Mediaboss Marketing

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up an appeal claiming an Edmond police officer could be held liable for violating the constitutional rights of an unarmed teenager he shot and killed in 2019.

Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the officer, Denton Scherman, was protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity in the case brought by the family of Isaiah Lewis.

Officer Scherman is pleased with the decision to deny certiorari, but because the lawsuit is still pending believes it is inappropriate to comment further, said Kathryn D. Terry, the Oklahoma City attorney representing Scherman.

The attorney for the Lewis family did not respond to a request for comment.

More:Supreme Court asked to review case of Edmond police officer who killed unarmed teen

The denial of Lewis petition on Monday marked the second time in its last two terms that the high court has upheld the doctrine of qualified immunity for Oklahoma law enforcement officers who killed a suspect during a confrontation.

Last year, the justices overturned a 10th Circuit ruling that two Tahlequah police officers could be held liable for killing a man who was wielding a hammer at his ex-wifes home.

In that case, the justices said, The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

As we have explained, qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

Scherman killed Lewis during an encounter with Edmond police that began with a 911 caller mistakenly claiming that the 17-year-old had assaulted his girlfriend. Scherman and another officer, Milo Box, followed Lewis into a house, where Lewis and Box had a physical fight. Lewis then approached Scherman, who shot the teen four times, killing him, according to court documents.

Lewis parents filed a lawsuit claiming Scherman used unconstitutional excessive force, and a U.S. district judge in Oklahoma City ruled that a reasonable jury could find that deadly force was not justified and that Lewis no longer presented a threat after the first bullet hit him.

The 10th Circuit reversed the judges ruling, saying it ran counter to the U.S. Supreme Courts oft-repeated principle that an officer was protected by qualified immunity unless he or she knew beforehand about a case with very similar circumstances in which force was found to be unconstitutionally excessive.

Neither the district court nor Plaintiffs (Lewis parents) have identified a precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation under the circumstances Defendant Scherman faced in this case, the 10th Circuit court said last year.

A look back at the case:Parents of teen shot by Edmond police file lawsuit against city, officers

None of the cases they identify provided fair notice to Defendant Scherman that his repeated use of lethal force was unconstitutional when Lewis approached Scherman in a small hallway in the house moving his arms in a windmill motion after Scherman had observed Lewis pummeling Box until Box disappeared from Schermans line of sight.

The attorney for Lewis parents had urged the Supreme Court to review the 10th Circuit court ruling, calling the appeals courts approach mistaken.

To be sure, this Court has instructed courts to frame the right in light of the specific context of the case, but that does not mean that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, the attorney argued.

The case ultimately will be returned to the district court, which must rule in accordance with the 10th Circuit courts decision.

See more here:
Supreme Court declines to hear case of Isaiah Lewis killed in Edmond - Oklahoman.com

Cedar Rapids police Investigator Jared Gienger (left) and Officer Antoine Smith on March 23 check the large drone that is being outfitted to assist in the accident reconstruction. The Cedar Rapids Hazardous Device Unit used a grant to buy the drone three years ago. (Nick Rohlman/The Gazette)

Cedar Rapids police Investigator Jared Gienger demonstrates how to use the infrared camera mounted on a large drone that is used by the Cedar Rapids Hazardous Device Unit. (Nick Rohlman/The Gazette)

Cedar Rapids police Investigator Jared Gienger (left) and Officer Antoine Smith check the large drone thats been used the past three years to examine hazardous devices before officers approach. The drone is being outfitted now to assist in accident reconstruction. (Nick Rohlman/The Gazette)

CEDAR RAPIDS Drones, or unmanned aircraft systems, have become increasingly popular tools used by police departments and fire departments in Eastern Iowa.

The drones are used for everything from tracking suspects or missing people to investigating bomb threats to helping firefighters see through smoke when fighting a fire.

The Cedar Rapids Fire Department and the Linn County Sheriffs Office, for example, used a drone earlier this month to pinpoint the location of a smoldering fire after a grain elevator exploded at the Archer Daniels Midland plant in southwest Cedar Rapids.

The Decorah Fire Department in northeast Iowa has been using drones since 2014 longer than most departments in the state.

At the time, the city had to get a special certificate to own and pilot a drone because the Federal Aviation Administration hadnt yet created the remote pilot certification process.

Now, all drone pilots must be certified under the FAAs small unmanned aircraft systems rule (part 107). Drone pilots in law enforcement and public safety often have additional training on how to use the drones appropriately in their work.

One reason Decorah firefighters wanted a drone was because of the numerous river rescue calls the department receives about people tubing and canoeing the Upper Iowa River, which lows through the city.

The drones have drastically decreased response times to those calls, according to Zach Kerndt, one of the departments four drone pilots.

The drones give us a much better idea of where people are, generally, because the information we receive from our dispatch center is very vague, he said.

The information we usually get is, they put in at this spot or this bridge, and theyre getting out at this bridge, and theyre somewhere in between.

Having a drone really cuts down on the man-hours it takes to find someone because we can find them with the drone ... and come up with a plan, Kerndt said.

The department has two drones, which are used about 20 times a year, Kerndt said.

The drones also are used during fires and in missing person cases.

Since the drones have infrared cameras, they can see through smoke in a fire and can help firefighters on an aerial truck better aim water on whats burning.

In law enforcement, the devices are often used to help officers get a clear picture from above of a crime scene or crash scene.

The Linn County Sheriffs Office has four drones two large ones, two small ones and nine trained pilots, according to Lt. Dave Beuter.

Its a real-time depiction of the scene, of the environment, whether theres snow on the ground, whether the trees have leaves on them, Beuter said.

Especially with criminal investigations, its nice to have those images from the drone, he said. You can go up in the air, even like 10 feet up in the air, and do an angle shot back into whatever youre looking at. Its a lot better depiction of whats seen than what just a simple photograph does.

Lt. Dave Beuter, Linn County Sheriffs Office

The Sheriffs Office started using the drones in 2017, after Beuter and another lieutenant won a drone at a conference and then sought out training so they could use it.

The Iowa State Patrol started using drones in 2020, when it bought 10 drones. It now has 21 drones, which it primarily uses for crash reconstruction, according to the patrols public information officer

The Cedar Rapids Police Department is currently readying its large drone, bought three years ago with a grant, for use in crash reconstruction.

The department currently employs a FARO 3D scanning system that is positioned around a crash scene and uses lasers to create a 3D reconstruction of the scene.

The drone will speed up that process and also provide photos that can be overlaid on a 3D crash depiction.

The Cedar Rapids Hazardous Devices Unit with team members from public safety departments in Linn County bought the drone three years ago, mainly to examine hazardous devices/bombs from a distance.

Lets say we had an improvised or suspicious device that could be out in an area that, based on some of the initial intelligence that we have, we may want to get a better look at photos of that, said Dan Jabens, commander of the Hazardous Devices Unit.

Instead of sending a person down there to put them in harms way, we would use the drone to get better pictures and allow us to develop a game plan on how we want to mitigate that device, he said.

The drone can carry up to 5 pounds, Jabens said. If an object seems especially suspicious. The drone can carry a mitigation charge over the object to remotely disable it, if its a bomb.

To do a remote reconnaissance on a device somewhere would take hours if we had to work our way around and use traditional camera systems, Jabens said. With this, within a minute or two, we can clearly have a picture of what our device is, what were looking at, and what the best way to mitigate that would be,

The Cedar Rapids Police Department has seven officers trained as drone pilots and hope to train more so the device can be used in additional scenarios.

There are situations where a drone cannot legally be used to the fullest extent of its abilities, according to Jabens, such as using it to view private property.

For example, using a drone to search someones property from above, or to look through someones window, without a warrant likely would violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

The departments drone procedure policy states that drones shall not intentionally be used for the purpose of gathering evidence or other information, or to intentionally view, record or transmit images or video around a residence or any other location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Comments: (319) 398-8328; emily.andersen@thegazette.com

Read the original here:
Drones: Public safety officers learn to fly latest technology - The Gazette

SECTION 702 DATA SEARCHING WHY IS THERE A PRIVACY CONCERN?

A fight over your data has been raging in Congress, and you probably dont even know. Section 702 is a controversial provision that seemingly has allowed for the search of personal information without warrants or protection under the Fourth Amendment.

SECTION 702 DATA SEARCHING

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) grants the government the authority to review and intercept electronic communications of targets unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. This generally means overseas targets, but it has increasingly been alleged to have been used for investigation of American targets.

Raw Section 702 data refers to information and data that naturally flows downstream and through technology giants and Internet companies like Google. This information, which is unredacted, contains all sorts of information on Americans and generally requires extensive permissions to reviewunless youre the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Section 702 of FISA grants the FBI the ability to search such data when it is in connection to foreign threats. Regular audits by the Department of Justice, however, appear to indicate that the FBI regularly searches raw Section 702 data without all the proper authorizations. While these audit reports labeled FBI searches as overly broad and not reasonably likely to yield connections to foreign intelligence, they concluded that FBI agents likely misunderstood search parameters as opposed to searching maliciously.

PRIVACY CONCERNS OVER SECTION 702 DATA REVIEW

On the other side of the debate, however, some privacy activists allege that misuse of Section 702 data by the FBI has been routine, growing, and, at its worst, can lead to surveillance based on race, faith, or political leanings. Some opponents allege that it is standard FBI practice to search raw Section 702 data during investigations and prior to the start as routine background surveillance. And while law requires the FBI to secure a court order in criminal matters, it has been revealed that the FBI has failed to do so in the past. Third-party watchdogs suggest that declassified reports appear to show that the FBI conducts thousands of illegal searches of such data annually.

Section 702 was enacted as part of the 2008 amendments to FISA and is currently set for use until December 31, 2023. As such, Congress is slated to vote at the end of this year to renew it. Partisan debate rages fiercely around the topic, and it behooves privacy counsel and civil rights attorneys to monitor the debate.

KEY TAKEAWAYS ON SECTION 702 DATA SEARCHING

Section 702 of FISA allows the FBI to search through certain, raw, private data under certain circumstances, and some privacy advocates are concerned because:

Section 702 data refers to unredacted information that flows downstream from Internet giants like Google;

It is though that such data may be routinely searched by the FBI without warrants; and

Section 702 of FISA is up for vote/reauthorization by Congress at the end of 2023.

Read this article:
What is Section 702 Data and Why Are Some Privacy Advocates ... - Lexology

Several students studying abroad at the Universitys Tuscany campus recently visited a local high school with their professor. They interacted with Italian students and learned about the differences and similarities in the American and Italian justice systems.

March 27, 2023

By Rebekah Germain 26, Cole Laubenheimer 26, Dena Lakaj 23, and Alonna Christy 23

Several Chargers studying abroad at the Universitys campus in Prato, Italy, recently visited ITIS Tullio Buzzi High School, a Prato high school focused on science and technology. The school, which generously enables Chargers to use their labs and workspaces, recently welcomed a group of University of New Haven students and their professor, Daniel Maxwell, MPA, for a lesson on criminal justice.

Prof. Maxwell brought a group of his students with him when he visited the school to teach a criminal justice lesson to the high school students. The opportunity enabled the American and Italian students to interact and learn together about their countrys respective justice systems.

During the lesson, the students compared the U.S. Bill of Rights to the rights enumerated in the Italian constitution. They also discussed search warrants and the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Prof. Maxwell ended the lesson showing the students Kahoot!, a fun and interactive game-based learning platform, asking the students questions about American and Italian culture and criminal justice. Students enjoyed competing for prizes University of New Haven swag and applying what theyd learned.

It was like teams competing in the World Cup, said Prof. Maxwell. They had so much fun.

Below, the four students who accompanied Prof. Maxwell reflect on the experience.

Rebekah Germain 26

Although I had originally not planned to study abroad in Italy, as a result of studying abroad, I've had numerous exciting opportunities. One involved Professor Daniel Maxwell and a small group of students visiting a high school in Prato. ITIS Tullio Buzzi High School is a science and technology high school.

By visiting with Professor Maxwell, I was able to interact with the Italian students at this high school on a different level. It also allowed me the chance to observe foreigners' perspectives on America and assess their level of familiarity with the U.S. I believe the high school students would do well in a career in law enforcement because they were quite intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject of criminal justice.

As Professor Maxwell started his presentation, I saw the students' responses and how they interacted with him. While I listened to Professor Maxwell speak, I could tell the students were paying careful attention based on their comments and their enthusiasm for what he had to say.

The Italian students were divided into groups of four after Professor Maxwell finished his presentation, and he asked each of us to visit a group and work on a task with the students. We had two tasks to finish. The first required us to compare and contrast the Italian and American Bills of Rights, which Professor Maxwell had given us. We exchanged thoughts and had a discussion about what the Italian students had discovered regarding similarities and differences.

For the second activity, Professor Maxwell provided us with a scenario involving the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the 4th Amendment, a warrant is required for police to enter our homes and take our personal property. As soon as Professor Maxwell told us the scenario, we all got to work. These students had me mesmerized based on what they were saying. Before making a choice, they genuinely took the time to weigh all of their possibilities.

Our third activity was Kahoot!, an online game-based learning platform. These students were overjoyed when they saw what we were doing. They were ecstatic. Unfortunately, my University of New Haven classmates and I were unable to play Kahoot! because it was meant for Italian students, but it didn't stop us from cooperating as a team. It was surprising to see how accurately they answered the questions about America. Although the teams were fierce rivals, I admired the way they cooperated to find the answers to the problems. Honestly, it was fantastic.

I will always be thankful that I had the opportunity to visit this high school to meet all of these wonderful and clever students. I was able to see things differently and recognize some of the distinctions between Italy and America as a result. It was a real pleasure to work with them on these endeavors. If given the chance, I'd do this again without a doubt.

Cole Laubenheimer 26

I recently accompanied Professor Daniel Maxwell and three other students to ITS Tullio Buzzi di Prato. Professor Maxwell had two students from his Principles of Investigations class, Dena Lakaj and Alonna Christy, and two from his Criminal Law class, Rebekah Germaine and me, visit the local high school to teach the students a little bit about criminal justice, forensics, and investigative services. As anybody who has ever had Professor Maxwell knows, he is a lot of fun.

Everyone was a little nervous about how the language barrier might impact the event, except for Professor Maxwell. He kicked it off with, Ciao! That is the extent of the Italian I know! and then carried on once the laughs died down.

As it turns out, the language barrier was virtually nonexistent, and the Italian students were eager to answer his questions and participate. They were excited to share what they knew about the similarities between our justice systems, tell us about Il Monstro di Firenze, and walk through mock-questioning. Professor Maxwell then told us we would break into groups and do an exercise with each other. This meant the four of us would be split into separate groups with about 15 Italian high schoolers each. Yikes.

When I went over to my group, they were quick to make space for me and introduce themselves. Each of us had a copy of a Bill of Rights. Theirs was the American one and mine was the Italian one. We were instructed to review them and identify the similarities in our rights. We learned that both countries give the right to remain silent, a speedy trial, protection against search and seizure without a warrant, and public assembly. There were two big differences: gun control and capital punishment. The Italian students were shocked at how available legal firearms are in America compared to in Italy. They had never heard of carrying permits, buying ammunition at superstores, or even considering buying one at all.

The student on my left, Lorenzo, explained the process of buying a firearm in Italy to me. He said, to buy a gun in Italy you must go to the local police headquarters and submit an application, then you go through psychological testing and a safety course. I think you can only really get them for sport hunting here.

I told them the restrictions for them in American, and they were shocked. I also learned that they have never had a single active shooter drill in their lives. What really amazed me was how easy it was to get into their school compared to my high school in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

We moved on to talking about the death penalty which was most recently used in 1944 on three Sicilian men for robbery, murder, and battery of 10 people. In 2007, Article 27 of the Italian Constitution completely banned capital punishment. This exercise really taught us a lot about each others countries and allowed us to gain more perspectives on how our laws and rights influence our cultures.

Professor Maxwell had us go through the warrant-request process for a hypothetical crime. The students were able to write a warrant request that included all of the crucial information they needed to be able to go into an apartment to search for stolen cellphones. They knew to be specific on the addresses, include the serial numbers of the phones that were stolen from store inventories, include where they wanted to look, and even proposed a stake out.

We then moved onto Professor Maxwells newfound favorite toy: Kahoot!

To say my group was competitive would be an understatement. The Kahoot! had questions about what Professor Maxwell taught them about criminal justice, the American Bill of Rights, important statistics, the Italian Bill of Rights, and Italian history. At one point, my group had Lorenzo, Giada, Davide, and Giulia all on the leaderboard (I am still very proud of that).

All in all, this was one of the highlights of my study abroad experience, so far. I really enjoyed being able to teach the students about criminal justice. Several students in my group said they had prior interest in this field and that this experience encouraged them to learn more about it. We all learned so much and had fun while doing it, so it didnt even feel like we were doing schoolwork. We went over our allotted time, and it felt like we were only there for 20 minutes. This was an experience I am happy I was a part of.

Dena Lakaj 23

Professor Maxwell, Alonna Christy, Cole Laubenheimer, Rebekah Germain, and I recently visited an Italian high school. During this trip, Professor Maxwell taught criminal investigation. Alonna, Cole, Becky, and I introduced ourselves to the class, talking about our majors and what they entail.

We broke off into four groups where each one of us had our own group to discuss a scenario. The exercise was to come up with what course of action that would take place in the event that cell phones were stolen from inventory and sold.

My group, specifically, discussed tracking the phones themselves. We would plant some sort of GPS device in the phone, so that when it was turned on, we would get a location. This would allow us to gather leads as to where the cellphones were being sold and the person who was selling them. That person is more likely than not to be our thief.

The Italian students (who have become my friends) were very creative in the ways they would handle this situation to get probable cause and a search warrant. The language barrier made it a bit tricky to understand at times, but it was interesting, nonetheless. I learned a lot about how different American students are compared to Italian students. We were told that these students are used to more lecture-type teaching, so it was even more fascinating to see how receptive they were.

The Italian students were especially excited about the Kahoot! that Professor Maxwell made for them. It was almost as if they were watching the Super Bowl, as Professor Maxwell put it. The most fascinating part about that game was that they seemed to know more about the United States rather than their own country. It just shows how America is seen in their eyes, and how it sort of affects them, despite being so far from us. Their English was almost perfect, while my Italian is nowhere near as good as their English.

These students were an amazing group of kids, and I would love to work with/teach them again.

Alonna Christy 23

I greatly enjoyed helping Professor Maxwell teach some of the students at ITIS Tullio Buzzi High School. It was fun interacting with the students and talking about the similarities and differences between the American criminal justice system and the Italian criminal justice system. It was not only a learning opportunity for the students, but for me as well. I would happily attend another class in the future.

Rebekah Germain 26 and Cole Laubenheimer 26 are psychology majors at the University of New Haven. Dena Lakaj 23 and Alonna Christy 23 are criminal justice majors. They are all studying abroad this semester at the Universitys campus in Prato, Italy.

Read more:
Chargers Explore Culture and Criminal Justice with Italian High ... - University of New Haven News

The Supreme Court hears a case on March 29 that will test whether there is any real limit to the frighteningly invasive power of the IRS.

In Polselli v. IRS, the high court will resolve a matter of statutory interpretation on which circuit courts have disagreed.

NEGLIGENT IRS MISSES DEADLINE TO ACCOUNT FOR OWN MONEY

The case involves disputes about two complicated, badly written subclauses in the same section of a law governing IRS authority. Although the language is confusing, the question itself is plain. If the IRS is investigating Person A, may the agency rifle through the accounts of others who keep records pertaining to, or doing business with, Person A, without telling those others and without giving them a chance to convince a court to quash the search?

In a more rational legal regime, the Constitutions Fourth Amendment would be directly at issue. The amendment bars law enforcement agencies from warrantless searches of houses, papers, and effects, but the Supreme Court has treated the IRS as something other than law enforcement, ruling in 1964 that the agency need not meet any standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement of [IRS] summons. Never mind that, for ordinary taxpayers, the IRS is just as fearsome as the local sheriff.

A pair of further Supreme Court cases seemed to expand the IRSs summons power too far, so Congress worried the agency could go on what the court called 'fishing expeditions' into the private affairs of bank depositors. In direct response to those decisions, Congress adopted 26 U.S.C. 7609, requiring the IRS at least to give notice to people whose records it is trying to obtain. In doing so, however, Congress created an exception so that the IRS need not inform direct targets of its suspicion, to stop the targets from hiding evidence of wrongdoing in the meantime.

The entire reason Congress created section 7609 was to protect third parties (rather than direct targets) from IRS invasion without notice. Still, the exception it provided is horribly written. Its not just word salad, but word salad blended into a smoothie. The exception says the IRS need not provide notice of summonses issued in aid of the collection of (i) an assessment made or judgment rendered against the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued; or (ii) the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person referred to in clause (i).

Appeals court judges themselves repeatedly said they had trouble making sense of what Congress wrote. Unfortunately, two federal appeals courts ruled that the in aid of language essentially reopens the door for the IRS to search almost anybodys account having any nexus to the targeted persons account, as long as the IRS asserts the third-party search is in aid of its investigatory powers. Again, this is a search without notice to the third party.

Not only do such third-party searches without notice violate the IRSs own published Taxpayer Bill of Rights (right No. 8), but they also pose massive problems for businesses, as laid out in numerous examples in an amicus brief from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed against the IRS. To name just one example, an expansive reading of IRS powers could put attorney-client privilege at serious risk if the IRS demands access to an attorneys files as well.

Unlike the other two circuit courts, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (for once) got this matter right. It decided that to read the subsections of section 7609 the way the IRS does would mean that what was intended as a limited exception would swallow the rule itself. Why would Congress create a legal provision to narrow the scope of IRS power and then create a subclause that expands its power beyond even what it had been previously? Of course, thats illogical.

Alas, two of three judges on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise, which is why the case is now before the Supreme Court. In dissent, conservative Judge Raymond Kethledge offered good sense. He noted that the Supreme Court consistently makes clear that judges should not interpret a statutory provision so as to render superfluous other provisions in the same enactment. To say the exception is bigger than the rule itself obviously would render the rule, and Congresss entire point in section 7609, superfluous. As Kethledge wrote, it would maul the bulk of section 7609.

Enough is enough. The nation was founded on a conception of limited government, with the governors accountable to the people. The IRS, for whatever reason, already is, for most intents and purposes, accountable to almost nobody. In section 7609, Congress quite obviously tried to put at least some guardrails on the agency. For the Supreme Court to allow the IRS to break those guardrails should be anathema.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

See more here:
Supreme Court should protect third parties from IRS fishing ... - Washington Examiner