Mediaboss Marketing

In an important win for Fourth Amendment advocates, a Virginia man's arrest for refusing to show identification to the police has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appellate court.

The case is Wingate v. Fulford. George Wingate was driving in Stafford County, Virginia, in the early morning hours of April 25, 2017, when his car's engine light came on. A former mechanic, Wingate pulled over, popped the hood, and began checking things out. Stafford County Sheriff's Deputy Scott Fulford, who happened to be cruising by, noticed the parked vehicle and pulled over to offer his assistance.

That's when things took a turn for the worse for Wingate. According to the deputy's account, he became suspicious of Wingate and demanded to see some form of identification. Wingate, who had done nothing wrong, flatly refused. The officer's mic captured their exchange of words:

Wingate: Have I committed a crime?

Fulford: No. I didn't say you did.

Wingate: All right then.

Fulford: You're still required to

Wingate: Am I free to go?

Fulford: identify yourself.

Wingate: Am I free to go?

Fulford: Not right now, no.

Wingate: Am I being detained?

Fulford: You're not detained.

Wingate: Am I free to go?

Fulford: No.

Wingate: Am I being detained? If I'm not being detained, then I'm free to go.

Fulford: You're not free to go until you identify yourself to me.

Wingate was ultimately arrested for violating a Stafford County ordinance that made it a crime to refuse an officer's request for ID "if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification." After the prosecutor dropped the charges, Wingate sued, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the unlawful detainment and arrest.

In a decision handed down last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed that Wingate's rights were violated. "To be sure, officers may always request someone's identification during a voluntary encounter," the court said. "But they may not compel it by threat of criminal sanction. Allowing a county to criminalize a person's silence outside the confines of a valid seizure would press our conception of voluntary encounters beyond its logical limits. We therefore decline to do so here."

If Wingate had been lawfully detained by the police, the 4th Circuit said, then the officer could require him to show ID. But that was not what happened here. In fact, as the 4th Circuit detailed, the case for detaining and arresting Wingate utterly failed to pass the smell test. For example, Deputy Fulford stated in a deposition that Wingate raised a "red flag" for him when Wingate exited his vehicle and approached the officer's cruiser. "But the notion that the driver of a broken-down vehicle creates suspicion of criminal activity by approaching the officer trying to render him aid, put candidly, defies reason," the 4th Circuit observed. "Although we generally defer to officers' training and experience, we withhold that deference when failing to do so would erode necessary safeguards against 'arbitrary and boundless' police prejudgments."

Likewise, the fact that Wingate was wearing all-black clothing was deemed "suspicious." Yet as the 4th Circuit noted, "wearing dark clothing is often as innocuous as following the latest fashion trends" and was no grounds for probable cause in Wingate's case.

One downside to the ruling from the standpoint of criminal justice reform is that Deputy Fulford was granted qualified immunity for Wingate's unlawful arrest. Under that controversial doctrine, government officials are generally shielded from being held civilly liable if their actions were not explicitly disavowed in a previous court decision. "Until today, no federal court has prescribed the constitutional limits of" the Virginia ordinance at issue, the 4th Circuit stated. Thus "a reasonable officer could inferalbeit incorrectlythat the [Fourth Amendment's] requirements did not apply."

Read more from the original source:
An Unconstitutional Arrest for Refusing To Show ID to the Cops - Reason

Mario Iturrios-Lopez appealed a 2018 Mesa County conviction in which he was sentenced to 24 years for drug distribution but was denied by the Colorado Court of Appeals last week.

During a bench trial, Iturrios-Lopez was found guilty of possession with intent to distribute more than 225 grams of a controlled substance after officers found 2.7 pounds of cocaine hidden in a secret compartment in the vehicle he was driving.

Iturrios was pulled over for failing to signal a lane change for 200 feet before changing lanes in November 2017, according to the Colorado Court of Appeals decision.

Before trial, Iturrios-Lopez attempted to suppress the drugs found during the search, arguing that it was a ruse and that his detention after the trooper issued his traffic warning was unlawful, he said.

The prosecution presented evidence during trial that he agreed to a written consent of the search.

The trial court ruled that the stop was proper because there was a sufficient break between the initial stop and the re-engagement to convert the second conversation into a consensual encounter. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. The Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Generally, the officers return of the citizens documentation is an indication that the encounter has become consensual, according to the court.

In its decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals assessed whether a reasonable person would believe that he or she was free to leave or disregard the officers request for information before making its decision.

When the trooper returned to the car, he reportedly gave Iturrios-Lozez a written warning on the turn signal violation and returned his license and registration, then he turned around and headed back to his car, but stopped and asked Iturrios-Lopez if he could ask him a few more questions.

Iturrios-Lopez agreed and the trooper leaned through the passenger window and asked if he had anything illegal in the vehicle. Iturrios- Lopez said no and agreed to a search of the vehicle when asked.

Thats when the search discovered the 2.7 pounds of cocaine in the hidden compartment.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the traffic stop ended when the trooper returned his documents and the ensuing interaction in which Iturrios-Lopez agreed to the search was a consensual encounter.

The court ruled that there was sufficient time for Iturrios-Lopez to leave and sufficient time for the second conversation to convert to a consensual contact.

The Court of Appeals also noted that although English was not Iturrios-Lopezs native language, he was able to converse with the trooper and there was no evidence that he did not understand what the trooper was saying. The written consent form to search the vehicle was also written in Spanish.

The Court said that Iturrios could have declined to re-engage but instead agreed to answer more questions.

Here is the original post:
24 year drug sentence upheld by Colorado Court of Appeals - The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

You do not usually expect to see former Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, President of the progressive American Constitution Society, on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal.When you do, it is likely on an issue where Right and Left should be able to agree, and so it is today with his op-ed explaining why the Capitol insurrection, and the broader upsurge in domestic violence by fringe groups, white supremacists, conspiracists, anarchists and others, does not justify enacting a new, expanded PATRIOT Act.

As Feingold notes, "The overwhelming tendency in domestic antiterrorism has been to use invasive and unconstitutional surveillance techniques to criminalize legitimate dissent." This history should cause us to pause before expanding the authority of federal law enforcement to engage in surveillance and related activities.

Feingold continues:

We must not . . . confuse the need for a forceful response with the need for new law-enforcement powers. The law already gives the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. prosecutors extensive powers to counter those who use violence for political purposes. . . . [F]ederal law enforcement already has sweeping power to get at criminal organizations and those who support them.

In using these powers domestically, however, federal law enforcement is bound by the Fourth Amendment and other civil-liberties protections. This seems to be the real concern for supporters of new domestic terrorism laws. What they want is new, less-constrained surveillance powers that might allow, say, law enforcement to use wiretaps without first demonstrating probable cause that a crime is being committed and obtaining approval from a judge. . . .

As James Baldwin observed more than 50 years ago, when we bring home battlefield notions of counterinsurgency, we end up burning down our own communities, ostensibly in order to save them. Let us not repeat that mistake.

I may not agree with Feingold on much, but when he's right, he's right.

See the rest here:
There Is No Need for Another PATRIOT Act - Reason

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 6-K

Report of Foreign Issuer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the month of February, 2021

Commission File Number: 001-12102

YPF Sociedad Annima

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Macacha Gemes 515

C1106BKK Buenos Aires, Argentina

(Address of principal executive office)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F:

Form 20-F Form 40-F

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):

Yes No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):

YPF Sociedad Annima

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM

1 Translation of letter to the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange dated February 8, 2021.2

Buenos Aires, February 7, 2021

To the

COMISIN NACIONAL DE VALORES

MERCADO ABIERTO ELECTRNICO S.A.

BOLSAS Y MERCADOS ARGENTINOS S.A.

Re.: Relevant Information- Amendment to the Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation.

.

Dear Sirs:

We hereby address you in relation to the exchange offers and consent solicitation related to (i) class XLVII notes due 2021 (the "Old Notes"); (ii) class XXVIII notes due 2024; (iii) class XIII notes due march 2025; (iv) class XXXIX notes due July 2025; (v) class LIII notes due 2027; (vi) class I under the frequent issuer regime due 2029; and (vii) the class LIV notes due 2047 described in (i) the pricing supplement on January 7, 2021, as amended and restated on January 25, 2021, as amended on February 1, 2021, and as amended on February 7, 2021 (the "Pricing Supplement"), and (ii) in the subscription notice dated on January 7, 2021, as amended on January 14, 2021, as amended and restated on January 25, 2021, as amended on February 1, 2021, and as amended on February 7, 2021, ( the "Subscription Notice") published by YPF S.A. in the Autopista de la Informacin Financiera of the Comisin Nacional de Valores and on the Mercado Abierto Electrnico S.A's. website.

In this sense, YPF has published on February 7, 2021, the fourth amendment to the Pricing Supplement of the offer and the Subscription Notice. For the benefit of investors, we have attached the press release relating to the proposed amendments to the exchange offer and consent solicitation which consist, among others, extend both the Exchange Offer and the Consent Solicitation, and amend the Exchange Consideration for the 2021 Old Notes.

All the terms not defined herein will have the meaning assigned to them in the Pricing Supplement.

Yours faithfully,

Santiago Wesenack

Market Relations Officer

YPF S.A.

3

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

YPF Sociedad Annima

Date: February 8, 2021

By:

/s/ Santiago Wesenack

Name:

Santiago Wesenack

Title:

Market Relations Officer

4

This is an excerpt of the original content. To continue reading it, access the original document here.

Disclaimer

YPF SA published this content on 08 February 2021 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 09 February 2021 12:16:02 UTC.

More:
YPF Sociedad Annima : 08-02-2021 SEC - Amendment to the Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation - marketscreener.com

Metro Health issues fourth amended health directive related to school systems

CONTACT: For members of the media, please contact:covid19media@sanantonio.gov

Laura Mayes, City of San Antonio (210) 207-1337Michelle Vigil, City of San Antonio (210) 207-8172

For questions from the general public, please contact:COVID-19@sanantonio.govCOVID-19 Hotline (210) 207-5779

SAN ANTONIO (February 2, 2021) Today, San Antonio's Local Health Authority, Dr. Junda Woo, issued a fourth amendment to the current health directive related to our local school systems. The revised health directive, either virtual or hybrid learning are options in Red Zone, but the directive stresses the importance of restricting other gatherings instead when community COVID levels are high. The directive adds links to new tools and FAQ's provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), highlights the fact that contact sports are still not recommended in the Red Zone, and removes specific pod sizes while sharing CDC templates for classroom layouts.

At risk levels in the Red Zone. Preventing transmission in K-12 settings requires reducing transmission in the community through policies such as restrictions on indoor dining. COVID testing should be offered to at least 25% of on-campus staff once a week, and class sizes should be smaller than in the Yellow Zone, with rigorous cohorting. In-person instruction prioritizes pre-kindergarten through elementary school students, special needs students, the most severely at-risk students, and students who lack access to resources. Building and room occupancy should be contingent on adequate ventilation and ability to create 6-foot distancing. Close contacts must be quarantined for 14 days.

Metro Health's weekly school risk level, which includes varying levels of virus prevention tactics and guidance within its Red, Yellow and Green Zones, can be found here.

For more information please visit http://www.covid19.sanantonio.gov

Go here to read the rest:
San Antonio: Metro Health Issues Fourth Amended Health Directive Related To School Systems - Patch.com