state attorney general, and until the jury verdict, says no one told hed done anything wrong.

I dont agree with the jurys decision, but I have to respect the jurys decision, and going forward, I can only take steps to make sure Im never is this situation again. Hesseltine said. My only regret is I wish I had taken better notes back then.

###

View post:
Cumberland County corrections officer sees vindication in jury verdict for wrongful arrest - WMTW Portland