Mediaboss Marketing

FT. WAYNE, Ind.Ft. Wayne and the Allen County Sheriffs Dept. are being sued by protesters and by the ACLU for the use of tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray during protests.

The ACLU calls them chemical weapons, and accuses the police of pulling protesters out of private businesses where they were seeking shelter from the gas, and of keeping people from leaving the Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge, where they were protesting, before deploying tear gas.

The lawsuit is similar to the one filed against the City of Indianapolis last week, and other lawsuits around the country.

The statement from the ACLU talks about police actions against lawful protesters, but does not address measures taken against people who may have been rioting or damaging businesses.

But, Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, said last week that he believes Fourth Amendment protections keep police from being able to use what he called unreasonable force against protesters and rioters alike.

According to the ACLU of Indiana complaint, on May 29, protesters marched to the nearby Martin Luther King Bridge where police blocked protesters from leaving the bridge in either direction, and then shot tear gas canisters at them. FWPD and members of the Sheriffs Department have used force to prevent peaceful protesters from gathering on the Courthouse Green and in other public places in Fort Wayne, read the news release.

The release mentions the Ft. Wayne Police Dept., but does not say the police department is a defendant.

Police must not respond to protesters speaking out against police brutality with yet more brutality. We will not let these violent attacks on our constitutional rights go unchecked, said Ken Falk, legal director at the ACLU of Indiana. Excessive use of force against protesters chills free speech, and widens the rift of distrust between communities and the police that are sworn to serve them.

See more here:
Fort Wayne, Allen County Sheriff's Department sued by ACLU for using tear gas on protesters - 953mnc.com

By Terrence Alladin

In the past weeks, probable cause has lost all meaning.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While the Constitution does protect against arbitrary arrest, it does not specifically define what is meant by probable cause.

That definition comes from the Supreme Court ruling Brinegar v. United Stateswhich states, Where the facts and circumstances within the officers knowledge, and which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.

Further, Blacks Law Dictionary defines probable cause as as the facts and evidence that lead many to believe that the accused committed a crime. It only provides grounds to allege the commission of a crime and thus the accused can be arrested.

In sum, probable cause to make an arrest exists when an officer has knowledge of such facts as would lead a person to believe that a person has committed, is committing, or about to commit a crime. Any person, regardless of socio-economic status, profession, political affiliation, race, gender, religion or other characteristic, can be arrested when law enforcement has reason to believe the person was involved in the commission of a crime.

These are the hard lessons Ive had to teach my son about being Black in America | Opinion

The next question then is: What is a crime?

A crime is any act or omission that violates a public law and can result in punishment. Depending on the act or omission, a person can be committing a federal, state or local crime.

Nowhere in the Constitution or any other document laying out the proceedings for arrest in the event of probable cause does it specify that law enforcement officers themselves are exempt from these proceedings.

Law enforcement in some states are beginning to understand this reality and are acting upon it. The officers involved in the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May were all finally arrested earlier this month. The officer who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks has beencharged with murder.

Officer Derek Chauvin had already restrained Floyd, and was therefore not acting within the constraints of the City of Minneapolis Police Department Manual section 5-311, which permits neck restraints only when the officer is trying to get control of an individual who is actively resisting or exhibiting active aggression towards the officer.

Senate panel unanimously passes ban on police chokeholds

As such, kneeling on the neck of a person who is already restrained, in excess of eight minutes, is without debate a crime. Moreover, it was not only an unlawful act, but it was a particularly brutal act that saw Floyd begging and pleading for assistance until his final breath.

Officer Garret Rolfe, who hassurrendered to face charges in Brooks death, appears to have violated Atlanta Police Department policy regarding the use of deadly force.

His actions also fail to comport with the Supreme Courts findings inTennessee v. Garneras to when an officer may appropriately use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.

A reasonable person reviewing these facts is left to believe that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back that presents no lethal threat to the officer or the public is not only an unreasonable use of force but, more importantly, a crime.

But it took days and weeks for charges to be brought and arrests to be made in the killings of both Floyd and Brooks. Police officers are treated differently by prosecutors as a result of their occupation.

Everyday citizens, on the other hand, are arrested and charged for crimes based on probable cause. Some of those arrested and charged are found innocent, charges are dropped and others are convicted. Some are killed before they can stand trial.

There should be no difference in the application of probable cause as a result of a persons socio-economic status, profession, political affiliation, race, gender, religion or other characteristic. Equality and fairness in the criminal justice system cannot be achieved if laws are not applied equally to those charged with enforcing them.

Terrence Alladin is an assistant professor of criminal justice at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pa.

Read the original here:
Equal protection under the law means treating bad cops like any other criminal | Opinion - Pennsylvania Capital-Star

Burke County Sheriff Alfonzo Williams explains his position in the Rayshard Brooks shooting.

It is not difficult to determine right and wrong. It is colorless. The law must in all cases remain constant to seek that which is right, just, fair and equitable.

Doing the right thing is not always easy.

When I was asked by the Augusta Chronicle whether the recent law enforcement shooting of Rayshard Brooks was justified, I undoubtedly said the actions of the Atlanta Police Department were supported by the facts, law, and proper procedures.

Period.

In any court of law, credentials are required prior to the introduction of expert opinion. My professional law enforcement opinion is supported by: (1) 30 years of law enforcement experience; (2) two masters degrees; (3) service as a district attorney investigator; (4) eight years as a violent crimes investigator; (5) serving as a chief of police for a municipal and a public school agency; (6) directorship of a police academy; (7) 15 years as a criminal justice adjunct instructor at a community college; and (8) serving as an elected county sheriff.

My determination that the Brooks shooting was justified is scientific, one based on expertise, provable law and extensive standardized practices.

Constitutionally, the lawful of use of use of force is grounded in the Fourth Amendment. Graham vs. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) established what is commonly referred to the "objective reasonable standard" by which all peace officers across the country are governed. If the officer did as any other would have done on the scene when making a split-second judgment under tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving circumstances, the force is reasonable.

This is an objective standard; 20/20 hindsight is not a factor.

Georgia statutory law, O.C.G.A. 17-4-20, tells us a peace officer may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect: (1) possesses a deadly weapon; (2) poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or (3) has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

This was the methodology I followed. Thoroughly sifting through the video footage in an agenda-free, scientific manner led to a clear conclusion the shooting was justified. There is simply no way to credibly support prosecution here.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

To remain completely silent at a time such as this would fail Dr. King. It would place officers around this country in harms way while they protect innocent civilians.

Just imagine your unsuspecting wife, who had left home to go to the convenience store just across from the Wendys for a gallon of milk, is suddenly approached by a fleeing suspect in possession of an officers weapon, and he kidnaps her and demands she get him out of the area to avoid capture.

Or imagine getting a call at 2 a.m. to learn a loved one has been killed by a drunk driver later discovered to be Brooks.

Or a newlywed with child anxiously awaiting her husbands arrival at the end of his shift, met at the door by a somber-faced lieutenant and chaplain explaining her husband did not survive a deadly-force encounter.

To remain silent invites mayhem on the streets. In the Brooks case, silence sends a message it is permissible or perhaps even encouraged to drive drunk, disobey lawful commands, attack law enforcement, disarm uniformed police, flee after a felonious assault and turn back toward the officers firing a weapon, endangering countless others in a public location. Muteness suggests no one using force against an officer should expect to be met with a similar or higher level of force.

Public safety suffering in the name of convenient politics should be condemned and denounced.

Always.

This is not to say force is always called for, reasonable, or legal. The George Floyd case in Minnesota was appalling and quite despicable. And I have said so. When the Amaud Arbery shooting came to light, I expressed outrage over the homicide and appreciation toward the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for moving so quickly to arrest.

Improvements in policing are needed across the country; Georgia is no exception. To this point, on June 2 prior to the Brooks case I wrote Gov. Brian Kemp to detail needed reforms, including:

Requiring four-year degrees for every law enforcement officer.

Mandate every police agency follow proven certification standards in the same way that we do teachers, doctors, nurses and cosmetologists.

Call on state and federal lawmakers to create legislation with minimal standards for law enforcement agencies.

Create a federal retirement system for law enforcement officers in order to recruit, hire, retain and further train the most qualified candidates.

Require officers undergo an extensive background check similar to military top security clearances complete with psychological assessments.

Make law enforcement reform a priority, akin to the efforts devoted to international and domestic terrorism.

The letter stressed we should move swiftly to employ these principles, and that I would offer to be of service.

It is utterly shameful that some who are in positions to speak out about injustices remain silent. While many fellow law enforcement leaders across the country joined together to denounce the unjustified killings of Arbery and Floyd, few have done similarly with the justified use of force in the Brooks case. The same goes for the gunning down by police of a six-year-old autistic child in Louisiana, the 41 people shot and six murdered in a single day in Chicago, or the law enforcement officers killed and wounded in recent riots. Law enforcement voices should sound off against these injustices too.

Law enforcement and the public we serve would all be in a much better place if police officials put the truth above political convenience. Professionalizing ourselves should be constant priority, rather than waiting on yet another movement to dictate some calculated reaction!

There is nothing to be learned from the second kick of a mule.

We can all do better.

It begins and ends with the truth and willingness to speak it.

The writer is sheriff of Burke County, Ga. He recently won reelection with more than 80% of the popular vote.

Read the original:
Guest Column: Why the Rayshard Brooks shooting was justified - The Augusta Chronicle

Body cameras captured a Black Washington State University student facedown on the blacktop in February 2019. David Bingham called for a police officers help moments after hed been pepper-sprayed, shocked with a Taser and handcuffed.

Sometimes police only get seconds to think, Pullman Police Chief Gary Jenkins said.

In this case, two and half seconds passed between Officer Alex Gordon yelling Stop, police! and pepper spray being fired into Binghams eyes.

Gordon had arrived outside a Pullman bar to find the 21-year-old Bingham in a fistfight with another Black WSU student, George Harris. As Gordon approached, he said the fight appeared to be mutual, making it legal under state law, but in violation of city code.

Bingham punched Harris from on top. Gordon pepper-sprayed Binghams face, missing Harris. Harris punched Bingham as he stepped back, pepper-sprayed. Eyes squeezed shut, Bingham said, he slammed Harris to the ground and Gordon shot his Taser into Binghams side.

Harris, unharmed by police, walked away with a warning for violating the citys fighting code. Bingham was arrested for fourth-degree assault and obstructing law enforcement, both misdemeanor charges the prosecutor dropped days after the body cam footage was released, Bingham said.

If he got force used on him, he should probably be under arrest for something, Officer Wade Winegardner said in body cam footage, moments after placing a third Black WSU student in a chokehold.

That student, Damani Thomas, would be arrested for obstruction after filming police with his cellphone and refusing to back away.

The Fourth Amendment bans unreasonable seizures, which include police use of excessive force. The Supreme Court decision Graham v. Connor defines reasonable force with three criteria: severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, and whether the suspect is resisting arrest.

In this case, Harris told police he wanted to see Bingham prosecuted. Gordon argued against arresting Harris. Officers at the scene argued, If were using force on people, then we need to do a criminal charge, as an out-of-view officer said in the video. Once they determined Harris had not been hit by the pepper spray, they agreed to let him go.

When we have to use force to protect people, even if people say everything is good and we let everybody walk away, someone later on talks to friends who are law students. They get advice from people saying, Hey, if officers used force on you, you need to file a complaint. If you didnt get arrested, they shouldnt have used force, Jenkins said. It makes it really complicated.

Since 2017, Pullman PD has paid more than $400,000 in settlements of excessive force lawsuits involving Gordon, including a suit over using a Taser and injuring Black WSU student Treshon Broughton, according to settlement records released by the police department.

Until Bingham watched the body cam footage, he didnt think his injuries influenced his charges. But from the start, he believed his race played a part in Gordons quick decision to use pepper spray and a Taser, and, in Binghams view, Harris was simply lucky to miss Gordons line of fire.

Pullman police arrest Black people and use force on Black suspects at four times the citys Black population rate, based on arrest data from the past five years and 2019 census estimates.

Gordon had one of the highest Black arrest rates in the department 17.8% of people he arrested were Black, about six times the Black population rate.

While Pullman police have only used Tasers on 12 people in the past five years, five of them were Black.

Jenkins said he was happy when WSU criminal justice researcher David Makin found no evidence that Pullman police were more likely to use force, or to use it faster, with minority suspects. Makins results, based on an analysis of body camera footage, have not yet been published.

Jenkins said Pullman PDs excessive force settlements are determined by the departments insurance providers, who take into account what they think a jury would find.

I dont think they did anything unlawful, Jenkins said, referring to the Broughton case. I dont think they used excessive force. I do think it looked horrible. It looks horrible to the public.

But he couldnt point fingers at Gordon or the other officers involved. Though the lawsuit alleged excessive force, false reports and malicious prosecution, the officers conduct was within policy and training, Jenkins said.

Nine months after the incident involving Bingham, Jenkins said the department underwent new training from a use-of-force expert because the chief wasnt happy with what hed been seeing.

Arrest rates of Black people remained at about 12% in 2019, consistent with previous years.

I cant blame the officer for any actions that might not look good, or someone else might think is excessive, if he was doing everything the way we trained him, Jenkins said.

Bingham said the impacts of police force go beyond what a jury might see through the lens of a body cam.

Removing the Taser barbs from his side cost Bingham $2,000 in hospital bills, which he said the department refused to pay for. Jenkins said if police injure an uninsured suspect, Pullman Regional Hospital will usually write off their medical expenses. Bingham said someone in the police department told him to file for a loan.

Bingham also photographed dozens of abrasions on his torso and wounds on his rib cage where the barbs had been lodged. But the marks arent what stuck with him.

It was really traumatizing. It did a lot to me mentally, Bingham said. Bruises and scars can be healed, but when you have people in power look at you like youre the problem and they dont even give you a chance, it makes you realize theres a lot of change that needs to happen with police.

Police who arrived later made a bad situation worse, Bingham said. Gordon was the only officer whod seen the fight, but a group of police who arrived after the action huddled up to decide Binghams fate.

As I was sitting there I could hear the officers, and they didnt even know the real name of the person I got in the altercation with, Bingham said. From then on, I just knew it wasnt going to be good for me.

The department keeps careful track of uses of force. Supervisors review every situation to check for patterns, Jenkins said.

The department uses a numeric system to flag police for review. Whenever an officer uses force, receives a complaint or causes a traffic collision, he or she will get a point. If an officer accumulates three points in a 12-month period, that leads to a review.

In the past 12 months, Gordon and Winegardner both have amassed eight points for uses of force.

In Binghams case, using a Taser made sense to Jenkins.

I think if youre the person thats being victimized at the time, you want the officer to use whatever is the most effective and expedient method to have that assault stopped, Jenkins said. If we were sued, I think our best witness would be Mr. Harris, who was at the wrong end of Mr. Binghams fist.

Harris declined to be interviewed for this story.

Bingham told Gordon at the scene that he was defending himself. He claimed Harris started the fight. When Gordon pepper-sprayed Bingham, Harris took the opportunity to get punches in, according to Binghams account.

Police interference in the fight left him blinded and vulnerable, and he felt sure that police would not protect him, Bingham said. Slamming Harris to the ground seemed to be his only option.

It was either protect myself or get hurt, Bingham said in the police car. I just didnt want to get hurt. So when you shot me, the only thing in my mind was, as soon as I go down hes gonna start stomping me out.

In that situation, Bingham told Gordon that police couldnt protect him.

Low trust of police officers results in more police uses of force, Jenkins said, and lack of trust is one of several factors that could lead to disproportionate arrest rates of Black men. He said Black suspects seem to resist arrest more often, and he can understand why.

Where that person comes from makes a big difference in how they interact with officers, Jenkins said. People from rural communities seem to have a better experience than those that come from an inner city. (People from cities) are expecting police not to have respect for them or to harass them.

In the case last February, Thomas, the Black student who recorded the struggle with police on his phone, begged Officer Winegardner not to shoot him as Winegardner tightened the handcuffs.

Please dont kill me. Please dont shoot me. Please, Ive had cops put a gun to my head, Thomas said.

The since-graduated criminal justice major and Vice President of WSUs Black Men Making a Difference (BMMAD) had been filming with his phone as Winegardner cuffed Bingham. Police told Thomas to back up. He didnt, and Winegardner put him in a chokehold before arresting him for obstruction.

I have a right to record, you have no right to (expletive) arrest me, Thomas said.

Dashcam video recorded Thomas explaining to a WSU police officer why he had his phone out.

You can tase them, you can beat them with your (expletive) batons, you can choke them out, you can stomp them, Thomas said to the WSU officer. I will make sure you do not shoot them, because that will end their lives.

Thomas said hed seen one of his friends shot by police.

In the past five years, Pullman police have not used a firearm, according to use-of-force records.

Of the 72 more extreme uses of police force in the past five years in Pullman including chokeholds, hits, kicks and knee kicks approximately one out of five came from Wine- gardner.

Individual officers arrest rates and number of uses of force will be related to the shifts they choose and areas they work in, Jenkins said, adding that Gordon and Winegardner choose graveyard shifts near WSUs campus, where police run into more criminal activity,

Despite working different beats, a handful of officers arrested people at rates close to the citys demographics. Overall, three out of four officers arrested Black people at double or more the Black population rate.

Another factor in disproportionate arrest rates could be callers. More than 60% of incidents Pullman PD respond to are non-officer-initiated, meaning police are responding to calls, Jenkins said.

Pullman police get refresher courses on cultural competency each year, Jenkins said, but the best way to avoid biased policing is hiring the right people.

When asked if hed hire someone whose actions led to a large settlement in an excessive force lawsuit, he said it would depend on the circumstances. The presence of a lawsuit without a verdict would not be enough on its own to disqualify a job candidate, he said.

I believe in other jobs, if you slip up more than once, youre out, Bingham said. (Gordon) is a police officer, and his only job is to protect and serve the community hes in. I dont know who he is as a person outside of his job, but were talking about lives. There are things after this. Whats that persons mental state supposed to be after youve done this to them? How are they supposed to go on with their life?

Bingham said he knew how to interact with police. His uncle is a police officer, and he knew to stay calm. But Black men have reason to be scared, he said.

In the police car, when Gordon asked if Bingham knew who had been recording the scene with his phone, Bingham started to cry.

Sir, to be honest, I have no idea what happened after you Tased me. I dont know who was trying to record, Bingham said through tears. Were in a time period where a lot of African American males are being shot unarmed, so I think he was just recording because he doesnt want that to happen.

Gordon told Bingham, in an exchange captured on dashcam footage, that he feels the situation too, and lives it every day.

The department implemented body cams in 2013, Jenkins said, before the Ferguson, Missouri, police shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old Black man in August 2014 that sparked a national movement.

We wanted to be transparent, we wanted to have that accountability, and we knew that the community would hold us accountable, Jenkins said. If the community has issues with how were doing things then we want to make adjustments.

Body cam footage did lead to Binghams charges being dropped, he said, but it hasnt led to accountability.

There just arent enough eyes on them, Bingham said. They can get away with anything.

Excerpt from:
Questions of bias raised by Pullman police arrest of Black man using pepper spray in February 2019 - The Spokesman-Review

With a closely watched trial set to begin next month, a federal judge on Wednesday struck a blow to left-leaning groups seeking to expand Floridas vote-by-mail procedures.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle denied most portions of the groups requests for preliminary injunctions in the case, which is a consolidation of three lawsuits, saying the plaintiffs lack a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the vast majority of the issues.

In one of the lawsuits, the group Priorities USA and other plaintiffs want the judge to extend a deadline for mail-in ballots to be returned and require free postage for the ballots. Theyre also challenging a provision in Florida law restricting paid workers from collecting mail-in ballots.

But Hinkle rejected the plaintiffs argument that requiring voters to pick up the tab for stamps amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax.

Postage charged by the United States Postal Service like the fee charged by any other courier or the bus fare for getting to the polls to vote in person is not a tax prohibited by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. And the requirement to pay postage also does not violate any other federal provision, Hinkle wrote in Wednesdays five-page order, referring to the U.S constitutional amendment that bars poll taxes.

The judge also swatted down plaintiffs attempt at extending the deadline for supervisors of elections to receive mail-in ballots. Under current law, the ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day. The plaintiffs want ballots postmarked by 7 p.m. on Election Day to be valid, as some states allow.

But Hinkle noted that the deadline is discretionary.

States can reasonably decide to require ballots to be received on or before the day of the election, he wrote.

This eliminates the problem of missing, unclear, or even altered postmarks, eliminates delay that can have adverse consequences, and eliminates the remote possibility that in an extremely close election Florida has had some a person who did not vote on or before Election Day can fill out and submit a ballot later, he said.

Hinkle also rejected most of the numerous claims in a lawsuit filed by the group Dream Defenders and individual plaintiffs. Some claims in the lawsuit are unlikely to succeed on the merits because they are based on existing declarations of the COVID-19 emergency, and the possibility of a different emergency declaration is too speculative to constitute an injury in fact, he wrote.

The plaintiffs also have failed to show that they will suffer irreparable harm before he issues a ruling after a trial set to begin on July 20, Hinkle said.

Part of the explanation is that no elections will occur during that period with the possible exception of one local election the plaintiffs have not even mentioned and the plaintiffs can work around the alleged registration deficiencies, he added, referring to a request for changes to the states online voter-registration system.

However, Hinkle said a claim regarding blind voters was worthy of attention.

The Dream Defenders are asking the judge to order supervisors of elections to provide electronic ballots so blind voters can cast their ballots in secret, without assistance from other people.

It will take at least 45 days for the state to order and set up a system the plaintiffs say is necessary to address the electronic ballots, according to the plaintiffs. Since Secretary of State Laurel Lee and county supervisors of elections havent responded to the issue yet, Hinkle allowed the issue to remain pending.

Although the federal judge signaled where he stands on some of the issues, he cautioned against reading too much into Wednesdays order.

The parties should draw no inference one way or the other about likely success on items not addressed in this section of this order. The ruling does not limit the evidence that may be presented or foreclose a contrary ruling at the forthcoming trial on the merits, Hinkle noted.

The case in Florida, a battleground state considered critical for a White House win in November by President Donald Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, has drawn national attention. Hinkle allowed the Republican National Committee and other state and national GOP groups to intervene in the case.

The state late last month asked Hinkle to dismiss the challenges, arguing that they are based on speculative fears about what might occur later in the year.

Attorneys for the DeSantis administration and the Republican organizations argued that the plaintiffs are asking Hinkle to rewrite Floridas elections laws.

The governor is working with county supervisors and others to address challenges posed by the novel coronavirus, which causes the respiratory disease COVID-19, DeSantis lawyers said.

But the plaintiffs accused Florida officials of ignoring the harsh reality of the pandemic.

The scrutiny of the states vote-by-mail processes comes as supervisors of elections are encouraging voters to cast their ballots by mail, following widespread issues during the March presidential primary. In April, the supervisors asked DeSantis for emergency measures they said would help them cope with an anticipated significant statewide shortage of poll workers because of the coronavirus.

County elections officials encountered significant challenges during the March presidential primary elections, such as polling places becoming unavailable, difficulty in acquiring hand sanitizer and other supplies and substantial numbers of poll workers deciding not to work, Levy County Supervisor of Elections Tammy Jones, a former president of the Florida Supervisor of Elections organization, wrote to DeSantis on April 6.

More than two months later, DeSantis has not agreed to the supervisors requests.

Faced with the virtual certainty that Florida voters will flood the vote-by-mail system and potentially stretch it beyond its limits, Floridas elected officials stand idly by and disclaim responsibility for ensuring that voters can effectively cast their ballots, lawyers for the Priorities USA plaintiffs wrote in a brief filed on June 15.

Continued here:
Judge Rejects Injunction Requests In Vote-By-Mail Fight - WUFT