Mediaboss Marketing

The Supreme Court is staring at its self-imposed end-of-June deadline, but the justices have not yet released some of the most significant opinions of the term, including a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act and a case on religious liberty involving a Philadelphia foster agency.Recent weeks have seen justices clear their desks of those opinions that produce fewer divisions, as the tension grows for the big-ticket cases.At the same time, eyes are on any retirement plans of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82. His departure would allow President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats to replace him with a much younger liberal. Justices have often announced their retirements at the end of a term. Heres what the court has on its docket:Obamacare (again)Republican-led states aided by the former Trump administration are trying to get the court to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obamas most significant legislative achievement.The case marks the third time the court heard a significant challenge to the 2010 law, although the stakes are heightened given the implications of COVID-19, the catastrophic deaths and the current burdens facing the health care industry.As things stand, Texas and other Republican-led states are challenging the law and California and other Democratic-led states, the House of Representatives and the Biden administration support the law.In one of his first acts as president, Biden informed the court that his government was reversing the position taken by the Trump administration. The Department of Justice now argues that even if the individual mandate is constitutional and that even if the court finds otherwise, it should sever the mandate and allow every other provision to stand.Religious liberty, LGBTQ rights and a Philadelphia foster agencyAt issue is a major dispute pitting claims of religious liberty against the LGBTQ community. It comes as the new conservative majority has moved aggressively to protect rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.In the case heard in early November, Philadelphia froze the contract of a Catholic foster agency because the agency refused to work with same-sex couples as potential foster parents. The agency, Catholic Social Services, sued under the First Amendment.Philadelphia defended its action, saying the agency violated anti-discrimination laws that are neutral and applicable to everyone.Supporters of LGBTQ rights support the city, arguing it was within its rights to freeze the contract to an organization receiving taxpayer funds and turning away same-sex couples. They fear that a decision in favor of CSS would clear the way for religious organizations to get exemptions from non-discrimination laws in other contexts.Supporters of expanding religious liberty rights hope the courts conservative majority, expanding upon a trend from last term, will continue to hold the government to a higher standard when it comes to regulations that impact religious believers.Arizona voting rights lawThe Supreme Court is considering two provisions of Arizona law that the Democratic National Committee says violate the historic Voting Rights Act that prohibits laws that result in racial discrimination.One part of the state law requires that in-person Election Day voters cast their votes in their assigned precinct. Another provision says that only certain persons family, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials may deliver another persons completed ballot to the polling place.Eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively gutting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain the permission of the federal government or the courts before enacting new laws related to voting.Since that decision, challengers to voting restrictions have increasingly turned to Section 2 of the law, that holds that no voting regulation can be imposed that results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. Democrats fear the new conservative majority on the court will now weaken Section 2.The case comes as Republican state legislators across the country are also moving at a fast clip to pass laws to restrict voting access.Fourth Amendment: Warrants when in hot pursuitThe justices are considering a case about when a police officer needs a warrant to enter the sanctity of an individuals home. In general, in such circumstances a warrant is required, although the Supreme Court has held that under certain exigent circumstances, a warrant is not required.If, for example, an officer is in hot pursuit of a driver or if emergency aid is needed a warrant is not always necessary.The case at hand explores whether a categorical exception to a warrant holds up if the officer thinks the person he is following in hot pursuit committed a less serious offense: a misdemeanor. Its the first time the justices have looked at the scope of the hot pursuit doctrine when it comes to a minor violation.NCAA amateur rulesThe case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity for the first time in decades to examine the relationship between NCAA spending limits and student-athletes who are seeking compensation for their talents.At issue is a lower court ruling that struck down spending caps for education related benefits because, the court held, they violated antitrust laws. The NCAA is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision arguing that it is going to allow money to pour into the system under the guise of education which will destroy the distinction between amateur and pro sports. A lawyer for a class of students said the lower court got it right, and worried about the exploitation of students.Union organizingThe Supreme Court is again considering the power of union organizers in a case that pits agriculture businesses and privacy rights advocates against big labor and raises questions of when the government can allow access to private property without compensation. A ruling against the union position in the case would come after the Supreme Court in 2018 dealt a blow to the funding of public-sector unions.The case is brought by agricultural growers challenging a California state law that allows union organizers onto their property to speak to workers unannounced. They say it amounts to a government taking of the land without just compensation.The Biden administration is supporting the unions position, a change from the Trump administration, which had backed the employers.Dark moneyConservative non-profits Americans for Prosperity (a Koch-affiliated group) and the Thomas More Law Center are challenging a California law that requires charitable organizations that solicit donations to disclose a list of their contributors to the state attorney general.The groups say they want to keep their donors secret and that the state has not shown a compelling reason for the law. They argue that the law will chill contributors from coming forward for fear of harassment in violation of the First Amendment. Although the information is supposed to be confidential, the groups say that the state may make inadvertent disclosures.In response, California argues that the groups already have to file the same data with the IRS and the state needs the information as it tries to combat fraud related to charities. Three other states New York, New Jersey and Hawaii have similar laws.The case is being closely watched by those who fear it could lead to more anonymous Dark Money flowing into the system.The nonprofits are asking the Supreme Court to make it harder for the government to require the disclosure of donor information, said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert on campaign finance at Notre Dame Law School. While the case is about a state Attorney General asking for this information, if the Supreme Court raised the bar here, that would likely also apply to election donor disclosure laws down the road.Cheerleader and off-campus speechThe justices are looking at a First Amendment case concerning the authority of public school officials to discipline students for what they say outside of school.Then-junior varsity cheerleader Brandi Levy, who didnt make the varsity squad lashed out on social media while she was off campus, writing, school softball cheer everything. The words were accompanied by a picture of her giving a middle-digit salute.After the outburst, the girl was suspended from the squad as having violated team and school rules. Lawyers for the girl sued alleging the school had violated her freedom of speech. The girl won in the lower courts that held that school could not remove her for off-campus speech. According to the court of appeals, she did not waive her First Amendment rights as a condition of joining the team.Back in 1969, the Supreme Court held that public school officials could regulate speech that would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. But that decision concerned speech at school.Empowering public school officials to censor what students say when they are outside of school would be an epic restriction of young peoples freedom of expression, said Witold Walczak of the ACLU, defending the student.The Biden administration has weighed in in favor of the school arguing that there is some speech, that intentionally targets specific school functions that warrant discipline even if it occurs off campus.

The Supreme Court is staring at its self-imposed end-of-June deadline, but the justices have not yet released some of the most significant opinions of the term, including a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act and a case on religious liberty involving a Philadelphia foster agency.

Recent weeks have seen justices clear their desks of those opinions that produce fewer divisions, as the tension grows for the big-ticket cases.

At the same time, eyes are on any retirement plans of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82. His departure would allow President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats to replace him with a much younger liberal. Justices have often announced their retirements at the end of a term.

Heres what the court has on its docket:

Republican-led states aided by the former Trump administration are trying to get the court to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obamas most significant legislative achievement.

The case marks the third time the court heard a significant challenge to the 2010 law, although the stakes are heightened given the implications of COVID-19, the catastrophic deaths and the current burdens facing the health care industry.

As things stand, Texas and other Republican-led states are challenging the law and California and other Democratic-led states, the House of Representatives and the Biden administration support the law.

In one of his first acts as president, Biden informed the court that his government was reversing the position taken by the Trump administration. The Department of Justice now argues that even if the individual mandate is constitutional and that even if the court finds otherwise, it should sever the mandate and allow every other provision to stand.

At issue is a major dispute pitting claims of religious liberty against the LGBTQ community. It comes as the new conservative majority has moved aggressively to protect rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

In the case heard in early November, Philadelphia froze the contract of a Catholic foster agency because the agency refused to work with same-sex couples as potential foster parents. The agency, Catholic Social Services, sued under the First Amendment.

Philadelphia defended its action, saying the agency violated anti-discrimination laws that are neutral and applicable to everyone.

Supporters of LGBTQ rights support the city, arguing it was within its rights to freeze the contract to an organization receiving taxpayer funds and turning away same-sex couples. They fear that a decision in favor of CSS would clear the way for religious organizations to get exemptions from non-discrimination laws in other contexts.

Supporters of expanding religious liberty rights hope the courts conservative majority, expanding upon a trend from last term, will continue to hold the government to a higher standard when it comes to regulations that impact religious believers.

The Supreme Court is considering two provisions of Arizona law that the Democratic National Committee says violate the historic Voting Rights Act that prohibits laws that result in racial discrimination.

One part of the state law requires that in-person Election Day voters cast their votes in their assigned precinct. Another provision says that only certain persons family, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials may deliver another persons completed ballot to the polling place.

Eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively gutting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain the permission of the federal government or the courts before enacting new laws related to voting.

Since that decision, challengers to voting restrictions have increasingly turned to Section 2 of the law, that holds that no voting regulation can be imposed that results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. Democrats fear the new conservative majority on the court will now weaken Section 2.

The case comes as Republican state legislators across the country are also moving at a fast clip to pass laws to restrict voting access.

The justices are considering a case about when a police officer needs a warrant to enter the sanctity of an individuals home. In general, in such circumstances a warrant is required, although the Supreme Court has held that under certain exigent circumstances, a warrant is not required.

If, for example, an officer is in hot pursuit of a driver or if emergency aid is needed a warrant is not always necessary.

The case at hand explores whether a categorical exception to a warrant holds up if the officer thinks the person he is following in hot pursuit committed a less serious offense: a misdemeanor. Its the first time the justices have looked at the scope of the hot pursuit doctrine when it comes to a minor violation.

The case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity for the first time in decades to examine the relationship between NCAA spending limits and student-athletes who are seeking compensation for their talents.

At issue is a lower court ruling that struck down spending caps for education related benefits because, the court held, they violated antitrust laws. The NCAA is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision arguing that it is going to allow money to pour into the system under the guise of education which will destroy the distinction between amateur and pro sports. A lawyer for a class of students said the lower court got it right, and worried about the exploitation of students.

The Supreme Court is again considering the power of union organizers in a case that pits agriculture businesses and privacy rights advocates against big labor and raises questions of when the government can allow access to private property without compensation. A ruling against the union position in the case would come after the Supreme Court in 2018 dealt a blow to the funding of public-sector unions.

The case is brought by agricultural growers challenging a California state law that allows union organizers onto their property to speak to workers unannounced. They say it amounts to a government taking of the land without just compensation.

The Biden administration is supporting the unions position, a change from the Trump administration, which had backed the employers.

Conservative non-profits Americans for Prosperity (a Koch-affiliated group) and the Thomas More Law Center are challenging a California law that requires charitable organizations that solicit donations to disclose a list of their contributors to the state attorney general.

The groups say they want to keep their donors secret and that the state has not shown a compelling reason for the law. They argue that the law will chill contributors from coming forward for fear of harassment in violation of the First Amendment. Although the information is supposed to be confidential, the groups say that the state may make inadvertent disclosures.

In response, California argues that the groups already have to file the same data with the IRS and the state needs the information as it tries to combat fraud related to charities. Three other states New York, New Jersey and Hawaii have similar laws.

The case is being closely watched by those who fear it could lead to more anonymous Dark Money flowing into the system.

The nonprofits are asking the Supreme Court to make it harder for the government to require the disclosure of donor information, said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert on campaign finance at Notre Dame Law School. While the case is about a state Attorney General asking for this information, if the Supreme Court raised the bar here, that would likely also apply to election donor disclosure laws down the road.

The justices are looking at a First Amendment case concerning the authority of public school officials to discipline students for what they say outside of school.

Then-junior varsity cheerleader Brandi Levy, who didnt make the varsity squad lashed out on social media while she was off campus, writing, [expletive] school [expletive] softball [expletive] cheer [expletive] everything. The words were accompanied by a picture of her giving a middle-digit salute.

After the outburst, the girl was suspended from the squad as having violated team and school rules. Lawyers for the girl sued alleging the school had violated her freedom of speech. The girl won in the lower courts that held that school could not remove her for off-campus speech. According to the court of appeals, she did not waive her First Amendment rights as a condition of joining the team.

Back in 1969, the Supreme Court held that public school officials could regulate speech that would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. But that decision concerned speech at school.

Empowering public school officials to censor what students say when they are outside of school would be an epic restriction of young peoples freedom of expression, said Witold Walczak of the ACLU, defending the student.

The Biden administration has weighed in in favor of the school arguing that there is some speech, that intentionally targets specific school functions that warrant discipline even if it occurs off campus.

These are the decisions to watch for during the Supreme Courts final month Source link These are the decisions to watch for during the Supreme Courts final month

See the original post:
These are the decisions to watch for during the Supreme Court's final month - Pennsylvanianewstoday.com

Reader responds to letter writers criticisms of views

The recent letters to the PVT criticizing me is just another example of people not hearing what is said. I never once supported or encourage socialism, yet David Jaronik and Linda Delamare kept stating that I did. What I did do was explain the difference between socialism and democratic socialism. But, oh no, they need to try to defeat me by the only way they can: mis-state what I said.

For David, our helping those countries is helping us. We need them to have a strong defense to thwart off the aggression of countries like Putins Russia. By helping them do that we protect democracy in Europe and the whole world. Again, it is the richer helping the poorer, a philosophy of democratic socialism. Please hear that I said, democratic socialism NOT socialism. So, yes, we are helping the economies of their countries which, in turn, helps us.

David took my comments about packing the courts totally out of context. It was a reply to a prior letter which blamed the Democrats for court packing, when, as I pointed out, it is being packed by the Republicans. Please stop twisting my words to your advantage.

As for energy independence, we were 86% to 91% self-sufficient in 2016, BEFORE Trump took office, and moving towards 100%. So, to give Trump credit for us being energy independent is just plain wrong. As for the tax revenues at record levels, that is normal. Revenues go up every year just as salaries, home prices, cost of goods, etc. go up every year, with a few exceptions. I am not sure what your point is. Surely, it cannot be that it should be credited to Trump. Yet, you failed to mention something that we CAN give credit to Trump: the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion during Trumps time in office. And the deficit under Trump was the third biggest, relative to the size of the economy, than any other president (Bush and Lincoln being the other who were paying for a civil war and two foreign conflicts). Yet you say I was omitting facts?

To Linda Delamare, democrat socialism has nothing to do with altering our Constitution. In fact, our government is already applying the principles of democratic socialism, ones that you probably enjoy and are taking advantage of. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, food assistance, energy and utilities subsidies for low income and seniors, childcare assistance, the Childrens Health Insurance Program, and many more are just a few examples. Did you accept your Covid checks from the government? Then you participated in democratic socialism: the government helping people during these hard times. Democratic socialists also believe in a strong democracy and are against authoritarian government systems that you and many other Americans associate with socialism (something Trump trumped up to give you another excuse to hate Democrats). Hear this: Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Maybe that better explains it to you. Nowhere did I suggest we live under socialism in fact, I am totally against it. Stop fighting it and learn about it instead of shaping it into something that fits your needs rather than tells the truth. Period!!

Finally, Dave Thomas: Democracy is NOT leading us to Socialism. You need to stop drinking the Fox Kool-Aid. But then again, all of you are just helping the implosion of the Republican party. Fractured, failing and being lead down a rabbit hole. Cheney gets the boot because she tells the truth but Marjorie Taylor Greene is OK? Really? It is clear and it is being led by the Republican leadership: we dont want to hear the truth; we just want to kiss Trumps ring at any cost.

CJ Stevens

Reader responds to critic

Now I am a redneck and a school dropout. Jim Ferrell, you just get better and better. As I stated in my May 2 letter, say all this to my face! But no, you go on and on and on with more B.S. every time you write in. Save time Ferrell, we can watch CNN, MSNBC or the regular channels for all that crap.

Linda Delamare hit the nail squarely on the head in her excellent letter in the May 1st edition, relaying, Liberals can no longer make a cogent argument. They resort to name-calling.

And as usual you spout off about something you know nothing about.

Now, because I was in the military for 21 years, it was a socialist organization. The privates and the generals share the same doctor? All pay grades basically get the same pay? What color is the sky in your world? Any VFW and American Legion members getting a hold of this?

And by the way, I pay taxes also, so I am paying into my pension! And for what its worth, I also retired from the private sector. Not bad for your so-called redneck and school dropout!

Mr. Ferrell, you still have not responded to my original letter no guts! For your sake, this is my final letter. I had and still do not intend to get into a debate with a liberal with the attention span and reasoning of an eight-year-old.

By the way, the Navy has seamen and generals can be referred to as tars.

Id like to thank Mr. Meehan for allowing me to submit my letters.

Dave Thomas

Some states are using unconstitutional red flag laws

Just as many of us were having grave doubts about the integrity and standing of the Supreme Court, due to the side stepping of election laws being changed by unconstitutional authority in some states, we get great news that they are back in business! Gun grabbers and major funders like Bloomberg, the Biden administration, and their ilk received a giant setback on April 17th by a unanimous decision to rebuff warrantless searches and seizures of guns under the red flag laws using the community caretaking doctrine to justify gun confiscations.

The Fourth Amendment means that in order for a police officer to search and arrest someone, he or she will need to get permission or a warrant to do so from a judge,yet confiscations have continued taking place in every jurisdiction.

We have all wondered how so many states were able to use the unconstitutional red flag laws to seize thousands of guns. Today there are 19 states and the District of Columbia that enacted some form of red-flag law.

Hopefully, they will now take a different view of their gun confiscation agendas.

Aileen Fisher

Double-digit inflation hurts the poor most of all

Were being told inflation is low and theres nothing the FED cant handle, and even some financial institutions are minimizing inflation as a serious problem, like the Bank of America saying we may experience hyperinflation, but it will only be transitional.

Some facts look different, like a year ago the average house framer could frame and sheet about 14.2 houses for about $50,000 worth of lumber and sheeting, today theyre lucky to do two houses for that same $50,000.

Anyone whos bought fuel for vehicles has seen double-digit inflation there. Many grocery items have jumped and even if the prices are the same, the quantities have decreased.

Make no mistake, inflation is a government tax. It relies on workers making more money, which in turn gives them a greater tax burden and may put them in a higher bracket without actual legislative increases. They represent the greatest pool of money with the least politically organized influence of the government.

The people who are hurt the worst by inflation are the very poor (particularly when the government can no longer afford to provide for them and those on fixed incomes that have little opportunity to increase their incomes. And those who claim businesses pay their fair share are B.S., smaller businesses are competitive and if they cant pass their costs (including taxes) on to their customers, they will go out of business.

For all the real big boys who are also big political donors, there will always be ways they will get protections. The only question is how long can this house of cards stand?

David Jaronik

Another possible lesson to be learned from the past

I recently read from a reader of the PV Times about a message from 60 years ago that seems to depict where we are headed today. I would like to expand on that with a warning from 1919, over 100 years ago.

1. Corrupt the young, get them away from religion, get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness.

2. Get control of all means of publicity, and hereby get peoples minds off their government by refocusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays and other trivialities.

3. Divide people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.

4. Destroy peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule, and obloquy.

5. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.

6. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear of inflation, rising prices and general discontent.

7. Ferment strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorder, and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of the government toward these disorders.

8. By specious argument cause a breakdown of the old moral virtues, honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.

9. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext with a view of confiscation of them, leaving the population helpless.

Where did these words of wisdom come from? Who was able to predict in 1919 what is seemingly going on now in our nation?

These nine rules were seized in a raid in Dusseldorf, Germany in 1919. The seized files were marked Communist Rules For Revolution.

Every one of these rules are happening to some extent. Much of our government and citizens are no longer concerned about the country. We see marches in the street and are bombarded by the news media to support their agenda, which is not necessarily in the best interest of the country overall.

George Cross

View original post here:
Letters to the Editor - pvtimes.com

Wont somebody please think of the police dogs? On Saturday, the Associated Press ran the latest example of a genre of news story thats become a regular accompaniment to marijuana legalization: the fate of now-superfluous drug-sniffing dogs.

Drug-sniffing dogs are notoriously unreliable at detecting drugs, and yet many American police ... [+] departments still insist on using K9 units.

Virginia is set to legalize the possession of up to an ounce of cannabis beginning in July. That means the early retirement of at least 15 drug-sniffing dogs throughout the state, as the AP itempicked up by outlets across the countryreported, because these dogs are trained to alert to the scent of cannabis.

Any alert is interpreted by police (and prosecutors, as well as most courts) as probable cause to effect a search under the Fourth Amendment. Since the dog cant discern between a large amount of cannabis and a single joint, and because a dog trained to detect both cocaine and marijuana cant inform its handler what was detected, the only path forward for police narcotics units is to retire their drug-sniffing dogs and acquire new hounds trained only to suss out cocaine, heroin, MDMA, or other substances still part of Americas war on drugs.

For civil liberties advocates as well as anyone concerned with criminal justice, this is a good development. Drug dogs should retire, because drug dogs are extremely bad at detecting drugs.

As Reason reported last month, drug dogs are often about as useful as a coin toss to determine whether a school locker, vehicle, or individual has drugs. In other cases, drug dogs simply respond to commands from its handler and ignores whatever scents are actually out there.

That is, the drug-sniffing dog isnt there to sniff out drugs at all. The drug-sniffing dog is just there to give the police probable cause to searchand to impound vehicles and detain people who later turn out to be innocenton demand.

Reason offered the story of Karma, a drug dog in Republic, Washington, as a parable. A K-9 unit handled by former Republic police Chief Loren Culp, Karma had a perfect record: he detected drugs every time he did a search. The problem was that Karma detected drugs when there were no drugs present.

When he had the chance to stop the impound of an innocent owners vehicle, his success rate was zero percent, Reason reported. That didnt stop Culp from employing Karma in searchesand that also didnt stop Culp from boasting on Facebook about Karmas perfect record.

A drug dog in action in Turkey in 2014.

Criminal-justice scholars and observers have known for years that the problems with Karma are found throughout the United States wherever drug dogs are employed.

As Jane Bambauer, a law professor at the University of Arizona, wrote in an article published in 2013, dogs are often wrong, alerting where no drugs can be found. Worse, dogs can be biased, she added, picking up on subtle cues from their handlers.

Bambauers analysis followed a 2011 study from the University of California, Davis, which found that police dogstrained to detect explosives as well as drugsare affected by human handlers beliefs, possibly in response to subtle, unintentional handler cues.

If the police dogs handler wants the dog to alertconsciously or otherwisetheres a good chance the dog will alert.

Marijuana legalization isnt the only reason why drug dogs value and purpose are being re-evaluated. Courts are becoming increasingly aware that drug dogs just arent good at finding drugs. In a reversal from the position of the Supreme Court 30 years ago, when drugs were considered such a scourge that drug dogs unreliability wasnt a concern, courts are now openly questioning police dogs merit.

As TechDirt.com noted, in a decision published last year, a federal court in Utah granted a defendants motion to suppress a drug dog search and dismissed his indictment, after noting serious concerns about the dogs training and reliability.

The court questioned the reliability of every drug dog in the statewhere cannabis is not legal beyond medical applications. This is an enormous boon to defense attorneys handling cases where a dog alert was the probable cause. If Utah thinks that drug dogs arent reliable indicators of the presence of drugs, what about other jurisdictions?

So far the nations highest court has affirmed law enforcements use. In Florida vs Harris, a decision issued in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that if a drug dog has recently passed a training program, an alert from that dog is sufficient probable cause.

But as the record of Karma and other drug dogs with perfect training scores demonstrates, probable cause is a fait accompli. If the handler wants it, the handler can get it. Drugs need not be present.

So if drug dogs cant be relied upon to detect drugs, if drug dogs are often wrong, and if the courts think drug dogs are unreliable, whats the point? Why have them at all?

The real application of police dogs is psychological. The presence of a dog grants its police handler a sense of power and authority. If a search is desired, a search is granted. With a record like that, the sight of a dogor the chance that a dog will be encountered, at an airport, at a border crossing, or at a school, whateverwill deter and discourage the public from flouting the law. The approach of a drug dog might even compel a wavering lawbreaker to give himself up.

Thats not very fair or just, but in an era where all drugs were illegal, you could argue that this was at least legally defensible. Today, when cannabis is legal in some form for more than 200 million Americans, drug dogs snare innocent people in the criminal justice system.

Drug dogs are a vestige of the drug war. If a vast majority of Americans think cannabis should be legaland they doand if legal scholars and the courts think drug dogs are bad at their jobsand they do, and they arethen police departments probably should have been prepared for this moment, rather than providing grist for gauzy news items. But people love dogseven dogs that are civil-rights violation machinesand so here we are.

A Colombian policeman from an anti-drug unit walks with a sniffer dog amidst marijuana packages on ... [+] display for the press on August 24, 2012, at the anti-drug air base in Tulua, department of Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Four tons of marijuana "red dot" type allegedly belonging to the Sixth Front of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were seized from a truck in the town of Buga, Valle del Cauca department, while being transported from the town of Corinto bound for the department of Norte de Santander. AFP PHOTO/Guillermo LEGARIA (Photo credit should read GUILLERMO LEGARIA/AFP/GettyImages)

So what about the dogs? The retired drug dogs in Virginia are all being adopted going home with their police handlerswhere, if so desired, they will alert to the presence of drugs every day, for the rest of their days.

The rest of us should wish them a happy and healthy retirementand encourage every other drug-sniffing dog currently in police employ to join them as soon as possible.

See the article here:
Marijuana Legalization Is Retiring Police Dogs. Why Thats GoodAnd Why All Drug K9 Units Should Go. - Forbes

Angeline Angie Mead says Department of Homeland Security officials violated her Fourth Amendment rights after an officer allegedly shot her in the right eye with a high velocity projectile during a downtown Portland protest, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court.

The injury came amid a wave of munitions deployed by the feds into protesters faces during the summer of 2020. Mead is a Black Lives Matter supporter who attended a protest in downtown Portland on July 26, according to the lawsuit.

As federal agents herded protesters away from the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, the complaint alleges, Mead, who was wearing swim goggles, turned her head in the direction of federal law enforcement officers approaching her from behind. A federal agent standing about 20 feet away then shot her in the right eye without cause or warning, her attorneys allege.

Terrified, Mead immediately lost all vision in her right eye and thought she lost her eye entirely, Meads lawyers said Monday. [S]he felt blood running down her face as friends called out for a medic. When a medic finally arrived to quickly examine her injuries, he asked if her eyes were different colors which increased Meads fear she might be permanently blinded.

Mead was then rushed to the emergency room at Oregon Health & Science University, the complaint says. During a follow-up exam on July 29, she was diagnosed with a vitreous hemorrhage of the right eye and traumatic iritis. She then underwent laser retinopexy surgery to repair a round hole in her retina, the lawsuit says.

Meads injury occurred at the height of nightly protests around the federal courthouse in downtown Portland last summer. Each night, protesters gathered at the metal fence surrounding the courthouse, sometimes trying to tear it down. Federal agents dispatched by then-President Donald Trump repeatedly fired projectiles at the heads of people in the crowd.

The lawsuit alleges that the federal agent, identified as John Doe 62, violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

At all times material Plaintiff had a protected liberty interest under the Fourth Amendment not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure of her person through the application of undue, unnecessary, and excessive force, the complaint says. Defendant John Doe 62 seized plaintiff through the application force and such use of force was unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive and violated plaintiffs rights under the Fourth Amendment.

The lawsuit also names federal officials as defendants, including DHS regional director Gabriel Russell, DHS deputy director for operations Allen Scott Jones, U.S. Customs and Border Protection acting Commissioner Mark Morgan, and Federal Protective Service deputy director Richard Kris Cline.

The rest is here:
Portland Protester Alleges Federal Agents Violated Her Fourth Amendment Rights by Shooting Her Eye With a High Velocity Projectile - Willamette Week

Twice last week, the federal governments unconstitutional spying on ordinary Americans was exposed. One of these revelations was made by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who wrote that the FBI is still using warrantless spying in criminal cases, notwithstanding the Constitution and federal laws. The other revelation was a surprise even to those of us who monitor these things the United States Postal Service acknowledged that it has been spying on Americans.

The modern American security state the parts of the federal government that spy on Americans and do not change on account of elections received an enormous shot in the arm in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That naively misguided and profoundly unconstitutional law was sold to Congress as a way to control the security states spying in the aftermath of Watergate. Watergate had revealed that President Richard M. Nixon used the FBI and the CIA to spy on real and imagined domestic political adversaries.

FISA set up a secret court that authorized domestic spying by issuing warrants not based on probable cause of crime, as the Constitution requires, but on probable cause of communicating with foreign agents. Never mind that communications about noncriminal matters are protected speech; the FISA court issued tens of thousands of these warrants.

As the security states appetite for spying grew more voracious, its agents and lawyers persuaded the FISA court to lower the bar for issuing a surveillance warrant from communicating with a foreign agent to communicating with a foreign person, and to expand the scope of those warrants to include Americans who have communicated with other Americans who have communicated with foreign people. Under this procedure, if I call my cousins in Florence and then you call me, all of your calls could be surveilled.

Jealous of the ease with which Americas spies can obtain warrants from the FISA court, the FBI persuaded its friends on Capitol Hill to enact legislation that gives the FBI a peek at data the security state gathers if it meets certain standards to see if any of it pertains to criminal matters. Each one of these FBI peeks at raw intelligence data is known as a share.

All of this was done in utter disregard of the Fourth Amendment requirements that no search warrants shall be issued without showing under oath probable cause of crime and that all warrants shall specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

If an FBI agent sees evidence of a nonnational security crime on one of the shares, the agent will try to use it in a criminal prosecution, even though he acquired it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. If federal prosecutors want to introduce evidence from the share at trial, they need to find another source for it, as no judge will admit raw intelligence data obtained without a warrant in a criminal case.

After 9/11, President George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency the 60,000-person strong branch of the military that quarterbacks domestic spying to capture every keystroke on every computer and the contents of every phone call in America. All presidents since Bush even President Donald Trump, who was personally victimized by this spying have continued the practice of universal, suspicionless, warrantless spying.

The NSA sharing data with the FBI is deeply troubling because it violates both the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The intentional use of FISA to obtain data about an American for nonnational security-related criminal activity is itself a criminal act as it constitutes a planned and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment by electronic means otherwise known as hacking.

Last week, the chief judge of the FISA court revealed that for 2019 the FBI reported just one instance of sharing, even though Department of Justice auditors found 91 instances. And that number is far lower than the true number of shares since inexplicably the DOJ counts all shares performed by one agent as one share, even though the agent may have accessed the data of more than one American.

In August 2019, one FBI agent accessed the raw intelligence data of 16,000 Americans in order to find criminal evidence about seven of them. The FBI reported that as one share.

Also last week, the USPS revealed that its postal inspectors have been monitoring social media at random, looking for troublemakers. Since social media is publicly posted, you and I can read it at will. But the Fourth Amendment requires that the government have articulable suspicion about the person whose social media is being surveilled before it begins its surveillance even surveillance of publicly available materials. This is to prevent fishing expeditions.

What articulable suspicions did the Postal Service have before its police began their surveillance? What conceivable threat to the postal mails is manifested in texts and emails (other than that the latter are infinitely faster and profoundly more efficient)? None and none.

All this shows just how corrupted Americas security state has become under presidents of both parties. From counting 16,000 as if it were one, to hacking the texts and emails of people without articulable suspicion or probable cause, to orchestrating end runs around the Fourth Amendment, to lying to federal judges about all this we see the tactics of the East German Stasi and Soviet KGB have been reborn on this side of the Atlantic.

Of what value is the constitutional guarantee of privacy if those we have hired to protect it are themselves undermining it?

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the state of New Jersey. He broadcasts nationwide on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network, and lectures nationally on the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties in wartime and human freedom.

Read more from the original source:
Napolitano: More government spying and lying - Daily Herald