Mediaboss Marketing

When Joe Biden nominated Merrick GarlandMerrick GarlandHouse Judiciary to probe DOJ's seizure of data from lawmakers, journalists Senate confirms Garland's successor to appeals court Outrage grows as Justice seeks to contain subpoena fallout MORE to be attorney general, many including me heralded Garland as an honorable, apolitical judge who would follow the law. He was not, the Washington Post editors insisted, a lackey who will serve as the presidents personal attorney like Donald TrumpDonald TrumpDOJ asks Supreme Court to revive Boston Marathon bomber death sentence, in break with Biden vow Biden looking to build momentum for Putin meeting DOJ tells media execs that reporters were not targets of investigations MORE's AGs. Garland has indeed followed the law, but some are not thrilled by where it has taken him.

President BidenJoe BidenFormer Rep. Rohrabacher says he took part in Jan. 6 march to Capitol but did not storm building Saudis picked up drugs in Cairo used to kill Khashoggi: report Biden looking to build momentum for Putin meeting MOREs Department of Justice (DOJ) has adopted some of the same positions taken by the Trump administration that a host of legal and media experts once denounced. This week, the DOJ sought to replace itself as the defendant in a lawsuit against Trump brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who alleges that Trump raped her. The week before, it sought to dismiss a Black Lives Matter lawsuit over the clearing of Lafayette Park during a June 2020 protest.

This time last year, both positions were cited by legal and media experts as grotesque examples of then-Attorney General Bill Barrs political bias. Now, those same experts are silent as Garland takes the same positions Barr took in federal court.

Garland is free, of course, to reject prior legal positions of Barr, but he has reached the same conclusion as his predecessor on several points of law thus far. In yet another adherence to Trump-era policy, the DOJ will defend opposing the ability of Puerto Ricans to receive social security disability benefits before the Supreme Court. Likewise, Garland agreed with Barr that a DOJ memo finding no legal basis for an obstruction charge against Trump should not be released to the public in its entirety.

Is Garland a Trumpist mole, part of some deep state resistance to his own president? Or is the more likely alternative that some in the media and many others in politics or the law knowingly distorted past legal controversies to use those as political fodder against Trump?

The general lack of media criticism or even coverage has never been more striking than with the latest filing in the Carroll case. In November 2019, Carroll sued Trump,claiming he defamed herwhen he denied sexually assaulting her. She alleges that Trump raped her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s.

The Biden administration has told the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that it rather than Trump should be the defendant because his comments were made as part of his official capacity as president. Said the Biden DOJ: "Courts have thus consistently and repeatedly held that allegedly defamatory statements made in that context are within the scope of elected officials' employment including when the statements were prompted by press inquiries about the official's private life."

That is the identical position taken by then-AG Barr last year.

A district court rejected that effort, and the Trump administration appealed. While I disagree with the treatment of any such statements as part of a presidents official duties, I stated at the time that there was support for the position in the governing federal statute and case law.

However, some media outlets featured an array of experts who denounced Barrs legal move. Vanity Fair was typical of the coverage with a column titled Bill Barr Sinks To New Low, Uses Justice Department To Try To Kill Trumps Rape Defamation Suit. In it, writer Bess Levin explained that the move proved that Barr was willing not just to do [Trumps] dirty work but to do it completely out in the open and without a scintilla of shame. Citing the DOJ effort to replace Trump as a party in the suit, Levin declared that experts confirmed that this special arrangement is wholly unique to Trump and his slippery, bootlicking A.G. She cited University of Texas law professor and CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck and an array of other experts cited in a New York Times article. The Times wrote how some current and former Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, echoed Mr. Vladeck's concerns, saying they were stunned that the department had been asked to defend Trump in Ms. Carroll's case.

One would expect that these same media outlets and experts would denounce Garland now as another slippery, bootlicking A.G. doing Trump dirty work. But no.

The same is true with the Biden DOJ s recent filing in the BLM lawsuit. Last year news stories stated as fact that Barr ordered Lafayette Park to be cleared of protesters to make way for Trumps controversial photo op before St. Johns Church. From the outset, the Trump/Barr conspiracy claim had little support, and soon there were reports contradicting it. As I explained in mytestimony to Congresson the protest, the plan to clear the park area to establish a wider perimeter was due to an extreme level of violence by protesters over the preceding two days, including the injury of a high number of federal officers. The violence was so great that Trump had to be moved to a bunker.

Now the Biden administration is arguing that the BLM case should be dismissed. Moreover, it is advancing the same position as Barrs DOJ that Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance. The DOJs counsel, John Martin, added that federal officers do not violate First Amendment rights by moving protesters a few blocks, even if the protesters are predominantly peaceful.

The Biden administration is not reluctant to change positions in litigation when it disagrees with the prior administration. However, in these cases the Biden administration insists that Barr was right on the law, even if it disagrees with Trumps statements themselves. That would likely come as a surprise to many viewers of CNN or MSNBC.

Reasonable people can disagree about such legal disputes but the point of much of the past coverage was that there was no real dispute, just raw political abuse by Barr.

As we watch the anger and divisions growing in our nation, we need to be honest about the role that media coverage continues to play in our age of rage. It is little surprise that many are enraged when legal experts state as a fact that the Justice Department is acting without legal basis; that makes for undeniably good ratings. Now that the ratings have receded, however, the law has again emerged with the Biden administration in full agreement with its predecessors legal arguments.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Read more from the original source:
AG Garland resurrects the ghost of Bill Barr without the outrage | TheHill - The Hill

Compiled by Ankita Joshi

The Vanguard is an online news group that provides in-depth coverage of courts in California and around the nation. Since 2006, The Vanguard has been dedicated to transparency, democracy, open government and social justice. The team of 40 to 50 interns monitors live court proceedings in more than six different counties throughout California, from the Greater San Francisco Bay Area all the way through the Central Valley and towards Southern California. These are some highlights of this weeks coverage.

Monday June 7, 2021

Sacramento County Superior Court

Christopher Datu Dept. 63: Christopher heard various bail hearings, sentencings, and requests for continuance. Sarah Brown was sentenced for two separate but related charges. On April 2, 2020, Brown walked into a Chevron gas station and took various food items with no intent to pay. When the employees noticed and confronted her to retrieve the property, Brown pulled out and activated a taser to scare the employees. She stepped behind the counter to brandish it further and threatened the employees. Brown was later found and apprehended a short distance away with the stolen merchandise. The second charge was for car theft when on Dec 26, 2020 Brown and a codefendant Mark Harris forcibly stole car keys from the victim at gunpoint. The two defendants approached the victim on the street and flashed the gun on her, telling her to give up her car keys.

Brown held a lighter charge than her codefendant, only charged with the vehicle theft while her codefendant, Harris, bore the responsibility for the force involved as well as the theft. Brown pleaded no contest on both charges, leading Judge Patrick Marlette to order Brown to stay away from both Chevron and the victim of the vehicle theft, and sentenced to 233 days in jail plus fees and an amount of restitution decided by Chevron.

Yolo County Superior CourtMichael Wheeler Dept. 1, 14: Yolo 1 moved quickly through the schedule with few hearings of substance. Junsik Choi pled no contest to a wet reckless, for which he was given a year of probation, a fine of $1,705, and a 12 hour alcohol education class. Charles Falk also faced drinking-related charges, and his attorney, Robert Darrohn, appeared 977 for charges relating to reckless driving with a .31 and .29 BAC. A date on June 24 was set for an early resolution. A similar pattern held for Yolo 14, which moved quickly through the schedule and for which I have no cases to report.

Nina Hall Dept. 11: Nina witnessed the arraignment of Ervin Omar Vargas who is being charged with six first degree counts of robbery as well as an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon. Vargas is pleading not guilty to all changes despite multiple officers testifying on the details of the case. Vargas has since been identified as the male who was robbing people at a Woodland drive through ATM at a Federal Credit Union Bank. Vargas is said to have approached vehicles after they had pulled up to the ATM before displaying his gun and demanding money from the victims. Most victims lost between $200-$400 in cash. Vargas will be held to answer to these charges at a later date.

Tuesday June 8, 2021

Sacramento County Superior CourtMichael Wheeler and Joseph Cohn Dept. 32: Michael and Joe heard a cross-examination at Sacramento Dept. 32. Deputy District Attorney Saron Tesfai and Assistant Public Defender Courtney Zane cross-examined police officer Tara Ferneau about a case that took place on August 1, 2020. The case involved charges of second degree robbery and felony vandalism against defendant Joshua Plante. Officer Ferneau described her interactions with the defendant and with a friend of the defendant who allegedly called him to ask for help.

On the night of the incident, Officer Ferneau responded to a 911 call and met the victim, who alleged that he met the friend that day in a parking lot. They then drove to a trailer park, and later to a spot behind a warehouse. After an hour, they began arguing, at which point the friend witness attempted to steal his bag. It was at this point that the friend called Plante for help, alleging the victim was attempting to rape her. Three key questions came up in the cross-examination. The first was the nature of the encounter between the friend and the victim. The second was whether the friends arm showed signs of recent injury on the night of the incident. The third was how far the victim, who fled his car, was from the scene when he perceived the alleged acts of vandalism.

Judge Emily Vasquez found sufficient cause to believe the defendant was guilty, and she ordered the court to hold him for answering. Judge Vasquez also confirmed a court date for June 14 in Dept. 63, on which date they will discuss a conditional release to allow Plante to go to a state mental hospital. They did not set a date for a future preliminary hearing.

S. Priana Aquino Dept. 61: Defendant Donald Olson was charged with second degree burglary. The incident occurred in March of 2020 in Sacramento County. Olson unlawfully entered a Wienerschnitzel store through a side door and took some assets unnamed in his preliminary hearing. After the burglary, fingerprints were found on the side of a box present in the store. The prints were tested and matched those of Olsons. Upon this discovery, he was taken into custody. The defendant was represented by Hubert Chen, who requested that Olson serve 10 months concurrent with the time he is serving as of today. After deliberation between Chen and Judge Geoffrey Goodman, the presiding judge made the decision to grant the defendants request.

Lois Yoo, Dario McCarty, and Jose Medina Depts. 61, 62, 63: The prosecutor in one of the cases from Sac 61 with Judge Geoffrey Goodman involving defendant Alicia Herrick could not reach the victim because she is also homeless. On May 7, 2021, Herrick physically attacked the victim under a bridge and hit her 10 to 20 times. The victim suffered two cuts on her body and from bleeding. Herrick pleaded no contest.

Another case from Sac 61 involved Ahjamu Smith. Smiths defense attorney Tom Clinkenbeard requested to have Smith reevaluated because he had been receiving psychiatric treatment and seemed to be in a sufficient mental state. Judge Goodman approved and Smith will be re-evaluated by the same doctor as before.

In Sac 62, Judge Ken Brody heard the case of Balentin Quintero who was accused of possession of a controlled substance and possession of a loaded firearm while out on bail for another felony case. When Brody asked the defendant if they were okay proceeding with a remote Zoom hearing, the defendant replied that they could not see their attorney on the Zoom call and further inquired whether their lawyer was present on the call. In response to this, Judge Brody appeared impatient and repeated his initial question; at this time, Quintero attempted to apologize, but Quinteros attorney, Michelle Spaulding, who was in fact on the call, also began speaking at the same time. This prompted Judge Brody to shout that there must be only one person speaking on the call at a time.

Spaulding, after this time asking Judge Brody for permission to speak, explained that Quintero was simply asking whether his attorney was on the call; Brody replied that he understood what the defendant was asking, but he could not respond until Quintero responded to his initial question. After a brief hearing, further proceedings for Quinteros case were set for July 13.

In Sac 63 defendant Charles Jones along with the assistance of his attorney asked for the court to grant him a 995 motion, dismissal of information, on the basis that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Jones is charged with driving with a suspended license and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. After the defendant was found to be driving with a suspended license his car was impounded. A detective conducted an inventory search in his car and found a locked case with a gun inside it. The defendant asked for the firearm charge to be dismissed on the basis that the detective did not have a warrant to look inside the locked case.

Joness attorney Vadim Kobrya argued that the 4th amendment requires a warrant, this is not a judgment that officers in the field, especially gang suppression unit officers who are looking for guns who are hunting for gangsters and guns, to make arrests, adding that its not up to them to make that decision, that decision is up to a mutual magistrate or a judge. Vobrya told the court that the briefcase wasnt going anywhere Mr. Jones wasnt going anywhere, the car was there, the briefcase was there, there was no exigency. Vobrya then berated the detective stating, they decided not to follow the law, they circumvented the law and in doing so they violated the fourth amendment.

Judge James P. Arguelles found Vobryas argument to be weak and disagreed with him. Judge Arguelles reminded Vobrya that you dont have to get a warrant to justify the inventory search, its already justified. The judge then hypothetically asked what was a detective supposed to do? Hes now got something that hes pretty sure is a locked gun. The court then denied the motion concluding that the inventory search was enough legal justification for the detective to search the locked case

Yolo County Superior CourtKoda Slingluff and Alexander Pleitez Dept. 7: Koda and Alexander witnessed the conclusion of a criminal trial. The trial lasted the entire afternoon shift. This case was about a defendant, Danny George Raviart Jr., who was charged with a DUI and, allegedly, drove erratically in a vehicle and failed tests designed to assess his mental and physical ability at the time including a portable breath test. There was an examination and cross-examination of expert witness and forensic scientist, Jyoti Malik, who works for the department of justice and is trained in alcohol and body fluid analysis. Two officers had already given their statements and Raviart Jr. did not testify at all.

In the examination of this witness, Jyoti made it clear that the defendant was too impaired by the consumption of alcohol to be using a motor vehicle, without posing a significant threat to the public. Deputy District Attorney Emilie Anne Johnson and Public Defender John Joseph Sage delivered their closing statements to the jury.

Johnson argued that the defendant had to be well above the legal limit of intoxication at the time of driving, given his blood alcohol content (BAC) when police arrived, while Sage argued that the prosecution could not prove Raviart Jr. was intoxicated while driving, since his BAC was measured hours after the fact. This led Sage to say that prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Raviart Jr. was guilty.

Wednesday June 9, 2021

Sacramento County Superior CourtLeah Timmerman Dept. 17: Defendant Francisco Salinas had his preliminary hearing this morning for his felony burglary charge, he stole a pair of Jordan sneakers from the victim valued at 350 dollars. Two witnesses were called to testify, Officer Brueck and Officer McDade, Brueck was present when the victim identified the defendant from a photo lineup, and McDade took the victims statement after the crime occurred. After the testimony of the two officers, Judge Arguelles determined that there was sufficient cause to believe that the defendant was guilty of the charges so the case will go to trial.

A date was set for July 20 for further proceedings as there may be a co-defendant in this case. Defendant Kenneth Kruse had his preliminary hearing today for his charges of illegally possessing a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. Kruse had been convicted of a felony in 1990 and 2004. In this case, Kruse was arrested after a traffic stop when he failed to provide the officers a drivers license, and his car and person were searched.

The officers found ammunition and two revolvers in the car. There was an individual in the passenger seat but they were not arrested even though they had a prior conviction for concealing a weapon. After the testimony of the two witnesses, Judge Arguelles determined that there was sufficient cause to believe that the defendant was guilty of the charges so the case will go to trial. A trial readiness conference was set for July 21 in Dept. 61 and the trial was set for July 26 in Dept. 9.

Ankita Joshi Dept. 31: Ankita Joshi observed a probable cause hearing for Defendant Michael Benton, who was present on two felony counts for possession of a handgun. Much of the hearing revolved around the defense and prosecution deliberating over what the legal definition of an assault weapon was and whether it applied to the handgun Benton was in possession of. Public Defender Gina Le contended that based on the testimony of the arresting police officer, the description of the handgun did not align with the specificity of the penal code that outlined the requirements for an assault weapon. On the other hand, Deputy District Attorney Allison Weider contended that there was enough probable cause present for a preliminary hearing to be set.

Judge Gerritt W. Wood chose to take a 30 minute recess to go over the specifics in the penal codes that were presented. When court resumed, Judge Wood moved to remove the holding order for Count 1, and continue with a preliminary hearing for Count 2. A 17b motion requested by the defense to reduce the count 2 felony to a misdemeanor was also denied by the court, as Judge Wood believed Benton could still be considered a danger to the public.

Yolo County Superior CourtKoda Slingluff Dept. 14: Koda saw two riveting cases relating to mental health. In the first, defendant Nico Kade Traversies public defender Monica Brushia argued that Traversies 11 charges should be dropped due to incompetence. Traversies charges related to him painting swastikas on a Sacramento church back in June 2017. Brushia brought in Traversies psychologist, who has been working with Traversie for almost a year and a half, to explain that Traversie would not ever be competent, meaning the charges should be dropped.

The psychologist explained that Traversie initially suffered from acute psychosis, claiming to be a stargate traveler. After some argument from prosecution, Judge Paul Richardson decided to push off dropping the charges and sign an order to mandate Traversie take his medication. A renewal date was set for Sept. 16 to see if Traversie can become competent enough to be tried for his crimes.

Mental health also played a role in the second case of the day. Joseph Michael Granken appeared for a preliminary hearing regarding an attempted murder. From the police officers who testified, it seemed that Granken had planned and attempted to kill a woman by stomping and beating her face and body on the side of the road. Two different civilians interrupted Granken. Granken tried to beat the first civilian and, when the second arrived, he ran away. When the police arrived, Granken was lying on the ground face down waiting for them. In the courtroom, it quickly became apparent that Granken believed he was involved in a conspiracy with the FBI. He repeatedly asked that the Federal bureau of investigation counter terrorism task force contact him. He also suggested that the Yolo county judges were bought out and that Judge Richardson was a communist.

Thursday June 10, 2021

Sacramento County Superior CourtJoseph Cohn and Jose Medina Dept. 17: Jose and Joe heard a preliminary hearing for charges of second degree robbery and possession of an illegal substance leveled against Harley Kinard. The initial charge came from an incident on April 20, in which the defendant allegedly attempted to take his friends bicycle. When the friend refused to give the defendant his bicycle, the defendant pointed what seemed like a handgun at the victim.

The victim called local police after the incident. Police located the bicycle that night, and they located the defendant the next day. When Detective Christopher Robertson arrested and searched the defendant, he also found a clear plastic bag containing 2.5 grams of what he believed was methamphetamine. When other officers searched the defendants tent, they also discovered the weapon described by the victim, which turned out to be a replica BB gun.

During cross examinations of Officer Kenyan Olsen, who responded to the initial incident, and Detective Christopher Robertson, who arrested the defendant and reviewed surveillance of the incident, the prosecution emphasized the victims ready identification of the defendant. During the defenses cross examination, questions focused on the reliability of existing security footage and of Detective Robertsons identification of the substance as methamphetamine without deferring to any tests. Judge James P. Arguelles found reason to believe the defendant was guilty, and he said there was enough information to file this case. A TRC will take place on July 21, and a jury trial July 26.

Christopher Datu Dept. 61: Virginia Rivas, a defendant with two strikes, was present for her bail review today with her counsel, Michelle Trigger, asking for Rivas to be released from custody. Bail had been set at $50,000, though Trigger mentioned the fee was unaffordable for the unemployed Rivas. Trigger further claimed Rivas was a lifelong resident of Sacramento without a significant criminal history that posed no threat to public safety. Prosecutor Kitty Tetrault asked the court to hold Rivas without bail for the circumstances of the case as well as her prior history.

Tetrault went through the damage done to the halfway house owner Rivas was charged with attacking, listing a scratch to the head that was bleeding substantially (and) bites all over, bleeding from the groin where she had pulled extremely hard, and other witness testimony claiming she went crazy and attacked everyone. Tetrault then went into a prior incident where Rivas attacked a JC Penney employee with caustic chemicals. Judge Geoffrey Goodman ultimately held Rivas without bail, deeming the defendant extremely violent and deciding no combination of conditions could both secure public safety and her appearance.

Yolo County Superior CourtNed Meiners Dept. 14: Defendant Vallery Thompson appeared, she has been paying restitution of $100 a month in her case, and the judge, Paul Richardson, acknowledged her commitment. A hearing was scheduled for a year from now and if she continues with her restitution payments her charges may be removed from her record. Robert Gallegos had his theft cases moved to Addiction Intervention Court. Corey Robinson violated his probation by possessing alcohol and was sentenced to 45 days which can be served on Sherriffs Work Project.

The most interesting case was that of Serena Morreno-Carrera. She has several assault and vandalism charges. According to her Yolo PD Tracie Olsen there is a plea offer for her client. However, when she went to the Yolo County Jail on Monday she could not visit her client. Visitation rooms are no longer in operation due to social distancing and the room where you can speak with your client over a phone from behind glass was currently undergoing renovation. She returned to the jail days later and was still unable to access her client as there is still construction taking place there.

Friday June 11, 2021

Sacramento County Superior CourtSophia Barberini Dept. 63: Sophia sat in on a probable cause hearing for Defendant Tristan Cloud, who was deemed unfit to stand trial after he attacked his mother and her boyfriend. DDA Allison Wielder called three witnesses to highlight the defendants mental state at the time of the attack. First, she called Deputy Melanie Edwards who was a responding officer on the case. Edwards took the defendant into custody and he revealed that he attacked his mother and her boyfriend by throwing boiling water on them and then attacking them with kitchen knives.

The defendant argued that he attacked his parents because they were threatening to kill and evict him. Deputy Melissa Propps and Deputy James Avalos recounted their interviews with the mother and her boyfriend after the incident, asserting that the victims were confused and detailing their injuries. Judge Stephen Acquisto asserted that there was probable cause that the defendant was guilty, but he did agree that the defendant was unfit to stand trial.

Yolo County Superior CourtAlexander Ramirez Dept 14: Alexander observed a preliminary hearing about a woman charged with arson after she is said to be seen lighting matches in an area where a fire was in the marina. There were four witnesses brought in by the prosecution to build the story. The first witness was a witness who said they saw smoke by the marina, and when they walked in its direction, saw someone crouch down, stand up, and walk away. Where the person crouched down was a small fire, to which the witness couldnt put out since they were wearing sandals. An officer stopped a suspicious vehicle fleeing from the fire and arrested the defendant, who had 10 potential Molotov cocktails. The EOD team was brought in to identify the cocktails, to which they did.

The judge found there was enough evidence to sustain her four different counts, but since the defendants criminal record was minimal, left one of the counts open to a reduction in the future. This matter was to be continued on July 9.

Ankita Joshi is a second-year student at the University of San Francisco, pursuing a major in International Studies and a minor in Political Science. She is originally from Sacramento, CA.

To sign up for our new newsletter Everyday Injustice https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work to become a sustaining at $5 $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Visit link:
The Vanguard Week in Review: Court Watch (June 7 to June 11, 2021) - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

SportsHandle and friends deliver another round-up of the weeks big developments in US sports betting.

DraftKings Partnership With Boost Mobile Marks Pit Stop On Roadmap To Hell

I spend an inordinate amount of time in the company of DraftKings.

And now that Ive typed that and spent a second thinking about it, its making me question some of my life choices. Seriously: After sleeping, working, and time with family, DraftKings is coming in a solid fourth for time spent. For me it is mostly DFS lineup creation, but its also playing the daily casino specials and checking odds boosts and placing a wager or two or four(teen).

DraftKings has me, my rapt attention, and, most useful for them, my money.

Full story here.

As Parliament Session Nears End, CFL Commissioner Doubles Down On Legalization Of Single-Event Sports Betting In Canada

Still in financial straits after canceling the entire 2020 season due to COVID-19, the Canadian Football League reiterated calls on Wednesday for the legalization of single-event sports betting in Canada.

The addition of single-event sports betting will allow the CFL to partner with industry leaders in an effort to drive ticket sales and boost television ratings, CFL Commissioner Randy Ambrosie testified Wednesday evening in a hearing before the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce. As with scores of other businesses throughout Canada, the CFL has been dramatically impacted by the global pandemic, Ambrosie told the committee.

Full story here.

Arizona Regulator: Sports Betting Go-Live Date Is Sept. 9

On the same day that the NFL released the date of the 2023 Super Bowl in Glendale, Ariz., regulators in that state announced they would share proposed event wagering regulations with an eye toward launching operators Sept. 9, the first day of the NFL season. The Dallas Cowboys play at the defending Super Bowl champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers in a Thursday Night Football game to open the season, while the Arizona Cardinals open Sunday, Sept. 12, at the Tennessee Titans.

Arizona regulators are among those in three states with plans to roll out or approve proposed sports betting rules in the next two weeks the Wyoming Gaming Commission has rules approval on its June 8 agenda, and the Washington State Gambling Commission on Thursday announced a special meeting, also on June 8, to roll out proposed regulations.

Full story here.

Virginia Is For Bettors: Analyzing The Early Returns For A New Sports Betting State

Virginia, which took its first regulated sports wagers on Jan. 21, is poised when May figures are released to set the record for the fastest state to reach $1 billion in betting handle.

There are an assortment of asterisks making this possible, including when Virginia launched (in 2021, when legal sports betting awareness was far higher than it had been in states that launched in 2018 or 2019) and how it launched (with online wagering first, as compared to other states that banked mediocre retail numbers initially).

Still, Virginia took in $865.2 million in bets in its first three-plus months and is a lock to surpass the billion-dollar mark in its fifth month, breaking a record currently held by Tennessee, which hit 10 digits in its sixth month of regulated action.

Full story here.

Illinois On Verge of Removing Carveout For Sports Betting On In-State Schools

It went to overtime, and then a little longer after that. But bettors in Illinois are close to being able to make legal wagers on games involving in-state teams with a few conditions.

SB 521 passed in the House Tuesday with a three-fifths majority required since it did not come to a vote prior to midnight. Rep. Bob Rita, who is one of the primary drivers of gaming laws in the state, navigated the bill through three Executive Committee votes Monday and brought the bill to the House floor shortly before 1 a.m. local time after a fourth amendment was approved.

Full story here.

See the article here:
SportsHandle: That was the week that was in US sports betting - SBC Americas

A federal judge in Washington is set to decide whether to dismiss a case on behalf of protesters who claim they were injured during the June 1, 2020, protests around Lafayette Park next to the White House. In the course of the arguments, one lawyer stood out in insisting that the use of tear gas against the protesters was entirely reasonable.

What was so striking is that the lawyer,Richard Sobiecki, represents the D.C. governmentof Mayor Muriel BowserMuriel BowserHogan announces Maryland will close mass vaccination sites, shift to local clinics Biden and Bowser administrations change their tunes on last summer's riot response Pride Month organizers to draw attention to anti-transgender laws MORE, who condemned the federal government for its clearing of the area and alleged use of tear gas. Much of the medialionized Bowser for her stanceat the time. She received national acclaim for painting Black Lives Matter on the street next to the park and renaming it Black Lives Matter Plaza.

Now, one year later, Bowser is keeping the BLM plaza but opposing the BLM protesters. Her administration insisted in court that the protesters were legitimately teargassed by the metropolitan police to enforce her curfew that night.

After the park clearing, the media uniformly denounced then-Attorney General Bill Barr for ordering the park to be cleared so that President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump touts record, blasts Dems in return to stage Trump demands China pay 'reparations' for role in coronavirus pandemic Trump endorses Rep. Ted Budd for Senate MORE could hold his controversial photo op in front of the St. Johns Church. The accounts in virtually every news report were quickly contradicted, but few reporters acknowledged the later facts coming out of federal agencies. As I noted in mytestimony to Congresson the protest, the clearing of the park raised serious legal questions, particularly the unjustified use of force that night.

However, the repeated claim that Barr ordered the clearing of the area for the photo op was never supported and quickly contradicted.The plan to clear the park was set long before there was any discussion of the photo op, and it was based on the threat posed to the White House compound. Barr said he was unaware of any planned photo op when he approved the plan and that the delay in implementing it was due to the late arrival of needed personnel and fencing. Nevertheless, legal experts like University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeckcontinued to claim thatBarr ordered federal officers "to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.

The media has also stressed that the clearing and the force used were unjustified because the protests were entirely peaceful and there was no attack on the White House. That is untrue. As discussed in my testimony, an exceptionally high number of officers were injured during days of continuing protests around the White House complex;some 150 officers were injured, half of those around the White House. That is similar to the level of injuries during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.And, as with the Capitol riot, authorities decided that a perimeter had to be established around the White House last summer. Indeed, they used the same type of fencing, although the White House perimeter was much smaller than at the Capitol.

While there was less violence that night a year ago, the rioting included the burning of a historic structure, extensive property damage nearby, and the attempted burning of historic St. Johns Church. Indeed, the violence led the Secret Service to move the president into the White House bunker, and officers said they were concerned that the complex might be breached.

That brings us back to the new admission from the D.C. government.

There has long been a dispute as to whether the federal operation employed tear gas. The federal government has maintained that it used pepper balls. As I stated in my congressional testimony, the distinction is really not significant, practically or legally; pepper balls and tear gas can have the same effect on protesters, and both are often referenced together in court orders as non-lethal riot control devices.

However, as this debate over the denial of tear gas by the federal operation raged, neither Bowser nor her government stepped forward to say that D.C.s Metropolitan Police used tear gas in their operations a block or so from Lafayette Park. Instead, Bowser denounced the force used by the Trump administration, including the use of tear gas.

Now, with Trump out of the White House, Bowsers administration insists there was nothing unreasonable in the use of tear gas to enforce a curfew and is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit by protesters, including Black Lives Matter DC. The media that spent the past year denouncing the Trump administration over its alleged use of tear gas seems largely silent as Bowsers administration claims its own use of force was reasonable.

The federal government still apparently denies using tear gas. D.C. police admit to using tear gas nearby to enforce Bowsers curfew, but she has long insisted that the district did not assist in clearing Lafayette Park, which began before the curfew.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich now must decide if the clearing of the park was done for Trump's photo op or, as federal agencies claim, to protect the White House as a national security priority.

After the Lafayette Park operation, Bowser declared that if you are like me, you saw something that you hoped you would never see in the United States of America.Now, her government is arguing not only that the protesters claims should be dismissed but that the district did and can continue to use tear gas in such situations, even to enforce a curfew.

In the meantime, the Biden administration agrees that the case should be dismissed entirely. The Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance. The DOJs counsel, John Martin, added that federal officers do not violate First Amendment rights by moving protesters a few blocks, even if the protesters are predominantly peaceful.

The response to that from the media has been crickets.

What a difference a year and a new president can make.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

See the original post here:
Biden and Bowser administrations change their tunes on last summer's riot response | TheHill - The Hill

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court held that police may not enter a private home without a search warrant to perform a community caretaking function. The Justices were unanimous in reaching this conclusion, though several concurred to clarify their points of view. One could understand the Justices as manifesting an unusual respect for privacy. I would instead read the decision as suggesting a somewhat different and more radical shift. The message of Defund the Police appears to have gotten through to our Supreme Court, perhaps without their fully realizing it.

In Caniglia v. Strom, the story began with Edward Caniglia placing a handgun on his dining room table and asking his wife to shoot him. His wife left the house and spent the night at a hotel, but she became worried the next morning when she was unable to reach her husband by phone. She called the police, and they accompanied her back to her house, where she found her husband on the porch, apparently unharmed. The police encouraged him to go for a psychiatric evaluation, which he agreed to do if they promised not to seize his guns from inside the house. Once Caniglia had left, however, the police entered the home and seized his weapons. Caniglia later sued the police for violating his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered the house and seized his property without a warrant and without consent.

The police and many court-watchers had assumed prior to this case that when police want to check on someones wellbeing, they are performing a community caretaking function and could legally enter the home without a warrant. In one Supreme Court case, Cady v. Dombrowski, police were able to look around inside a car that had been in an accident, under a community caretaking rationale.

Unlike other exceptions to the warrant requirement, however, it is unclear what the warrant application would have had to say in Caniglias case if police had first sought one. His wife was not reporting a crime, owning firearms is not necessarily criminal, and having been suicidally depressed violates no criminal law such that police might need to look for evidence of it. Once Caniglia had left for a psychiatric evaluation, it is hard to know what sort of probable cause the police had to authorize them to obtain a warrant for entering the home and seizing the mans guns. If a person is a danger to himself, then he might be subject to civil commitment, under Addington v. Texas, if the government can prove his mental illness and his danger to himself by clear and convincing evidence. But even attempted suicide is no longer a crime, as it once was, so the Fourth Amendment might limit what police could do at the investigative phase.

The police officers community caretaking function, at least as a broad category, falls outside the scope of typical police officer activity of the sort that rests on probable cause, with or without a warrant. It is the kind of conduct unrelated to conventional or core law enforcement responsibilities. And that is precisely what many people mean to remove from police jurisdiction and to invest in nonviolent alternatives when they press for defunding the police. They want the police to stop performing functions unrelated to criminal justice and to law and order. They argue that we should not be paying police officers to force themselves into peoples lives to address non-criminal problems.

Several Justices wrote separately to qualify the majority opinion and say that police may well have the authority, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to enter homes without a warrant if a true health emergency presents itself. Justice Alito, for example, maintained that permissible community caretaking by the police could include conducting a search or seizure for the purpose of preventing a person from committing suicide. And if neighbors of a resident worry that the resident is in urgent need of medical attention and cannot summon help, Justice Alito strongly implied that he would view a warrantless entry to check on the residents condition as legitimate and lawful under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh, going further, said that police officers may enter a home without a warrant in circumstances where they are reasonably trying to prevent a potential suicide or help an elderly person who has been out of contact and may have fallen and suffered a serious injury.

Notably, however, the various concurring opinions limiting the impact of the unanimous majority amounted to only four votes: the Chief Justice, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, and Justice Kavanaugh. The reservation of some community caretaking for policesuicidality and checking on a neighbor specificallythus remains uncertain. In keeping with this uncertainty, just yesterday, the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded (GVRed) in Sanders v. United States, in light of Caniglia. GVRs generally indicate that a recent decision plainly dictates the result in the remanded case. Accordingly, yesterdays GVR suggests that Caniglia and its potential to defund the police is not a fact-bound and narrow one-off. To be sure, Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately, concurring in the GVR, to suggest ways in which the lower court might resolve the remanded case in favor of the governments authority to enter without a warrant. But this resistance may signal its own opposite as powerfully as the Courts failure to either hear the new case on the merits or simply deny certiorari without comment.

Returning to Caniglia itself, what surprised me as a reader was the assumption by the various concurrences that if police, an armed and quasi-military body, cannot enter a home to help a resident, then no one will be able to assist the resident. It does not even seem to occur to any of the four who wrote or joined a separate concurrence that perhaps a social worker, someone experienced in investigating reports of child neglect and perhaps trained in mental health or geriatric needs, could offer superior intervention to whats on offer from a police officer trained primarily to investigate crime. Defunding the police here could mean a reallocation of responsibilities so that more qualified people enter homes to help someone who is not a criminal suspect or a suspected victim of crime. The unanimous majority, coupled with only a minority wanting to reserve these jobs for law enforcement, could require such reallocation.

If we consider some of the cases in which police have used deadly force on unarmed civilians, we see the cost of sending cops to where their expertise does not extend. A study called Overlooked in the Undercounted: the Role of Mental Illness in Fatal Law Enforcement Encounters explains that although untreated mentally ill adults make up only 2% of the population, they make up a quarter of all fatal police encounters and are also sixteen times more likely to be killed during a police encounter than other civilians approached or stopped by police. It would seem imperative that someone trained in helping the mentally ill be the one involved in providing such help.

Reflecting such thinking, the city of Austin, Texas, created a mental health option for 9-1-1 callers. Such a move might save lives, in light of what too often happens when armed police show up at a home after a 9-1-1 call by the family member of a mentally ill individual. People trained in interacting with those who have mental disorders are unlikely to use (or even to have the option of using) deadly force against a person suffering a psychotic episode that precludes his putting his hands in the air or otherwise demonstrating submission to police.

Even if some of the same people (i.e., police officers) are involved in responding to mental health-related emergency calls, those peoplein keeping with sociologist Erving Goffmans dramaturgical theory of behaviorwill occupy a different role and thus behave differently in the presence of challenging behavior. Goffman viewed people as more like actors on a stage than stable characters who always behave the same way in every situation. Austin, Texas, may provide a natural experiment for this theory because many of the people who will be responding to 9-1-1 mental health calls are the same police officers who might have once responded to such calls in the role of law-and-order official. The difference is that with the new option, the officers will arrive on the scene wearing their social worker hats rather than reaching for their guns.

With the U.S. Supreme Courts decision denying police the authority to perform a community caretaking function by entering a home without a warrant to seize a potentially suicidal persons weapons, we might see cities besides Austin reassigning non-criminal police work to people wearing the mental health worker hat. In effectively defunding the police, the Court will eventually have to clarify what non-police actors must do to comply with the Fourth Amendment as they carry out community caretaking functions. A warrant, based upon probable cause to believe one will find evidence of crime or criminals in a private home, seems ill-suited to such functions.

Let us hope that either the Supreme Court or cities like Austin continue to contract the category of situations in which police have the authority to enter a home, guns drawn. It would be a pleasant surprise if the Roberts Court led the way in defunding the police.

See more here:
The U.S. Supreme Court Takes a Step toward Defunding the Police - Justia Verdict