Mediaboss Marketing

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Lucy McBath is afraid many more people will die if Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs a bill making it harder to prosecute when people claim they commit violence in self-defense.

She already lost her son, an unarmed black teenager, when a white man angry over loud music and claiming self-defense fired 10 times at an SUV filled with teenagers.

The measure before Scott would effectively require a trial-before-a-trial whenever someone invokes self-defense, making prosecutors prove the suspect doesnt deserve immunity.

Scott hasnt revealed his intentions, but hes a National Rifle Association supporter, and this is an NRA priority.

If it passes in Florida, then they take that same legislation and they push it on the legislative floors across the country, McBath said. Her 17-year-old son Jordan Davis was killed by Michael Dunn outside a Jacksonville convenience store in 2012.

Many states have long invoked the castle doctrine, allowing people to use even deadly force to defend themselves in their own homes.

Florida changed that in 2005, so that even outside a home, a person has no duty to retreat and can stand his or her ground anywhere they are legally allowed to be. Other states followed suit, and stand your ground defenses became much more common in pre-trial immunity hearings and during trials.

The 2012 killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman opened a debate about the limits of self-defense, and it hasnt let up since Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder after jurors received instructions on Floridas stand your ground law.

Florida Republicans made this bill a priority after the state Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the defendant has the burden of proof before trial. If Florida starts a national trend to shift that burden to prosecutors, itll be just fine with Republican Rep. Bobby Payne, who sponsored the bill.

Only four of the 22 or more state stand your ground laws mention this burden of proof in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia and South Carolina and all place it on defendants.

Its about following our right of innocent until proven guilty, Payne said. Its about Fifth Amendment rights, its about due process, its about having a true immunity, for when folks really believe theyre in imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, to defend themselves properly.

Senators originally wanted prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before trial that self-defense didnt justify a violent crime. The final legislation lowered the threshold to clear and convincing evidence.

Either way, it makes prosecuting violent crimes more difficult, experts say.

I think there will be more false stand your ground claims, said former Broward County prosecutor Gregg Rossman, who has tried 65 murder cases. The pre-trial hearings are very much going to be like a mini-trial.

Proving a killer didnt act in self-defense when there are no living witnesses would be particularly hard, he said: I worry the most about the one-on-one cases. You and I get into an argument and I shoot you. Who speaks for you?

But public defenders say it should help people who were simply trying to defend themselves. Prosecutors often use the threat of minimum mandatory sentences to coerce people into accepting a plea deal even if their use of force was justified, said Stacy Scott, a public defender in Gainesville.

Its going to force them to deal more fairly with citizens who are charged with crimes, and will help our clients either get better plea offers or exonerate themselves earlier in the process so they dont have to wait until a jury trial and risk everything they have in order to litigate their case, Scott said.

McBath, who lives in Marietta, Georgia, believes the guilty will more likely escape convictions. It took two trials to convict her sons killer of murder.

Were just one out of so many, she said. Because we won our case, I honestly, honestly believe thats the reason why theyre putting these additional measures into stand your ground.

http://press-leader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/web1_Capitol-cartoon-4.jpeg

.

Link:
Florida could pave new changes in 'stand your ground' laws - Press-leader

In an opinion that seems carefully crafted to achieve unanimity rather than break new ground, the court yesterdayunsurprisingly and unanimously rejected the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuits Fourth Amendment provocation rule while leaving the specific facts open for further analysis on remand. Justice Samuel Alito authored a crisp 11-page opinion, without dissent, for an eight-justice court (Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate) that is rightfully weary of 4-4 tie possibilities. Alitos opinion hewed closely to the excessive force precedent of Graham v. Connor and avoided points that had provoked strong disagreement at oral argument and in the briefs. As a result, the opinion masks more issues than it resolves. All we know, after reading this opinion, is this: When law enforcement uses force that is judged reasonable based on circumstances relevant to that determination, then a different Fourth Amendment violation cannot transform [that] reasonable use of force into an unreasonable seizure.

Sympathetic facts and three distinct Fourth Amendment claims

As detailed in my prior summary, two deputy sheriffs, searching for a felon, entered a shack where they had been told a homeless couple lived, without a search warrant and without knocking or announcing their presence or identity. Angel Mendez and his then-girlfriend were resting inside. When he heard someone entering, Mendez picked up a BB gun to move it in order to stand up. The deputies saw what they reasonably viewed as a weapon pointed in their direction, and immediately opened fire, severely injuring the woman and Mendez (whose lower leg was amputated as a result).

The Mendezes (now married) pursued three distinct Fourth Amendment claims in their federal lawsuit against the deputies and Los Angeles County: the failure to get a search warrant, the failure to knock and announce, and excessive force. No one has disputed that, at the moment of the shooting, the deputies acted reasonably in shooting to protect themselves. But as Alito notes, the district court did not end its excessive force analysis at this point. Instead, the court awarded damages based on why the shooting took place, noting that were it not for the failure to get a warrant and to knock and announce both constitutional violations Mendez would not have been startled or picked up his gun.

In so ruling, the district court applied the 9th Circuits provocation rule, which as described by Alito permits an excessive force claim where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed this application of its doctrine. The appeals court held that entering the residence without a warrant violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law. But the court ruled that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity for the knock-and-announce violation, because it was not clearly established in this context: Other officers had in fact knocked and announced at the front door of the main house. Still, because the deputies unconstitutional warrantless entry had recklessly provoked the otherwise reasonable shooting, the court of appeals affirmed the damages award.

As an alternative rationale, the appeals court said that basic notions of proximate cause also supported the damages award, regardless of the provocation rule, because it was reasonably foreseeable that the officers would meet an armed homeowner when they barged into the shack unannounced. But, as the Supreme Court noted in remanding on this alternative theory, by relying on the unannounced nature of the entry, the court of appeals appeared to focus on the same knock-and-announce violation for which it had already ruled that the officers should receive immunity.

The court rejects the provocation rule as an unwarranted and illogical expansion of Graham

When law enforcement officers use force to effect a search or seizure, the Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness. A law-enforcement entry, an arrest, and even a shooting (a seizure) are Fourth Amendment events governed by this timeless yet amorphous constitutional standard. Claims of unreasonable force by law enforcement in such circumstances are characterized as excessive force, and can lead to constitutional tort damage awards for violating the Fourth Amendment, unless qualified immunity intervenes to protect the law-enforcement officers from liability.

As the court pointedly noted yesterday, The framework for analyzing excessive force claims is set out in Graham v. Connor. In Graham, Alito emphasized, the court held that the operative question in excessive force cases is whether the totality of circumstances justifies a particular search or seizure, paying careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

No one can argue with this account of settled law because, of course, it is so general that it answers no specific questions. The trick how such general legal principles are applied to the specific facts of each case.

It is in this application that the 9th Circuit erred, said the court as it overturned the provocation rule. [T]he objective reasonableness analysis, the court explained, must be conducted separately for each search or seizure. In the courts view, the fundamental flaw of the provocation rule is that it uses a separate and independent constitutional violation to manufacture an excessive force claim where one would not otherwise exist. When viewed from the deputies perspectives at the time they confronted a weapon pointed at them, the shooting in this case was not unreasonable. By asking a court to look back in time to see if there was a different Fourth Amendment violation that is somehow tied to the eventual use of force, the Supreme Court reasoned, the 9th Circuits novel and unsupported rule conflates distinct Fourth Amendment claims.

A key footnote necessary to avoid a 4-4 tie?

If you followed the courts opinion to this point, you might think that the it would conclude by holding that Mendez cannot recover damages in this case. But that is not what the opinion says at all. Instead, a single footnote appears in the opinion, marked with an * rather than a number. One can speculate that this footnote was first suggested by someone other than the opinions author a justice who threatened otherwise to dissent. Even more likely, four justices may have asked for this footnote as a condition for joining, thereby threatening a 4-4 affirmance of the judgment below and continuation of the provocation rule. That was surely an outcome Alito and other justices wanted to avoid. Thus footnote * is the key to this opinion. Here is what it says:

Graham commands that an officers use of force be assessed for reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. On respondents view, that means taking into account unreasonable police conduct prior to the use of force that foreseeably created the need to use it. We did not grant certiorari on that question . All we hold today is that once a use of force is deemed reasonable under Graham, it may not be found unreasonable by reference to some separate constitutional violation.

Thus and this seems surprising given the tone of the opinion up to this point the court did not rule that the Mendezes cannot recover on the facts of their case. All the court held was that the theory of the provocation rule that one constitutional violation can somehow render a different, separate and distinct, reasonable seizure unconstitutional is rejected. This holding does not mean or at least it does not appear to mean that persons injured by law enforcements use of force cannot recover for injuries proximately caused by a Fourth Amendment violation committed before the moment of a shooting. Indeed, a key phrase from Graham at the moment on which the petitioners had relied, was pointedly not mentioned anywhere in this opinion.

In light of footnote *, yesterdays opinion seems uneventful. As with all good proximate cause tort hypotheticals, the outcome will depend on the facts. This is nothing new, given that the Framers made the word unreasonable the fulcrum of the Fourth Amendment in 1790.

Conclusion

In a concluding paragraph that I imagine was also worked on by more than one justice, the court appeared to endorse the objective Alito also called it a notion that it is important to hold law enforcement officers liable for the foreseeable consequences of all their constitutional torts. This seems like a healthy recognition in light of contemporary concerns regarding police shootings. Indeed, said the court, both parties and, it appears, the unanimous court accept the principle that plaintiffs can subject to qualified immunity generally recover damages that are proximately caused by any Fourth Amendment violation. This phrasing may satisfy the justices offended by this particular shooting and favoring recovery by persons like the Mendezes severely injured by law enforcement although they had nothing to do with the event, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor said at oral argument. In deference to those justices, the court remanded the case for the lower courts to revisit the proximate cause question. (In a somewhat unusual move, the court pointed to specific pages of the briefing as a useful starting point for the remand.) Meanwhile, the 9th Circuits general provocation rule is dead, as Alito had suggested it should be two years ago in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan and, indeed, years earlier as a judge on the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

Thus the court preserved the logic of its precedents, while not endorsing the law-enforcement shooting of two innocent people. It would be encouraging if this opinion set a new standard for the newly reconstituted court: finding ways to rule unanimously while reaching fair results.

Click for vote alignment by ideology.

Posted in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, Analysis, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Rory Little, Opinion analysis: Finding Fourth Amendment unanimity while allowing Fourth Amendment justice, SCOTUSblog (May. 31, 2017, 11:55 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/05/opinion-analysis-finding-fourth-amendment-unanimity-allowing-fourth-amendment-justice/

View original post here:
Opinion analysis: Finding Fourth Amendment unanimity while allowing Fourth Amendment justice - SCOTUSblog (blog)

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The Fourth Amendments barriers to unreasonable searches and seizures dont get the attention the First Amendment does, but theyre at least as important as a guarantee of liberty. And during his White House years Barack Obama vandalized the Fourth Amendment. His glittering words blinded the media to his unprecedented assault on the right to be let alonethe most cherished right among civilized people.

The American Revolution was ignited by British invasions of the right to privacy. James Otis protested British Writs of Assistance that empowered every petty official to rummage through colonial businesses and homes on a hope and a prayer that smuggled goods or other incriminating evidence of wrongdoing might be discovered:

Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.

William Pitt the Elder, speaking to the British Parliament, captured the heart and soul of what came to be ratified as the Fourth Amendment:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.

The Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy from government surveillance, and in Olmstead v. United States (1928), Justice Brandeis (dissenting) said that, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The government cannot invade a persons privacy without documenting a particularized and urgent criminal justice or foreign intelligence need to a neutral and impartial magistrate. The prohibition does not bend even in cases of homicide or international terrorism where its shield might enable serious wrongful conduct to escape detection. Our Constitution is anchored to the high principle that it is better to risk being the victim of injustice than to risk being complicit in it.

That is, until now. President Obamas dragnet collection of internet and phone metadata on every American citizen obliterated the Fourth Amendments privacy fortress. Without getting a court warrant, Mr. Obamas National Security Agencys Stellar Wind program indiscriminately collected internet metadata, i.e., the accounts to which Americans sent and from which they received emails. The metadata detailed the internet protocol (IP) addresses used by people inside the United States when sending emails. Julian Sanchez of the CATO Institute explained the magnitude of the invasion of privacy:

The calls you make can reveal a lot, but now that so much of our lives are mediated by the internet, your IP logs are really a real-time map of your brain: what are you reading about, what are you curious about, what personal ad are you responding to (with a dedicated email linked to that specific ad), what online discussions are you participating in, and how often?Seeing your IP logs and especially feeding them through sophisticated analytic tools is a way of getting inside your head thats in many ways on par with reading your diary.

President Obama also collected metadata on every phone call made by Americans, under a tortured interpretation of section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. Among other things, the telephony metadata included the time, duration, number called, and routing information of every phone communication in the United States. The database would enable the government to create a personal profile of citizen. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found a high probability that the dragnet collection of telephony metadata violated the Fourth Amendment in Klayman v. Obama.

I cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion [of privacy] than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for the purpose of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely, such a program infringes on that degree of privacy that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power, would be aghast.

President Obamas own Privacy and Civil Liberties Board similarly found Steller Wind unauthorized by section 215 the USA Patriot Act. It amplified that it could not find a single instance in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a terrorism investigation[and added]we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also concluded that Stellar Wind was illegal in ACLU v. Clapper.

President Obamas presidency was unprecedented in its scorched earth tactics against the Fourth Amendment. And were only now beginning to find out how he weaponized this information against political enemies.

Read the rest here:
Obama vandalized Fourth Amendment - Washington Times

It must be tough to be a dinosaur pop media editor nowadays. All these Plebians who watch alternative news sites keep clamoring for real information, while youre trying to focus on other things.

Seriously, how can the great unwashed not see that Donald Trumps body language while walking beside a foreign dignitary is much more important than the publication by Wikileaks, Sinclair Broadcast Group, and Circa News that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court issued a secret ruling on April 26 lambasting the Obama-era National Security Agency for conducting illegal surveillance on Americans?Pop media editors must be flummoxed trying to suss out why folks in this modern era of news gathering keep trying to find out about how the federal government was spying on many of them without even obtaining the usual rubber-stamp warrants that the FISA Court hands out like candy during Trick Or Treat.

In fact, despite the dinosaur media editors stepping around it, this revelation about the FISA Court and the NSA is a major story, and sheds considerable light on just how perfidious the NSA under James Clapper has been --and how, even after the revelations of Edward Snowden about the NSA spying on Americans, the agency continued to do so.

It also serves as an opportunity to remind oneself about the FISA Court itself, and how, despite the leak of this document, the court is, in essence,sanctioned only by a 1978 law, and not by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

First, the revelation.

As Tim Johnson reports for the Miami Herald, one of the few old guard news sources to give this more than a fleeting mention:

The document, signed by (FISA Court) Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, said the court had learned in a notice filed Oct. 26, 2016, that National Security Agency analysts had been conducting prohibited queries of databases with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the court. It said a judge chastised the NSAs inspector general and Office of Compliance for Operations for an institutional lack of candor for failing to inform the court. It described the matter as a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.

Thats putting it mildly.

Lets underline a few points about this notice." First, it was 99 pages long. Second, it revealed that the NSA was not even bothering to get FISA Warrants when conducting surveillance against Americans.

As nice as it is that the FISA judge sent this notice to the NSA, the only reason we, the people on whom the NSA could be spying, know about it is because it was leaked.

This reveals a great deal about the persistentactions of the NSA under its former leader, James Clapper, a man who, when asked in 2013 Senate testimony whether the NSA was spying on Americans, said, No."

The NSA spying on Americans is contrary to the Fourth Amendment in 2013, andit continued to do so without asking for the so-called FISA Warrants required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This, all being done by an administration whose Chief Executive claimed it was the most transparent ever.

The FISA revelation is another tiny hint that maybe, just maybe, Mr. Obama was not being truthful.

And lest we forget, this secret message, as damning as it is, comes from a court that is not really a court as the Founders envisioned it.

The FISA Court was created after the Church Hearings in Congress pursued the valid allegations that U.S. government agencies (FBI, CIA, etc) were spying on Americans, especially counter-culture figures like Martin Luther King and anti-war activists during the Vietnam Conflict. Large portions of the American public were justifiably upset about the problem, and, in classic government fashion, the politicians called their show trials, performed their kabuki theatre, and came out of it with the answer: Since the spying was against the law, they decided to write a new law to essentially make it legal while telling people they were fixing the problem.

Thus was born the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, thanks mainly to the ever-trustworthy Sen.Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts. The Act purported to protect Americans from surveillance by giving the federal government a power it didnt have according to the Constitution:the power to spy on foreigners. And, ifan American was on the other end of the conversation,to spy on that American.

All the U.S. spy agencies had to do was ask for a warrant from the newly created secret court called the FISA Court, and everything would be hunky dory.

The fact that the Fourth Amendment applies to any spying, regardless of whether it is being done to Americans or foreigners, and it requires real warrants, from real judges, public warrants in the common law tradition going back centuries? The fact that each person to be searched and each item sought had to be mentioned in this public warrant? Not part of the deal.

The FISA law essentially rewrote the Fourth Amendment, making it whatever the FISA Court wanted when it came to surveillance.

The fact that a FISA judge sent a classified message to the Executive Branch saying the NSA wasnt complying to the 1978 law is nice to know, but the entire system is unjustified based on the original intent of the people who wrote their rulebook, called the U.S. Constitution.

But it gets worse.

In fact, while the ObamaNSA continued to spy on people -- even justifying the expansion of that spying by seeing names that were merely mentioned in e-mails of people on whom they were spying, and then spying on those people it has been revealed in declassified documents that the James Comey-led FBI illegally shared surveillance data on people with third parties.

All of this is getting little press in the mainstream media, but it does not mean the issues are unimportant or will go away.

It seems the mainstream just wants us to feel good that the Obama administration was so transparent.

Heck, his gang was almost as transparent as your own private communications may have been to them.

Read more:
Bombshell Doc Reveals Massive Breaches of 4th Amendment By Obama NSA, FBI - MRCTV (blog)

"I have reviewed the declaration of Michael V. Hayden dated March 8, 2017," Drake's statement said. "As a result of personal knowledge I gained as a long-time contractor and then senior executive (1989-2008) of the NSA, I know the statements made by Hayden in that declaration are false or, if not literally false, substantially misleading."

Drake's statement was provided to the U.S. Department of Justice this week, as part of discovery, by attorney Rocky Anderson the Salt Lake City mayor at the time of the 2002 Olympics who represents plaintiffs Mary Josephine Valdez, Howard Stephenson, Deeda Seed, Will Bagley and Thomas Nelson Huckin.

In January, Judge Robert Shelby rejected an attempt by the Department of Justice to dismiss the case.

The NSA has the capability to seize and store electronic communications passing through U.S. intercept centers, according to a statement from Drake.

After Sept. 11, 2001, "the NSA's new approach was that the president had the authority to override the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Bill of Rights, and the NSA worked under the authority of the president," Drake said. "The new mantra to intercepting intelligence was 'just get it' regardless of the law."

Additional information on NSA's intelligence gathering came to light in 2013 when Edward Snowden revealed to Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian, the scope of U.S. and British global surveillance programs.

One of the documents Snowden purloined spoke to the 2002 operation, where the NSA sought detailed records without warrants from telecom communications systems in Utah, including Qwest Communications.

The document, labeled "Top Secret," has several entries, including this one: "In early 2002, NSA personnel met with senior vice president of government systems and other employees from Company E [later identified as Qwest]. Under authority of the President's Surveillance Program (PSP), NSA asked Company E to provide call records in support of security for the Olympics in Salt Lake City... On 19 February 2002, Company E submitted a written proposal that discussed methods it could use to regularly replicate call record information stored in a Company E facility and potentially froward the same information to NSA ... "

In 2011 the NSA completed the $1.2 billion digital storage faci`lity called the Utah Data Center in Bluffdale.

In a 2012 lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, two former highly-placed NSA employees said the agency was not filtering personal electronic data but was storing everything it collected.

"The capacity of NSA's infrastructure far exceeds the capacity necessary for the storage of discreet, targeted communications," said William Binney. "The capacity of NSA's infrastructure is consistent, as a mathematical matter, with seizing both the routing information and the contents of all communications."

In the same case, J. Kirk Wiebe, who worked as a senior analyst at the NSA from 1975 to 2001, concurred with Binney and Drake.

"I agree with Mr. Drake's assessment that everything changed at the NSA after the attacks of September 11. The prior approach focused on complying with the Foreign Intelligence Act (FISA)," he stated. "The post-September 11 approach was that NSA could circumvent federal statutes and the Constitution as long as there was some visceral connection to looking for terrorists."

By contrast, in the Utah case, current NSA Director of Operations Wayne Murphy, like Hayden, rejected allegations of an NSA "blanket" surveillance program during the 2002 Winter Olympics. He noted, however, that NSA collection of communications did and does continue to exist but is "targeted at one-end foreign communications where a communicant was reasonably believed to be a member or agent of Al-Qaeda or another international terrorist organization."

Anderson called the NSA's surveillance programs "Orwellian."

Read the original post:
NSA conducted blanket surveillance of Salt Lakers during 2002 ... - Salt Lake Tribune