Mediaboss Marketing

Published on April 3, 2023

The ACLU of Rhode Island today announced the favorable settlement of a federal lawsuit filed three years ago on behalf of a former Narragansett High School student with special education needs who was thrown to the ground, choked, and arrested by a school resource officer (SRO) over a rude hand gesture the student gave the SRO. Avideotaped record of the incidentshows SRO Kyle Rooney forcefully slamming to the floor and restraining 11th-grader Michael Blanchette for a few minutes before removing him from the school in handcuffs.

In settling the case, which avoids the necessity of a planned trial, the school district, without admitting liability, has agreed to pay Blanchette $75,000 in monetary damages. The suit was handled by ACLU of RI cooperating attorney Amato DeLuca.

The incident arose when Rooney confronted Michael about whether he was allowed to be walking in the school hallway at the time, to which Michael said he had permission. After a brief argument about it, Michael gave Rooney the finger and began to walk away, but the officer immediately grabbed Michael and violently threw him on the floor. Rooneys arrest report falsely claimed that he took this action because Michael aggressively took a step towards me, an allegation belied by the video, which shows Michael starting to turn away from the SRO before being slammed to the ground. Rooney charged Michael with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, but both charges were later dismissed.

Among other claims, the suit argued that Rooney violated Michaels Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; retaliated against Michael in violation of the First Amendment; unlawfully assaulted him; and filed unfounded criminal charges against him.

For years, the ACLU of Rhode Island has raised concerns about how SROs often escalate minor disciplinary incidents into major ones, and turn routine school infractions into criminal matters, unnecessarily introducing teenagers to the criminal justice system and scarring them in the process. The ACLU has also issued a series of reports, most recentlythis past month, documenting that students with disabilities, along with students of color, are disproportionately disciplined in virtually every Rhode Island school district, including Narragansett. Statistics from the Rhode Island Department of Education show that two-thirds of all out-of-school suspensions issued by Narragansett High School the year of this incident were of students with disabilities.

Still pending isanother SRO lawsuitbrought by ACLU cooperating attorneys against the Pawtucket school district. That case involves a 13-year-old African-American middle school honors student who was handcuffed, taken to the police station, and kept in a cell for close to an hour before being released to her mother. The SRO arrested the child after watching a video of a schoolyard scuffle that had taken place that morning.

ACLU of Rhode Island executive director Steven Brown said today: We are very pleased that Michael has received monetary payment for the disturbing action taken against him. But his case only highlights the serious issues with the presence of police officers in schools, who all too often can turn minor disciplinary matters into criminal ones.

Additional information about the lawsuit can be foundhere.

Can you help Uprise RI?

Funding for our reporting relies on the generosity of readers like you. Our independence allows us to write stories that hold RI state and local government officials accountable. All of our stories are free and available to everyone. But your support is essential to keeping Steve on the beat, covering the costs of reporting our stories. If you are able to, please support us. Every contribution, big or small is so valuable. You provide the motivation and financial support to keep doing what we do. Thank you.

See the rest here:
ACLU settles suit over unlawful assault and arrest of Narragansett ... - Uprise RI

A Tennessee politician attempted to school some students protesting gun violence at the Tennessee Capitol on Monday, but he missed the mark by a long shot.

The students were reacting to a recent shooting at a private Christian school in Nashville that led to the deaths of three children and three adults.

State Rep. William Lamberth (R) agreed to talk with the protesters, but had a weird way to trying to win a debate with students worried about getting shot in class.

Lamberths approach was to ask the students which firearm theyd prefer to be shot with.

If there is a firearm out there that youre comfortable being shot with, please show me which one it is, he asked rhetorically.

Lamberth probably thought the question he asked the protesters was deep and Socratic, but it came across as heartless especially when accompanied by a shrug.

So youre not going to like my answer, and, look, Im going to say that straight up, Lamberth warned. Its not about this one gun.

He then claimed that it would be impossible to stop every single gun from getting into the hands of a crazy person, a deranged person, [or] a convicted felon, and even if it was done, it would do nothing to prevent yalls safety.

Lamberth has previously protested red flag laws, saying that, We dont take peoples Fourth Amendment Rights or First Amendment Rights, or Second Amendment Rights or Fifth Amendment Rights without proper due process, without making sure that everyone knows what the rules are ahead of time.

Naturally, his comments suggesting one gun will kill you the same as another were mocked by Twitter users.

Read the original:
Tenn. State Rep Asks Protesters What Gun They'd Prefer To Be Shot With - HuffPost

For months, Phoenix has been wrapped up in multiple legal disputes over its handling of the growinghomelessness crisis. Now, the city is caught between two separate and potentially conflicting court orders regarding its largest homeless encampment, known as "The Zone."

Legal experts disagree on whether Phoenix will be able to simultaneously comply with both orders, and it's unclear whether the city's next move could have a ripple effect on other jurisdictions throughout the Valley and the Western United States.

Here's a breakdown of the two orders, how experts are interpreting them and what they could mean for other communities.

Phoenix is engaged in two separate lawsuits over how it has handled the growing unhoused population in The Zone. Rulings in both cases have directed the city to take certain actions related to the encampment.

On March 27, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ordered the city to remove tents on public property in the encampment, which is near 12th Avenue and Madison Street. The order was issued in advance of trial in a lawsuit, Brown v. City of Phoenix, filed against the city by nearby business and property owners who claim the encampment is a public nuisance.

But in December, a federal judge ordered the city to stop enforcing camping and sleeping bans against unsheltered people as long as there are not enough shelter beds available and to stop seizing unsheltered peoples belongings without prior notice. That order is part of a separate lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed against the city over its treatment of unhoused people.

The city and the ACLU reached a tentative settlement in that case in March. But the details of the settlement have not yet been made public, and it's unclear whether the city will still have to comply with the December order once the settlement is finalized.

Its also unclear what steps Phoenix will take regarding Blaney's order or whether it will appeal that decision.

Our legal team does not see a direct conflict between the two cases. Any further legal action is under review," said Kristin Couturier, a spokesperson for the city.

The ACLU declined to comment.

Homelessness settlement: ACLU, Phoenix reach tentative deal in federal case over homelessness

A 2018 decision by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reshaped how cities in the West, including Arizona, can police unhoused people.

Martin v. City of Boise established that unhoused people cannot be criminally cited for sleeping outside on public property when there is no adequate and available alternative, such as open shelter beds. The lawsuit found doing so violates the Eighth Amendments prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

A subsequent case, Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, upheld Martin v. City of Boise and established that if there are not enough shelter beds, unhoused people can use tents, blankets and other measures for protection against the elements while sleeping.

In late March, Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill in the Legislature that would have targeted homeless encampments by prohibiting tents and other types of shelter in streets, sidewalks and other public areas.

"We need to address Arizona's housing and homelessness crisis in a comprehensive manner," Hobbs wrote in her veto letter. "Rather than solving these issues in a meaningful way, this bill only makes them less visible."

Finding solutions: Phoenix mayor stresses indoor solutions for unsheltered people after homeless encampment ruling

Legal experts had different views on whether the orders in Brown v. City of Phoenix and the ACLU case were directly opposed.

Gary Blasi, an expert on homelessness law and professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, said its possible for Phoenix to comply with both orders.

For example, if the city provides shelter to the people living in The Zone, such as hotel rooms, tiny homes or adequate structured campgrounds, then the city could arrest people who refused those options and were still camping on the street, Blasi said. Depending on what Phoenix does, it could be a meaningful step toward solving the citys homelessness problem, he said.

If people sort of widen their view from, This is a choice between giving people an unabridged right to sleep anywhere they want or putting them in jail and taking their stuff thats a no-win situation, Blasi said. But there are win-win situations.

But Will Knight, the decriminalization director at the National Homelessness Law Center who previously worked on the ACLU lawsuit, believes the orders are in direct conflict.

There are other legal issues at play besides Martin v. City of Boise, he said, such as a right to privacy that is granted in the Fourth Amendment and under the Arizona Constitution.

In Knights view, creating a structured campground or other one-size-fits-all solution and then arresting or citing people who refuse to go there is still against the law because those alternatives would not meet the definition of adequate housing.

The bottom line is, there's only one solution: provide people with adequate housing, then services so they can get on their feet," Knight said. "Anything short of that is morally irresponsible, legally incorrect, and financially, fiscally catastrophic.

While cities throughout the federal Ninth Circuit, which includes Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii, will no doubt be watching Phoenixs next move, its unclear whether they will follow suit.

Officials in Hawaii are consulting with the states Attorney General on the ruling but were not yet able to comment further, said James Koshiba, the governors coordinator on homelessness.

The Joint Office of Homeless Services serving Portland and Multnomah County does not believe Blaney's order would affect the region, spokesperson Julia Comnes said.

Officials in Los Angeles and Seattle declined to comment, while an official in San Francisco did not respond to requests for comment.

While there are some basic guardrails to the Constitution that cities must follow, such as not arresting unhoused people when there is no shelter available, cities have a lot of discretion as to how they comply with those guardrails, Blasi said.

And while Blaney's order could influence how other cities and states interpret similar legal issues, it does not set a binding legal precedent for them, Knight said.

'Nobody knows where theyll go': Future of Phoenix homeless camp unclear after court order

Juliette Rihl covers housing insecurity and homelessness for The Arizona Republic. She can be reached atjrihl@arizonarepublic.comor on Twitter@julietterihl.

Coverage of housing insecurity on azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Arizona Community Foundation.

Follow this link:
Phoenix facing big developments in homelessness lawsuits. What to ... - The Arizona Republic

AUGUSTA, Maine (April 5, 2023) Last week, a Maine committee held a hearing on a bill that would ban material support or resources for warrantless federal surveillance programs. The passage of the bill would take an essential step every state needs to take at a time when the federal government seems unlikely to ever end unconstitutional spying on its own.

A coalition of 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat led by Sen Eric Brakey (R) introduced Senate Bill 1056 (LD1056) on March 7. The legislation would prohibit any state entity, including political subdivisions, from assisting, participating with, or providing material support or resources to enable or facilitate a United States Government agency in the collection or use of an individuals electronic data or metadata, unless one or more of the following apply.

The bill is similar toa law enacted in Michigan in 2018.

In 2014, California also passed a bill that created a foundation to prohibit state participation in federal warrantless surveillance. Somesimple amendments to the law are necessaryto give it a practical impact.

On March 29, the Joint Judiciary Committee held a hearing on LD1056, an important first step in the legislative process. Sen. Brakey emphasized the fact that the federal government continues to collect and store massive amounts of private data without a warrant. The Tenth Amendment Centers national communications director testified in favor of the bill, highlighting Maines strong commitment to protecting privacy and explaining how federal surveillance gives law enforcement an easy way to circumvent state warrant requirements. He also laid out the legal basis for refusing to provide material support or resources to federal programs.

Brakey indicated that he would be willing to amend LD1056 to provide a more detailed definition of electronic data and to address concerns raised by the Maine State Police.

PRACTICAL EFFECT

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the information sharing environment or ISE.

Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to abipartisan congressional reportto demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: They havent contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.

Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According toits website, the ISE provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigatorshave mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies. In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.

Because the federal government relies heavily on partnerships and information sharing with state and local law enforcement agencies, the passage of LD1056 potentially hinders warrantless surveillance in the state. For instance, if the feds wanted to engage in mass surveillance on specific groups or political organizations in Maine, it would have to proceed without state or local assistance. This would likely prove problematic.

State and local law enforcement agencies regularly providesurveillance data to the federal government through ISE and Fusion Centers. They collect and store information from cell-site simulators (AKA stingrays), automated license plate readers (ALPRs), drones, facial recognition systems, and even smart or advanced power meters in homes.

The passage of LD1056 would set the stage to end this sharing of warrantless information with the federal government. It would also prohibit state and local agencies from actively assisting in warrantless surveillance operations.

By including a prohibition on participation in the illegal collection and use of electronic data and metadata by the state, LD1056 would also prohibit what NSA former Chief Technical DirectorWilliam Binney calledthe countrys greatest threat since the Civil War.

The bill bans the state from using electronic data or metadata obtained by the NSA without a warrant.

Reutersrevealedthe extent of such NSA data sharing with state and local law enforcement in an August 2013 article. According to documents obtained by the news agency, the NSA passes information to police through a formerly secret DEA unit known Special Operations Divisions and the cases rarely involve national security issues. Almost all of the information involves regular criminal investigations, not terror-related investigations.

In other words, not only does the NSA collect and store this data. using it to build profiles, the agency encourages state and local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment by making use of this information in their day-to-day investigations.

This is the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War, Binney said.

NSA FACILITIES

The original definition of material support or resources included providing tangible support such as money, goods, and materials and also less concrete support, such as personnel and training.Section 805of the PATRIOT Act expanded the definition to include expert advice or assistance.

Practically speaking, the legislation will almost certainly stop the NSA from ever setting up a new facility in Arkansas

In 2006, the agency maxed out the Baltimore-area power grid, creating the potential, as the Baltimore Sun reported, for a virtual shutdown of the agency. Since then, the NSA aggressively expanded in states like Utah, Texas, Georgia and elsewhere, generally focusing on locations that can provide cheap and plentiful resources like water and power.

For instance, analysts estimated the NSA data storage facility in Bluffdale, Utah, would 46 million gallons of water every day to cool its massive computers when at peak capacity. The city supplies this water based on a contract it entered into with the spy agency. The state could turn off the water by voiding the contract or refusing to renew it. No water would effectively mean no NSA facility.

What will stop the NSA from expanding in other states? Bills like LD1056. By passing this legislation, Maine would become much less attractive for the NSA because it will not be able to access state or local water or power supplies. If enough states step up and pass the Fourth Amendment Protection Act, we can literally box them in and shut them down.

LEGAL BASIS

The state of Maine can legally bar state agents from assisting with warrantless surveillance. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as theanti-commandeering doctrine.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. Theanti-commandeering doctrineis based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.Printz v. U.S.serves as the cornerstone.

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty

No determination of constitutionality is necessaryto invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.

WHATS NEXT

LD1056 needs to be brought up in a work session of the Joint Judiciary Committee. A majority report in favor would greatly improve its chances for passage in the full House and Senate.

Tags: Fourth Amendment, LD1056, Maine, NSA, Privacy, surveillance

Original post:
Maine Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Ban Material Support or ... - blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

The growing deployment of smart locks in apartments, often installed without tenants permission, has created a new stream of sensitive location data for law enforcement, landlords, and private companies. Tenants should not be forced to submit to tracking just to enter their home. At minimum, we need privacy laws that require consent to collect this data, a warrant for police access, and strong data minimization.

Smart locks come in many forms. At the most basic level, they are physical locks that can be opened with a nontraditional key like a smartphone or fingerprint. Most significantly from a privacy perspective, they allow the lock company (and sometimes landlords) to collect data each time you or any of your guests unlock your physical door. To do this, the locks themselves may be connected to the internet, or they can rely on an app you must install on your phone (the key) to transmit the data to the lock companys servers. Depending on the model, the lock might also record other datalike an image of the person trying to unlock the door.

Smart locks have become increasingly popular in recent years, specifically with landlords. For example, in 2019, tenants in New York City forced a settlement after a landlord attempted to require tenants to use smart locks. The settlement required an option for physical keys. The smart lock at issue in that case was made by a company called Latch. While Latch was not named in the lawsuit, the company changed its privacy policy to remove reference to marketing and collection of other location data. Its software is reportedly in more than 125,000 dwelling units or commercial spaces. Many other companies make smart locks as well. They are part of the growth of smart home devices.

Despite their convenience to some people, smart locks can create a revealing data trail that raises concerns about law enforcement power, data privacy, and information security.

This data could give law enforcement a powerful new stream of data to be obtained without your knowledge. Companies tend to store this kind of data for much longer than necessary, and it is often unclear precisely what legal process companies require before handing it over to law enforcement. This gives police a tool to obtain a near perfect log of every time you or any guest entered your homea particularly private place under the Fourth Amendment. In the past, police could theoretically piece this data together on their own with great effort by conducting an around-the-clock stakeout. But in all but the most important investigations, these tactics would be prohibitively expensive. Because it is easy for police to access smart lock data, police will more frequently use this tactic. Moreover, smart lock data is retrospectivemeaning that police can go back in time to obtain data about periods of time before an individual was under investigation.

Landlords could use this data to harass or penalize tenants. Landlords seeking to evict a rent-controlled or otherwise unwanted tenant could use this data to find minor lease violations, like having a guest stay an hour longer than allowed by policy. Or the smart lock could be used to quickly lock out a tenant without notice. Moreover, forcing tenants to unlock their unit with a smartphone could exclude the 15 percent of the population who do not have a smartphonedisproportionately affecting older people and people with lower income. Renters, in general, tend to have less net worth than homeowners, and are more likely to be young, Black, or Hispanic.

Private companies who manage this data could sell it. This information and the patterns may be useful for marketers to create inferences about you, like: family makeup; job status; type of job; entertainment; and travel schedule. Some companies appear to understand the risk (and loss of trust) that comes with selling this deeply revealing personal data, and they have privacy policies that rule this out. However, as companies acquire more data, they will be tempted to profit from it at the expense of their users.

Both the smart lock itself and the system used to store the data could be hacked. Today, traditional door locks can be picked, and home windows can be smashed to gain entry. However, the scale of a smart lock hack could increase the potential for harm. One can imagine a nightmare scenario of a ransomware group locking an entire apartment building out of their homes until the landlord pays a hefty sum. Similarly, a hack of the backend system that stores smart lock data would expose sensitive information about guests, tenants, and patterns of life that, many times, is unnecessary to retain in the first place. The Federal Trade Commission has been concerned about smart lock security since 2015.

Finally, smart lock users themselves may be able to abuse the data. Previous news reports have detailed how smart home devices can be used by abusers to maintain control of family members. Having a constant log of when they unlock their door could make it much harder for people to escape their abusers and find help.

New York City is one of the only jurisdictions to pass a privacy law to specifically regulate smart lock data from both landlords and private companies. The law includes requirements about consent, the option of a physical key, minimization, retention, disclosure, use, and security. The law also contains a private right of action if a company sells the data. Other more general privacy laws would regulate this data as well. Smart lock data tied to an individual or home falls under the definition of personal data in states with comprehensive privacy laws like California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia. Some of the data may also be governed by the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Actwhich limits how certain data may be shared with the government and non-government entities.

Given the privacy risks, we need strong privacy laws to regulate the use of smart lock data, with the following components:

1. Option for traditional lock: Tenants must be given the option to use a traditional lock and key that does not track and collect their personal data. Choosing to retain a traditional lock must not come with any reprisal or additional incentive to choose a smart lock instead.

2. Consent for processing: Landlords and companies must be prohibited from processing a persons smart lock data, except with their informed, voluntary, specific, opt-in consent.

3. Data minimization: Companies and landlords must be prohibited from processing a persons smart lock data, except as strictly necessary to allow the smart lock to securely function. This includes prohibitions on unnecessary re-use, sharing, or retention of the data. More specifically, landlords must be prohibited from using the data to harass or evict tenants.

4. Warrant requirement and notice: Companies and landlords must be prohibited from disclosing smart lock data to law enforcement, except with a particularized warrant based on probable cause, and prompt notice to tenants. Companies should also publish transparency reports about the number of law enforcement requests that they receive and how often they comply.

5. Security requirements: Companies must protect smart locks and smart lock data with strong information security protocols and must give notice if that security is breached. Smart locks must have a physical key back up in case of failure or compromise.

6. Private right of action: People must have a private right of action to sue the corporations or landlords that violate their statutory privacy rights. Remedies must include liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorney fees.

See the original post:
Smart Locks Endanger Tenants' Privacy and Should Be Regulated - EFF