Mediaboss Marketing

Screenshot Submitted

The final round of Altheimer Moot Court Competition.

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. Third-year law students Nate Arrington and Hannah Hines successfully represented their client against second-year students Dalton Cook and Tristen Cross in the final round of the 2021 Ben J. Altheimer Moot Court Competition. The competition took place on Feb. 11 via Zoom.

Hines was named best oralist of the competition and Arrington and Hines were recognized for best brief.

The students presented their cases before the Hon. Lavenski Smith (J.D. '87), chief judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; the Hon. Kristine Gerhard Baker (J.D. '96) of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; and the Hon. Jane L. Kelly, also of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This year's case John J. Schmidt v. United States was about whether a law enforcement officer had conducted an unreasonable search of an arrestee's apartment in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was because the officer had swiped a key fob in front of multiple apartments until she found the arrestee's apartment prior to getting a search warrant.

"All the competitors represented our school to the judges and our community really well," said Ashley Spinazze, co-chair of the 2021 Ben J. Altheimer Moot Court Competition. "They showed the level of preparation and professionalism of those arguing before the Courts of Appeals."

Caleb Ward, co-chair of the 2021 Ben J. Altheimer Moot Court Competition said that they were especially impressed with the second-year teams that participated. "Students usually participate in oral arguments during the spring of their first year, however, those arguments had been cancelled due to the pandemic and the second-year students came into the competition without ever having done this before."

The annual competition, named after Arkansas attorney and philanthropist Ben J. Altheimer, is hosted by the University of Arkansas School of Law Board of Advocates. The student-run board organizes three internal competitions annually the William H. Sutton Barrister's Union Trial Competition, the Altheimer Competition andClient Advocacy Competitions either a negotiations or client counseling competition which lead to the selection of moot court, trial and dvocacy competition teams that travel to regional and national competitions.

About the University of Arkansas: As Arkansas' flagship institution, the U of A provides an internationally competitive education in more than 200 academic programs. Founded in 1871, the U of A contributes more than $2.2 billion to Arkansas' economy through the teaching of new knowledge and skills, entrepreneurship and job development, discovery through research and creative activity while also providing training for professional disciplines. The Carnegie Foundation classifies the U of A among the top 3% of U.S. colleges and universities with the highest level of research activity. U.S. News & World Report ranks the U of A among the top public universities in the nation. See how the U of A works to build a better world at Arkansas Research News.

Original post:
Arrington and Hines Win 2021 Altheimer Moot Court Competition - University of Arkansas Newswire

Prior to a 10-2 vote for House Bill 1140, testimony had elicited accusations the measure was a "poacher's bill," but the bill's proponents, namely, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks and Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden, said the measure would build better relationships between landowners and game wardens, who now would need permission to enter private lands, save when an imminent crime is happening.

"Our best line of defense...is each other," said said Kevin Robling, interim secretary for GFP, who tried to assuage lawmakers that limiting conservation officers' access to private lands would not impede efforts to protect wildlife.

But a number of opponents accused the bill of paving the way for bad actors to thwart the game wardens charged with enforcing the state's hunting and fishing rules. Some even used the dreaded "P" word.

George Vandel, representing the South Dakota Waterfowl Association, noted what others roundly acknowledged that 80% of South Dakota's land is privately owned, and that historic efforts to build back migratory bird populations popular for hunting is rooted in the strong teeth of conservation officers.

"It (HB 1140) removes compliance and opens South Dakota up to be a poacher's paradise," said Vandel.

Currently under South Dakota law, a state game warden has full access to a field even one privately owned through what's often referred to as the "open fields doctrine," namely law enforcement's ability to search without a warrant the non-residential areas of private property without violating the Fourth Amendment.

But on Tuesday, many landowners cried foul, with one testifier saying such a doctrine "normalizes trespassing."

"As far as my land, I think I do have the right to know who's out there doing it," said Robert Johnson, a landowner in Harding County. " I never have had a reason to deny a game warden (access)."

Bill opponents objected to the measure specifically carving away the open-fields doctrine for game wardens but leaving it intact for other law enforcement officers, including the county sheriff or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services agents.

But Committee Chair Marty Overweg, a New Holland Republican, wondered if agents could approach him sitting in his pick-up on his own property without just cause.

"Is he legal just to drive on my land and see what I am doing?" asked Overweg.

Ultimately, many testifiers disagreed over to what extent the bill which does allow for game wardens to enter private property "without permission" when suspecting a crime or to "dispatch crippled or distressed wildlife" would incentivize illegal behavior among hunters and fishers.

"It would be a great disservice to assume you can manage our resources based on property boundaries," said testifier Zachary Hunke, who noted game animals "travel, migrate, swim or move" between private and property boundaries at ease.

But Robling, who noted there had been "no specific instance" that compelled the bill's appearance this session, repeated his promise that the measure only codifies current policy.

According to the latest year on record, South Dakota game wardens handed out over 500 hunting violations in 2019.

The bill now proceeds to a vote by the full House.

Read more here:
South Dakota committee OKs bill requiring conservation officers to get prior permission to go onto private land | The Mitchell Republic - The Daily...

One external challenge to originalism comes from the Right. Some readers may not know that there is a Republican school of thought that has an attitude of hostility, or at least wariness, toward originalism. As originalism and the Supreme Court have come under increasing scrutiny, those voices have grown louder. Last year Harvard Professor Adrian Vermeule proposed an alternative to originalism: common-good constitutionalism. Vermeules conclusion, as described during the panel by Newsweek Opinion Editor Josh Hammer, is that we should instead overtly go for substantive and normative conservative outcomes.

In contrast, the landmark decision Bostock v. Clayton County has stirred debate among adherents of originalism, with some supporting and some opposing Justice Gorsuchs reasoning. Some of those perspectives were on display in a discussion of Textualism after Bostock. Textualism is sometimes considered the statutory analogue of originalism, which is often thought of as a method of constitutional interpretation.

In Bostock, both Justice Gorsuchs majority opinion and dissenting opinions by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh followed textualist approaches, but they arrived at radically different conclusions. Professor Tara Leigh Grove favored Justice Gorsuchs approach, which she described as we focus on the statutory language, and thats that, in contrast to the more flexible textualism applied by the dissenting justices, which considered factors such as social context and practical consequences. Professor Josh Blackman, in contrast, thought Justice Gorsuch failed to acknowledge that the Courts precedents were inconsistent with textualism. Textualism is apolitical in that it looks to the meaning of a word, as opposed to a question of policy values in a statute, said Jessie Mann 23. It was fascinating to hear the different arguments for how staunch Justice Gorsuch was in his Bostock opinion.

Popular misconceptions are another challenge faced by originalism. In a discussion of the public perception of originalism, Lat addressed some common misunderstandings. Originalism, at least in its most prominent version, focuses not on the Founders intentions but on the Constitutions original public meaning. Nor does originalism demand strict constructionism or anachronism. The Constitution can be construed as broadly as necessary to embrace all it originally meant and its original meaning can be applied to new contexts.

These misconceptions persist. Lat noted that folks on the street tend to think of originalism as antiquated and harsh. I refer readers to the penultimate episode of Netflixs A Series of Unfortunate Events, where a pseudo-originalist court requires everyone to wear blindfolds since justice is blind. But I think originalisms biggest challenge is persuading liberal Americans that it is more than a Republican power play. As one of Fridays panelists noted, perhaps the easiest way to advocate for originalism is to point out cases where it has not favored Repubican outcomes, like Bostock and certain Fourth Amendment opinions authored by Justice Scalia. Still, it is reasonable to expect skepticism to continue so long as the Supreme Courts originalists are all conservatives.

James Ford 23 expressed this kind of skepticism, stating that originalism is just paleo-conservatism with more steps. Many Democrats agree, if calls for court-packing are any indication. The challenge for the Supreme Courts originalists is to persuade observers that their methodology truly is non-partisan and to do so at a time when the stakes are higher than ever. In the balance hangs not only originalisms reputation but also, just maybe, the Supreme Court as we know it.

---

js3hp@virginia.edu

Read more from the original source:
Originalism in the Twenty-First Century Virginia Law Weekly - Virginia Law Weekly

Youve won the lottery! But wait, dont go buy that Lamborghini yet. Youve been randomly selected to give a sample of your bodily fluids to a state and federally funded entity. Where is this happening you may ask? A place where apparently your First Amendment is valued more than your Fourth Amendment, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

It's one thing for an institution to impose social distancing guidelines and require a mask for a perceived measure of safety. But recently, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga has gone a step further. Reportedly, UTC is sending out random emails coercing students and faculty to give a sample for rapid COVID-19 testing.

Attorney Terry Olsen stated, "The university reserves the right to conduct the tests, saying that students and faculty signed over their medical records as an agreement for attending or working at the school."

In response, a fellow alumni stated, Just because I have drinks with a man, doesn't mean I give him consent to rape me. Just because I give the university my health records doesn't mean you get bodily fluid samples whenever you want them.

As an alumni, it's appalling to see that individuals are being coerced to comply with the seizure of their bodily fluids in order to attend a state and federally funded university. What are the consequences if you don't comply as a student or staff member? Students, faculty, parents, and alumni should question this policy further.

Obviously the need for mask requirements and social distancing guidelines are needed during our current pandemic. However, Im certain the degradation of our constitutional rights will not deter any virus from spreading.

Jeff Irvin Jr.UTC Alumni Class of 2008

* * *

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Irvin. Speaking as the parent of a recent graduate, I assure you the only thing that speaks to the leadership at these institutions is money.

The short and sweet solution is to refuse to participate in random COVID testing/provision of bodily fluids. If that is a deal breaker for UTC, spend your money elsewhere.

Darlene Kilgore

Read this article:
UTC Students And Faculty, You Just Got Lucky - And Response - The Chattanoogan

State Representative LaKeshia Myers recently introduced a new bill to prevent the use of no-knock search warrants by Wisconsin law enforcement.

The bill was named Breonnas Law after Louisville, Kentucky EMT Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old who was killed during such a raid in March 2020.

It is most appropriate for us to begin Black History Month 2021 by introducing Breonnas Law, Myers said in a statement. Breonna Taylors life was taken while she was in the comfort of her own home, through the use of a no-knock warrant. While Taylor was not the subject of the warrant, her life was mercilessly ended through no fault of her own. It is because of this that we call on Wisconsin legislators to end the use of no-knock warrants.

Wisconsin became the first state to authorize no-knock search warrants in 1997. Since their introduction, no-knock raids have created controversy around police transparency and use of force.

No-knock warrants are harmful to civilians and law enforcement officers alike, said Myers. Milwaukee police officer Matthew Rittner was killed in the line of duty while his tactical unit executed a no-knock warrant in February 2019. Because of a no-knock search warrant, a wife lost her husband, Milwaukee lost a police officer and a child lost its father.

These searches are being reconsidered at the federal and state levels. In Congress last session, Senate Republicans wanted to track their use, while a Democratic House bill, endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus would have banned them on a federal level in drug cases and withhold federal policing grants to states that permit them in drug cases.

In 2020, a package of Juneteenth bills on police reform was forwarded by Gov. Tony Evers, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and the the Legislative Black Caucus. It included a similar bill that prohibits no-knock search warrants issued under state law by requiring a law enforcement officer who is executing a search warrant to identify himself or herself as a law enforcement officer and announce the authority and purpose of the entry, before entering the premises.

The Legislature did not take any action on these bills, instead forming a study committee that continues to meet but has not come out with its recommendations.

Myers new bill, as described in her co-sponsorship memo accompanying it, requires that a law enforcement officer executing a search warrant must, before entering the premises, identify himself or herself as a law enforcement officer and announce the authority and purpose of the entry. Under the bill, a law enforcement officer may execute a search warrant only between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. unless a judge authorizes the execution of the search warrant at another time for good cause.

Given the increased focus on police reform and no-knock search warrants in particular the Wisconsin Legislative Council put out an Information Memorandum on the practice in Sept. 2020, reviewing its complicated relationship with the Fourth Amendment and case law. As a result, the no-knock search warrant, a product of the War on Drugs, is being reconsidered. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving citizens the right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure is replicated in the Wisconsin Constitution.

Knock-and-announce requirements before police forcibly enter a persons home called the announcement rule in Wisconsin date back centuries to British common law, but exceptions to the rule have been carved out, including the no-knock search warrant, the memo states. Further, it notes, a 1995 case determined knock-and-announce was not a rigid, blanket rule, so no-knock searches are allowed as an exception that takes into account countervailing law enforcement interests.

The Wisconsin Professional Police Association Executive Director Jim Palmer has been quoted by multiple media outlets, as being open to reconsideration of no-knock warrants by police and by lawmakers. He had doubts that his group would fight for the warrants, as they are not used frequently in Wisconsin and can be dangerous for both police officers and residents.

Body camera use by law enforcement has made the public increasingly aware of no-knock search warrants, as more people are able to see footage of the technique in action.

The bills namesake, Taylor, was killed as law enforcement carried out a series of raids across the Louisville area. Police claimed they announced themselves when the raid began. Taylors boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, however, said officers did not do so, and he thought someone was breaking into their home as they slept. After a shot was fired by the boyfriend, wounding one officer, other officers fired numerous shots into the apartment, killing Taylor.

One of the detectives involved, Brett Hankison, was fired in June for wantonly and blindly firing his weapon, according to his termination letter. Taylors death brought to light the use of such raids, and place-based policing strategies that targeted areas being gentrified by the city.

As the state that created no-knock warrants, Wisconsin has the responsibility to be the state to end their use, Myers said. When you know better, you must do better, and this is a step in the right direction.

Read the rest here:
Legislative effort seeks to end no-knock search warrants in Wisconsin after almost a quarter century - Milwaukee Independent