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

Now it's Biden's turn, and so far his administration is signaling that judicial nominations will be a major priority and that Democrats may even tear pages from Trump's playbook on the issue.

There are 60 current eligible vacancies and 20 vacancies that will occur down the road as judges have formally announced their intentions to retire, take senior status or resign, according to the Administrative Office of the US Courts.

Biden has vowed to appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, and even before his inauguration his transition team sent a letter to Democratic senators seeking recommendations for district court vacancies that might arise.

There is also an effort afoot to speed up the confirmation process by no longer allowing the American Bar Association to vet judicial candidates before they are nominated.

Some progressives, however, have legitimate concerns regarding whether the White House and the Senate will maintain the discipline and stamina necessary over the coming weeks and months to keep judges a priority as attention shifts to other areas.

They still remember that President Barack Obama came up short when faced with a similar opportunity early in his presidency, and they believe he squandered an opportunity to focus on the courts.

Chris Kang, chief counsel for the progressive group Demand Justice, believes things will be different now.

"President Biden's approach to judicial nominations is going to put the nail in the coffin of the conventional wisdom that Democrats don't care enough about the court," he said in an interview.

Pending vacancies

As things stand, since Biden's inauguration, judges sitting on powerful courts have already announced plans to go into senior status, giving the new President the chance to replace them with younger nominees.

Since Biden's inauguration there have been five announced vacancies on the appeals courts as well as a handful on district courts, and more are expected

Judge Robert A. Katzmann, for example, who penned an opinion that would have allowed Trump's tax records to go to a New York prosecutor, has announced plans to take senior status on the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Another notable vacancy will come up once Judge Merrick Garland of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is confirmed as Biden's attorney general. Democrats haven't forgotten that Garland, nominated by Obama early in 2016 to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was denied a hearing by Senate Republicans, who simply sat on the nomination until the presidential election was over.

The DC Circuit is considered a breeding ground for Supreme Court nominees and served as a steppingstone for Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia and Brett Kavanaugh.

High on the list of potential contenders is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who sits on the US District Court for the District of Columbia. She is a former Breyer clerk who also served as a public defender. California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger is a potential nominee for Breyer's seat if he were to step down.

In addition, in the coming weeks, Biden is set to reveal the membership for a bipartisan commission that will take a look at revisions to the Supreme Court, including the potential of term limits and adding more seats to the bench.

How Trump and Senate Republicans transformed the courts

Under Trump, a careful troika composed of White House Counsel Don McGahn, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley worked immediately and almost seamlessly to change the face of the courts.

Democrats were livid and accused the Republicans at times of ignoring the rules in order to bulldoze the process, but with Republicans in the Senate majority all four years of the Trump presidency, the Democrats were unable to stop all but a handful of nominations.

The Republicans ran a closely held vetting operation, eased long-standing institutional norms and, perhaps most importantly, maintained forward momentum, avoiding distraction, as other issues blew up around the presidency.

The process -- no easy feat straddling three branches -- required discipline and outside backing. Under Trump, the conservative Federalist Society and later a group called The Article III Project were supportive of Trump's nominees.

"President Trump's biggest and most consequential accomplishment was his transformation of the federal judiciary, including his solidification of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and his appointment of a near-record 54 circuit judges to the critically important federal courts of appeals," said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. "These lifetime appointments will provide an important constitutional check on government overreach by the Biden administration."

In the early Obama years, outside groups often disagreed on potential nominees and the political branches lacked a laser-like focus necessary to accompany a nominee to confirmation.

During the lead-up to the 2016 election, Trump made the Supreme Court and lower courts a campaign issue. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton rarely brought it up and some liberals squabbled over whether Garland should remain the Democratic pick.

After Trump won, Democrats found themselves helpless as they fought the onslaught of nomination hearings. They were largely sidelined as Justice Neil Gorsuch got the seat once offered to Garland, Kavanaugh won confirmation after perhaps the most ferocious nomination fight in history and conservatives rushed to fill the seat of the liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg with the conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Ginsburg died some four months short of Biden's inauguration.

The Supreme Court now has a solid 6-3 conservative majority that could last for decades as issues such as abortion, immigration, affirmative action, religious liberty, voting rights and the Second Amendment reach the high court.

A final wake-up call for progressives came at the end of Barrett's confirmation hearing in October, when Democrats, still furious that Republicans had rushed deadlines in the run-up to the election, witnessed Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, hug Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, and praise him for his efforts during the hearings.

Then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said he had had a "long and serious" talk with Feinstein. Progressives felt betrayed, and it wasn't long after that Feinstein announced she would step down as top Democrat on the committee.

The Democratic team

Now that Biden is in office, there's a new troika in town. White House Counsel Dana Remus, Schumer -- now the majority leader -- and Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, are in place.

Brian Fallon, who runs Demand Justice, launched in 2018, is determined to keep the pressure on from outside of government. His group wants Biden's team to move away from recent models and nominate a diverse group of individuals including public defenders, civil rights lawyers and legal aid attorneys.

"They are upending the model of lawyers that Democratic presidents will consider for the judiciary. Prosecutors and corporate lawyers are out; civil rights lawyers, public defenders and labor lawyers are in," he said.

According to a Democratic aide on Capitol Hill, Durbin will follow the same rules that the Republicans did when the committee was led by Grassley and Graham. They expect to hold hearings at a regular clip and to put forward multiple nominees on any given hearing panel. There will be an emphasis on diversity but also, following Trump, they will look for young nominees who could serve for decades.

Although some questioned whether Congress will prioritize Justice Department nominees over judges, the aide dismissed the concern.

"There is time and there is precedent for moving DOJ nominees alongside of judicial nominees," the aide said.

"I have every reason to believe that the nominees you will see from this White House will be eminently qualified, which was not always true for nominees you saw put forward by Trump," the person added.

Momentum will also come from other quarters of the White House, starting most obviously with a President and vice president who both spent time serving on the Judiciary Committee, with Biden as its former chairman.

Klain is a veteran of countless confirmation hearings and a former clerk of Justice Byron White. Paige Herwig, a former top aide to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch as well as a veteran of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Demand Justice, will serve as the nominations counsel and will receive help from Tona Boyd, Sen. Cory Booker's former chief counsel.

As Biden concentrates on nominations, he will find that his policies and initiatives, like the immigration action temporarily struck by Judge Tipton, will land in the courts.

And while Trump's nominees did not always vote in his favor, a fact that was made clear as he fought to overturn the election, by and large his nominees will share a conservative legal outlook.

Chief Justice John Roberts may have famously tried to distance the judiciary from Trump's attacks when he reprimanded the then-President in 2018 by saying that "we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges."

But the reality is there are Obama, Trump and Biden nominees.

And now, with a new cascade of judicial retirements and an expected avalanche of new executive orders, the judges will make a difference.

View post:
Biden and Democrats prepare to act fast on judges, having learned lesson from Trump - CNN