Mediaboss Marketing

PITTSBURGH A class-action lawsuit filed against the Transportation Security Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration will move forward federal court after a Pittsburgh judge rejected the governments motion to dismiss.

The lawsuit, filed by the Institute for Justice in January 2020 on behalf of Terry Rolin and his daughter Rebecca Brown, alleges that TSA screeners detained travelers, turned them over to law enforcement, and seize money without any cause for suspicion and without filing any criminal charges, a news release stated.

U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Horan rejected the governments motion to dismiss the plaintiffs three class action claims on Tuesday.

According to the release, TSA and DEA officials seized Rolins life savings of over $82,000 from Brown as she was flying from Pittsburgh to her home outside Boston, where she intended to open a joint bank account to help care for her father. After the lawsuit was filed, the DEA returned the money, but only after holding it for over six months without any accusations of criminality, let alone criminal charges.

Additionally, the DEA seized $43,000 from Stacy Jones at the Wilmington, N.C., airport in May 2020 as she was flying home to Tampa. The agency returned her money after she joined the lawsuit and nine months after it was seized. Once again, criminal charges were never filed, the release states.

TSA and DEA routinely violate Americans Fourth Amendment rights at airports across the country by detaining them for doing something completely legal: flying with cash, said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dan Alban. Seizing and forfeiting someones savings should not be done lightly, yet weve documented how easy it is for law enforcement to take money at airports without any evidence of a crime. Now, thanks to our class action lawsuit, we are going to uncover the truth behind how and why the government is targeting innocent flyers, and ultimately put an end to this predatory practice.

According to the release, there are no restrictions on traveling with any amount of money on domestic flights.

TSAs and DEAs unconstitutional conduct across the country suggests that the agencies are more interested in seizing cash than securing safety, said Institute for Justice Attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili. And these seizures subject people to a confusing bureaucratic process, without an attorney provided, where a single misstep could mean losing their life savings forever. Even those who succeed in getting their money returned are deprived of it for months or years, often upending their lives. No one should lose their money without a criminal conviction.

Read the original:
Lawsuit against TSA and DEA over seizures moves forward - WPXI Pittsburgh

President Biden has just named 11 nominees to the federal bench, including his nominee for a vacant seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. All told, there are over 100 federal court vacancies right now. President Biden should make filling them a priority, in part because courts are critical institutions in the fight against climate change and for environmental justice.

Unlike some other areas of law, there is no easy litmus test to tell if someone will be the kind of judge who is good for the environment, no one decision (like Roe v. Wade) or one law (like the Sherman Act) or even one constitutional provision (like the Fourth Amendment) to grill a nominee about. But that doesnt mean we dont know what kind of person we want to have deciding cases about the future of our planet and our health. Here are three questions that I think the Biden administration should be asking itself as it looks for judges who will support its environmental and climate agenda, along with one bonus question about the X factor to separate potentially good judges from potentially extraordinary ones.

Does the candidate recognize that the government has a responsibility to protect the environment, public health, and public lands for all people?

One of the most important areas where we need government to regulate private conduct is in the environmental arena. What you do with your patch of land affects what I can do with mine, what you discharge into the air and the water affects my health, and your energy generation and ecosystem impacts all affect my future. We need the federal government to make consistent national rules to regulate these things and to enforce those rules evenhandedly across the country.

Polluting industries like Big Ag, Big Oil, and Big Coal hate these kinds of rules because they limit short-term profits. A good judge doesnt need to be hostile to the industry perspective, but they do need to believe that the Constitution gives Congress broad and deep authority to regulate industries in the public interest. They also need to believe that Congress can delegate to the executive branch the complex and technical task of issuing enabling regulations. And when they try to understand what Congress was trying to achieve, a judge should be willing to consider any evidence, instead of ignoring evidence that contradicts the judges own preferences.

These arent revolutionary beliefs. To the contrary they represent the foundational philosophies of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, which presided over fifty years of sustained economic growth and environmental progress. Right now, though, these philosophies are under attack by a growing cabal of far-right activist judges (and Justices) who want to erode the foundations of government to serve an anti-environment and pro-industry agenda. We need judges who will strengthen those foundations instead.

Can the candidate tell the difference between science and politics?

Good science and careful factfinding begets good environmental policy. If you need proof, consider the fact that one of our most effective environmental laws the National Environmental Policy Act (signed by Richard Nixon) doesnt actually require the government to protect the environment. It just requires the government to consider the environmental impacts of decisions before making them, and to do so based on facts, science, and public input. Not politics.

This is why so many of our environmental laws require federal regulators to build a record of the work they did in reaching at their decisions. What factors did the government consider? Did it involve local communities? Why did it reject alternative options? This record gives judges the ability to make sure that the agency acted based on facts and science, not politics. A proper administrative record can be lengthy, technical, and blisteringly complex. A good judge has to be willing and able to roll up their sleeves, dig in, and review the record carefully for factual and legal integrity without yielding to the temptation to replace the agencys policy judgments with their own. More generally, a good judge should respect not just the scientific expertise of agencies, but the consensus of science itself.

Does the candidate understand that individuals need access to courts to hold government and industry accountable?

If theres one thing the Trump administration proved, its that strong environmental laws arent enough on their own. People need to be able to hold government accountable for upholding and following those laws, and, when necessary, sue industry itself to comply with them. Thats why most of our environmental laws explicitly authorize citizen suits.

You will not be surprised to hear that polluting industries and their politician friends generally hate citizen suits. And one way to escape accountability is by making it impossible to bring those suits in the first place among other things, by twisting doctrines like standing, ripeness, and finality into locks on the courthouse doors. That far-right activist cabal I described earlier? Its trying to do just that.

We need judges who recognize that access to the courts is a basic right no different than access to the ballot box. In particular, we need judges who recognize that poor communities and communities of color are disproportionately affected by environmental harms and that the legal rights those communities have wont mean much if they cant use the courts to enforce them and provide a check on corporate interests and power.

Does the candidate have the X Factor?

While these three things are critical features of a good judge, history shows us that the best judges have one more characteristic: they influence the law beyond the scope of their own individual decisions. Appellate judges who sit on panels should be able to persuade colleagues through thoughtful behind-the-scenes reasoning and by building relationships across philosophical divides. District court judges should be able to write opinions that persuade appellate judges, even ones who do not generally share their point of view. And even if these judges dont win in the short term, they should know how to play the long game by writing eloquent opinions that shift legal doctrine and provide a roadmap to a better future.

Love him or hate him, Justice Scalia had this X Factor, as did Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (who you can thank whenever you mention the idea of yelling fire! in a crowded theater). They both knew how to write to the future, and they had the intellect, interpersonal skills, and a way with words that gave them an outsized role in the present.

If youre reading this blog post, you know that the earth needs a good lawyer. It needs a good judge, too lots of them. Ones who arent afraid to grapple with the science and follow where it leads, who believe that the courthouse doors should be open to all, who believe we have the power to come together as a country and solve big problems. And, if were very lucky, ones who our great-grandchildren will quote when were long gone.

Follow this link:
The Earth Needs Good Judges. Here's What That Means. - Earthjustice

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution

Democrats and the Biden administration would like to seize Americans firearms, apparently by any means necessary. It remains to be seen if the U.S. Supreme Court will collaborate with them.

On March 24, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments in Caniglia v. Strom. The case arises from a 2015 incident in Cranston, Rhode Island, where police were summoned to do a wellness check on Edward Caniglia after his wife reported that he might be suicidal. While Caniglia was arguing with her, he put an unloaded gun on the table and told her to shoot me now and get it over with. She responded by calling a non-emergency number, and the police arrived in short order. While at the scene, the police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting normal or agitated, but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not go with him.

While he was en route, his wife told the police he kept two handguns in the house. Without first obtaining a warrant, police conducted a search of the house after obtaining Mrs. Caniglias permission by lying and saying her husband consented to the search. They found two guns and seized them. Mr. Caniglia sued, asserting police had violated his Fourth Amendment rights as well as his Second Amendment right to own firearms for self-protection.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with police, citing the community care taking doctrine that has already been recognized as an exception to the Fourth Amendment by the United States Supreme Courts 1973 decision in Cady v. Dombrowski. In that case, the Court held that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched the trunk of a car that had been towed following an accident.The Court acknowledged that police cannot search private property without consent or a warrant, except in certain carefully defined classes of cases. Yet it further noted that there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars.

A host of cases used that ruling to establish the doctrine of community caretaking, which Cady had defined as activities totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. In short, if a police officer might reasonably decide a warrantless search could prevent the community from being endangered, that search was constitutional.

That kind of search was related to vehicles. Caniglia v. Strom is about whether or not it can be extended to homes.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals certainly thought so. At its core, the court wrote, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways.

That giving cops such elbow room makes an utter mockery of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects? As Forbes columnist Evan Gerstmann points out, The community caretaking exception is not limited to circumstances where there is no time to apply for a warrant.

In other words, immediate attention and transient hazard are extremely malleable terms. Police can simply decide at their leisure that an emergency has come into existence, thereby negating the need for a warrant. Thus, Gerstmann wonders, will police be able to conduct warrantless searches of political protesters homes to make sure they arent planning on violent behavior at their next political rally?

Political protesters, or Americans who disagree with the policies of the Biden administration or those who simply disagree with progressive dogma?

As were are learning, courtesy of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, political considerations already motivate the U.S. Justice Department. According to the panel, the DOJ abused its power by denying bail to many of the protesters at the January 6 riot, even for misdemeanors, by alleging they were part of a vast conspiracy. As columnist Clarice Feldman so aptly explained, Keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasnt buying it.

It doesnt take much of an imagination to envision a scenario where police conduct a warrantless search of someones home, find a gun, and subsequently allege that finding to be part of a conspiracy, precipitating the denial of bail especially when they can conduct an ex post facto search of someones social media for what could be deemed incendiary statements.

Statements that bring the First Amendment into play as well.

Matt Agorist, an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA, sees the proverbial writing on the wall. We have already seen tech giants like Facebook hand over the private messages of those who talked about the events of January 6, he writes. If [Caniglia v. Strom] is upheld, it could pave the way for cops to raid the home of those who engage in peaceful discourse based solely on the premise that violence might happen.

The 2002 movie Minority Report envisions a future where police have the legal authority to prevent crime before it happens. It was set in the year 2054, and much like George Orwells 1984, it was presented as a cautionary tale not a how-to manual.

Unsurprisingly, the Biden administration and attorneys general from nine states have sided with the police, and as Fox New host Tucker Carlson warns, The Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to approve of this and make it a precedent. Theyre asking for permission to search any home they want, without a warrant and take what they want.

We used to call that tyranny. What an increasingly feckless Supreme Court will call it is anyones guess.

Continued here:
Arnold Ahlert: Will SCOTUS Eliminate the Fourth Amendment? The Patriot Post - Patriot Post

After a brief executive session, the appeals board said it could not make a decision on the appeals case at this time but it would schedule a new session soon to review further evidence.

The officers did not give Runser a meaningful opportunity to communicate, and their actions violated many department policies and rules of conduct, said Debra Southard, who spoke on Runsers behalf at the hearing.

What lawful reason was there to stop Mr. Runser and violate his Fourth Amendment right to detain him, to abduct him and take him to a hospital when there was no medical need for him to be there, Southard said.

Runser, speaking through an American Sign Language interpreter, said: Im outraged by this situation I was frightened and very scared throughout the whole ordeal because no one communicated with me.

The appeals board can agree or disagree with the decisions of internal police investigations into allegations of misconduct, and its determinations are submitted to all parties involved and the Dayton City Commission for review.

The boards main responsibilities are to hear appeals and review policies and procedures and make recommendations as directed by the city manager and police chief.

Jack Runser, 50, of Dayton, in the back of a Dayton police cruiser in November. CONTRIBUTED

Special reports the officers wrote about the incident say Runser was combative, looked like he could not take care of himself and his behaviors seemed consistent with methamphetamine intoxication.

Some advocacy groups say police across the country sometimes interpret the actions of people with physical and psychiatric disabilities as signs of intoxication, resistance and aggression.

Dayton police and city officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment by deadline Thursday.

On Nov. 8, a passing motorist called 911 and said that a man who may have disabilities was walking in the grassy median of South Gettysburg Avenue. The caller said he wanted someone to make sure the man was OK.

Jack Runser at Grandview Medical Hospital in handcuffs. CONTRIBUTED

Runser says that day he decided to walk from his home in southwest Dayton about 1.5 miles to the Dollar General on the 800 block of South Gettysburg Avenue to get some coffee. Some parts of South Gettysburg Avenue do not have sidewalks, including a stretch south of the Dayton Correctional Facility.

In their special reports, officers Wiesman and Victor said they got out of their vehicles in the Dollar General parking lot, stepped in front of Runser and asked if he was OK, but he tried to walk past them.

Victor wrote in his report that he feared Runser would continue to ignore the officers and flee or he was having a medical emergency severe enough that he didnt notice them.

The Dollar General on South Gettysburg Ave. CORNELIUS FROLIK / STAFF

Victor said he grabbed Runsers arm to get his attention and stop him, and claims Runser tensed and tried to pull away.

Victor said Runser ignored officers instructions and commands, his actions seemed aggressive and he was handcuffed and placed in the back of the police cruiser for everyones safety. Victor said Runsers movements resembled someone reacting to methamphetamine use.

Wiesmans special report says Runsers disheveled appearance and strong body odor suggested he could not take care of himself, and his body language and facial expressions made it look like he was high on methamphetamine.

Wiesman said Runser was combative and tried to escape Victors grasp.

But Southard said Runser had no idea the officers were trying to talk to him and he merely tried to walk around them.

Runser became upset when his arm was grabbed, and he tried to tell the officers through sign language that he is deaf and mute, but he was ignored, according to Southard.

Officers asked Runser by writing questions on a notepad if he had ID and if he could hear them, and he responded nonverbally that he didnt, she said.

The officers should have called an interpreter as required by policy, Southard said, but instead they used force to put Runser in handcuffs and then in the back of a cruiser, which caused him excruciating pain because he shakes involuntarily from cerebral palsy.

They profiled him because of his socioeconomic status, she said.

A slide submitted by advocates speaking on behalf of Jack Runser during a Citizen's Appeals Board hearing. Runser claims he was mistreated by police. An internal police investigation cleared the officers of misconduct. CONTRIBUTED

Runser was taken to Grandview Medical Center for an emergency medical admission, but hospital staff communicated via sign language. Runser told them he is deaf and mute and he was released without treatment, Southard said.

But Runser later learned his wrist was fractured , and the officers stranded Runser miles from home, Southard said.

Runsers complaint was not properly and thoroughly investigated, Southard said.

A photograph of Jack Runser's wrist injury. CONTRIBUTED

Speaking through a translator, Runser on Thursday told the Citizens Appeals Board, The whole encounter has been scarred into my mind and Ill never forget how Dayton police treated me that day.

Continued here:
Man with disabilities accuses Dayton police of misconduct - Dayton Daily News

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case that asks whether the Fourth Amendment's usual warrant requirement should be waived when the police conduct a warrantless home search while carrying out a so-called "community caretaker" function, such as when the cops perform a "wellness check" on a potentially troubled or injured person. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the Court's biggest Fourth Amendment hawks, raised a few objections to giving the cops that much leeway to enter the home without a warrant.

The case is Caniglia v. Strom. In 2015, Rhode Island police paid a "well call" on 68-year-old Edward Caniglia after his wife reported to authorities that he might be suicidal. The couple had gotten into a fight the night before and she had left to sleep elsewhere. When she couldn't reach him the next morning, she called the cops. The officers who visited the house had Caniglia taken to the hospital in an ambulance, where he was examined by a nurse and a social worker and discharged the same day. In the meantime, the police entered Caniglia's home without a warrant and seized his handguns. The case centers on Caniglia's claim that the warrantless search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled in the favor of the officers in 2020, holding that the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment was sufficient to cover the matter at issue. The community caretaking doctrine, the 1st Circuit maintained, "is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action."

Sotomayor took issue with the lower court's judgment. "I am deeply concerned about the 1st Circuit's claim that there is no requirement that officers must select the least intrusive means of fulfilling community caretaking responsibilities," she told Marc Desisto, the attorney representing the Rhode Island officers and their superiors. For example, "why couldn't they ask the wife" for permission before entering the house? Why didn't the officers speak to a social worker or a psychiatrist? "How do we limit [the police] from substituting their own" judgment in such matters? Sotomayor demanded. "In this situation, there was no immediate danger," she said, yet the police "decided on their own to go in and seize the gun."

Sotomayor returned to those concerns later during an exchange with Morgan Ratner, an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. "I don't have a problem with them having removed this gentleman and taken him to the hospital," Sotomayor said. That's a valid seizure under Fourth Amendment case law "because they had reason to believe that he was threatening suicide." Taking someone like Caniglia for a "psychiatric examination is very much an exigent circumstance."

The problem "is the next step" the officers took, Sotomayor maintained, "which is going into the home without attempt to secure consent from the wife and seizing the gun and then keeping it indefinitely until a lawsuit is filed."

"The wife tried to get [the gun] back," Sotomayor noted. "He tried to get it back. Weeks and weeks went by. When we permit police to search and seize without some standard, we run the risk of situations like this one repeating themselves."

See the original post here:
Sonia Sotomayor Questions Warrantless Gun Seizure in Big ...