Mediaboss Marketing

WETHERSFIELD The father of an 18-year-old killed by a town police officer in 2019 has filed a wrongful death lawsuit and claims his sons civil rights were violated.

The lawsuit names the town of Wethersfield and former Wethersfield Police Officer Layau Eulizier as defendants in the April 2019 shooting death of Anthony Vega-Cruz.

Gary Evans, town manager for Wethersfield, said the town has not yet been served, adding that we wont take any action until or unless that happens.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages for Jose Vega-Cruz, the teens father, and attorney fees. It was filed last week by nationally-renowned civil rights and personal injury attorney Ben Crump and his legal team.

Eulizier shot and killed Anthony Vega-Cruz during a traffic stop on Silas Deane Highway on April 20, 2019. Nearly a year later, the shooting was ruled justified under Connecticut law by the States Attorney for the Judicial District of Hartford.

The shooting later sparked legislation preventing police from positioning themselves in front of a fleeing vehicle, and prohibiting officers from shooting into the vehicle unless there is an imminent threat of death.

Euliziers actions and inactions ... heightened the risk of a deadly encounter, the lawsuit alleges. Eulizier failed to use reasonable caution in attempting to apprehend (Vega-Cruz).

Vega-Cruz was killed after police tried to pull him over for illegal window tints and a license plate belonging to a different vehicle with a suspended registration, according to an incident report.

According to the report, Vega-Cruz pulled over, but then sped away as the officer got out of his car, leading to a chase.

Eulizier, who had been getting food when the call came over the radio, responded and struck the front end of the car with his police cruiser, the report said.

Eulizier then got out of his cruiser and stood in front of Vega-Cruzs vehicle with his weapon drawn, according to the report and video footage of the incident.

As the vehicle reversed, the officer fired two shots, one of which struck Vega-Cruz in the head, the report said. He was later pronounced dead at Hartford Hospital.

The suit also claims that either the Wethersfield Police Department had an inadequate policy and training with regards to shooting at moving and occupied vehicles, or Eulizier violated the Wethersfield Police Departments policy and committed a felony.

The lawsuit alleges Euliziers use of deadly force was unreasonable, and claims he acted with a conscious and reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of Vega-Cruz.

A reasonable officer under similar circumstances would not have reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense, or to defend himself or a third person from the use of imminent physical force while effecting or attempting to effect an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent escape, the suit claims. In other words, it was unreasonable for Eulizier to believe that the use of deadly force against (Vega-Cruz) was necessary to defend himself of a third person.

According to the lawsuit, Euliziers use of his cruiser to stop the Infiniti violated Vega-Cruzs rights against unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and 14th Amendment. The suit also claims Eulizier did not immediately provide medical care to Vega-Cruz.

Eulizier resigned from the Wethersfield Police Department soon after the states attorneys report absolving him in the shooting was released. In his resignation letter, he maintained the shooting was in self-defense, the radio station WNPR reported at the time.

Read more from the original source:
Father of CT teen killed by police files wrongful death lawsuit - CTPost

HELENA Senator Ken Bogner, R-Miles City, today introduced a bill that would submit a constitutional amendment to the voters of Montana to protect the privacy of their electronic data and communications.

Article II, Section 11 of the Montana State Constitution already protects Montanans persons, papers, homes, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, similar to the Fourth Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution.

Senate Bill 203 would add Montanans electronic data and communications to that list of places and items that cannot be searched or seized by the government without a warrant based on probable cause.

Senate Bill 203 is about updating Montanas Constitution to reflect life in the 21st Century and make it explicitly clear that our digital information is protected from unreasonable government searches and seizures, Bogner said. Today, so much of our private livesfinancial information, communication with family and friends, medical information, and much, much moreis contained on and transferred electronically among many devices and computer systems. The government should need a warrant before accessing or gathering Montanans electronic data or communications.

I am proud to watch Montana continue to expand the privacy rights of our citizens. Our nations leaders in Washington, D.C., could learn a lesson or two from the Montana Legislature on how to work across the aisle and stand up to unchecked government surveillance, said former state Rep. Daniel Zolnikov, who became known for his work on protect digital privacy during his time in the Legislature. Montana continues to find a better balance between using our digital technologies and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights.

Montanans are overwhelmingly concerned about the privacy of their personal information and they want more protections from mass government surveillance. Lawmakers ought to listen to them, said Kendall Cotton, President and CEO of the Frontier Institute, a Montana-based think tank. Updating Montanas Constitution with expanded privacy protections will send a strong message that state government is making our rights a priority.

Digital devices are the modern equivalent of your home and should be treated with the same respect. Digital rights are just as important as physical rights; we just need to update the law to account for this, said Eric Fulton, a fellow with the Frontier of Privacy initiative by the Frontier Institute. Tech companies are exploiting everyday citizens because the Founders didnt foresee the digital era. Its time to update the law to match their intent. The Montana Constitution protects your privacy in your home. It should protect your digital home as well.

Go here to see the original:
Proposed constitutional amendment will protect Montanan's privacy in the digital age - Sidney Herald Leader

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