Mediaboss Marketing

In November 2020, 45-year-old Elisabeth Rehn was preparing for a bath when five Seattle police officers broke down her door and streamed into her apartment. She barely had time to throw a coat over herself when she was stormed by the officers, who shouted commands and pointed their guns at her.

However, the officers had no reason to enter Rehn's apartment. According to a lawsuit filed last month, the police had gone to the wrong address. They weren't even in the correct building.

"Even after [police] knew or should have known that they had broken down the door of the wrong apartment, in the wrong building, the Defendants still continued to needlessly search her apartment while Ms. Rehn trembled in fear," the complaint states.

According to The Seattle Times, the officers believed they were responding to a "crisis call" about an intoxicated man who may have been attempting to push someone out of a window. While other first responders were able to reach the correct address, a second group of officers ended up in a different apartment building, where they mistakenly stormed Rehn's apartment.

Body camera footage shows the officers kicking Rehn's door in and rushing into her apartment with guns drawn. The officers are also captured searching through her apartment while Rehn sobs and trembles in fear.

The officers' "actions put Ms. Rehn in mortal fear that she was going to be assaulted or killed in this incident through no fault of her own," reads the complaint. "She was about to take a bath in her own apartment at the time, had disrobed in preparation for getting into her bath and barely had time to throw on a large coat to cover herself before the Defendant officers who entered her apartment shouted commands at her and trained one or more firearms on her."

Rehn's lawsuit argues that the officers' forced entry into her home violated her Fourth Amendment rights and subjected her to "substantial mental and emotional distress, fear for her physical well-being, invasion of privacy, loss of privacy, and other related damages."

This is far from the first time that police have mistakenly stormed into the wrong address. Cops frequently invade homes without properly checking they have the right address, leading to damaged property and terrified residents. Further, tragedy has occurred countless times when police officers have raided the wrong house and ultimately killed an innocent person living there.

While the exact scale of the problem is unclear, between 2017 and 2020, Chicago police alone raided at least 21 wrong addresses. And unfortunately, as is true with most instances of police violence, officers who kill or injure innocent homeowners when they invade the wrong address are usually protected by qualified immunity.

Continued here:
Cops Stormed Into a Seattle Woman's Home. It Was the Wrong ... - Reason

Ron Wyden U.S. Senator from Oregon

Ronald Lee Wyden was born in May 1949 in Wichita, Kansas. He attended the University of California, Santa Barbara, on a basketball scholarship, and later transferred to Stanford University where he received his undergraduate degree.He earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Oregon School of Law.

While teaching gerontology at several Oregon universities, Wyden founded the Oregon chapter of the Gray Panthers. He was also director of the Oregon Legal Services Center for the Elderly and served on the Oregon State Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators.

He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served 15 years until being elected in a special election to the United States Senate. He assumed office in February 1996.

He is divorced from Laurie with whom he has two adult children and is now married to Nancy and they have three children. Wyden is Jewish.

In the News

A bill to reform Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would afford new protections for constitutional rights has been introduced in Congress by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Representative Zoe Lofgren of California.

At present, Section 702 allows only for the individualized and limited surveillance of non-U.S. persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States and who are assessed by the intelligence community to possess or communicate specific types of foreign intelligence information identified by the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.

Surveillance law has not kept up with changing times, Senator Wyden said, adding, Our bill continues to give government agencies broad authority to collect information on threats at home and abroad, including the ability to act quickly in emergencies and settle up with the court later.But it creates much stronger protections for the privacy of law-abiding Americans, and restores the warrant protections that are at the heart of the Fourth Amendment.

The FISA Court and the Director of National Intelligence have confirmed that our government conducted warrantless surveillance of millions of Americans private communications,Senator Lee said.It is imperative that Congress enact real reforms to protect our civil liberties, including warrant requirements and statutory penalties for privacy violations, in exchange for reauthorizing Section 702. Our bipartisan Government Surveillance Reform Act stops illegal government spying and restores the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

Contact this Leader

Did you pray for Senator Wyden today?You can let him know at:

The Honorable Ron Wyden Senator from Oregon 221 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Go here to see the original:
Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator from Oregon The Presidential Prayer ... - The Presidential Prayer Team

Bill Maher used Friday nights New Rules segment as an opportunity to offer a sweeping condemnation of political and intellectual attacks against Western civilization amid political protests related to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.

To the current crop who reduce everything to being only victims or victimizers, so its really as lumped in as the toxic fruit of the victimizing West. The irony being that all marginalized people live better today because of Western ideals, not in spite of them, he said in part.

Maher began, For all the progressives and academics who refer to Israel as an outpost of Western civilization like its a bad thing, please note Western civilization is what gave the world pretty much every god-n liberal precept that liberals are supposed to adore.

The host then listed individual liberties, scientific inquiry, rule of law, religious freedom, womens rights, human rights, democracy, trial by jury freedom of speech as credits to the West before he added, Please, somebody stop us before we become enlightened again.

He also insisted that the world would be a better place if we had more Israels.

Of course, Maher continued, this message falls on deaf ears to the current crop who reduce everything to being only victims or victimizers, so its really as lumped in as the toxic fruit of the victimizing West. The irony being that all marginalized people live better today because of Western ideals, not in spite of them.

The host then cited several examples to support his point, including that Martin Luther King used Henry David Thoreaus essay civil disobedience to help shape the civil rights movement and the cop who murdered George Floyd got 21 years for violating his Fourth Amendment rights an idea we got directly from John Locke.

King often said Thoreaus 1849 essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience inspired him as a college student, and he certainly believed in the principles of justice and peace. But after Amy Schumer tweeted a video of King in which he spoke in support of Israel, Bernice King clarified how she believes her father would have responded to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

She replied, Certainly, my father was against antisemitism, as am I. He also believed militarism (along with racism and poverty) to be among the interconnected Triple Evils. I am certain he would call for Israels bombing of Palestinians to cease, for hostages to be released

In conclusion, Maher said, the woke are simple. He added, Its never about ideas. If it was would they be cheering on Hamas for their liberation, liberation to do what more freely preside over a country where there are no laws against sexual harassment, spousal rape, domestic violence, homophobia? honor killings or child marriage? This is who liberals think you should stand with.

Watch the entire New Rule in the video above.

The post Bill Maher Slams Critics of the West Amid Israel Conflict: Marginalized People Live Better Today Because of Western Ideals (Video) appeared first on TheWrap.

Read more:
Bill Maher Slams Critics of the West Amid Israel Conflict: Marginalized People Live Better Today Because of Western Ideals (Video) - Yahoo...

FBI Director Christopher Wray told a Senate committee Tuesday he opposes a proposal to require the government to get a warrant before searching through foreign surveillance data for information on Americans.

Privacy advocates and some lawmakers have raised the possibility of adding such a requirement as Congress considers the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The authority expires at the end of the year and has been the subject of heated debate on Capitol Hill.

Section 702 allows the U.S. government to collect the digital communications of foreigners who are located outside the country. But some lawmakers from both parties have lambasted the breadth of the surveillance power and zeroed in on privacy concerns, such as how it allows U.S. authorities to run warrantless searches for information on Americans.

Wray on Tuesday urged the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to reauthorize the foreign surveillance authority but leave out changes that he said could hamper the FBIs ability to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

With everything going on in the world, imagine if a foreign terrorist overseas directs an operative to carry out an attack here on our own backyard, but were not able to disrupt it because the FBIs authorities have been so watered down, Wray told lawmakers.

In written testimony to the panel, Wray said a warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban on a U.S. person query of information previously obtained through use of Section 702.

Thats because search applications would not satisfy the legal standard to get court approval, Wray wrote. When the standard could be met, it would mean the use of scarce resources and take up significant time that the government often does not have in a world of evolving threats, he wrote.

Sen. Rand Paul, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said Tuesday that the FBI continues to misuse its Section 702 authority.

You would think wed be going after foreigners, but we are using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to go after Americans, Paul said.

An independent U.S. government board weeks ago recommended that Congress add greater oversight for when authorities want to search for information on Americans. The board said authorization from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, should be required for those types of searches.

The FISC itself has found persistent and widespread compliance problems with the FBIs searches under Section 702. A court opinion released earlier this year found that the FBI had improperly searched foreign surveillance information using the last names of a U.S. senator and a state-level politician.

While the specifics remain unclear, requiring a warrant or court order when searching for information about Americans could become a sticking point as the authoritys end-of-year expiration date approaches.

The leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary committees both have spoken critically about the current program.

Senate Judiciary Chair Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., has pledged to only support Section 702 reauthorization if there are significant reforms, which he said means first and foremost, addressing the warrantless surveillance of Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Also at Tuesdays hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas endorsed the renewal of Section 702 and said letting the authority expire would leave our country vulnerable to attacks supported by American citizens.

And it would cripple our ability to identify and secure American citizens who are the targets of such attacks, he told lawmakers.

A third official appearing before lawmakers, Christine Abizaid, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said Section 702 provides key indications on terrorist plans and gives authorities strategic insight into foreign terrorists and their networks overseas.

Read this article:
Surveillance authority change could harm ability to stop attacks, FBI ... - Roll Call

When he took the bench, New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Rowan Wilson was welcomed as a breath of fresh air by progressive lawmakers and activists. That perception may be challenged now that hes joined with the courts conservatives to affirm law enforcements ability to search DNA databanks for the relatives of criminals.

Last week, the court voted 4-3 to allow law enforcement to do the searches, with judges Michael Garcia, Madeline Singas and Anthony Cannataro concurring with Wilsons majority opinion. Two of the courts more liberal judges Jenny Rivera and Caitlin Halligan recused themselves from the case and were replaced by Stephen Lindley and Michael Lynch. Lindley wrote the dissenting opinion, which Lynch and Shirley Troutman joined.

The case was brought by Terrence Stevens and Benjamin Joseph, two siblings with family members who have gone through the criminal court system. They filed suit in 2018 against the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, its executive director Michael Green and the New York State Commission on Forensic Science. The brothers accused the commission of exceeding its power under state law by giving itself the right to crawl genealogy records to find links to suspects.

These individuals (related to people convicted of crimes) are subjected to scrutiny by law enforcement for no other reason other than the possibility that their genes are similar to those of a Databanked Individual, the 2018 suit said.

DNA evidence has been a tool in criminal cases in the U.S. since 1986 New York created its own DNA database in 1996 but in recent years police have been able to rely on ancestry-tracking services to find suspects.

Wilson's opinion said that the state legislature granted the Commission on Forensic Science the right to make changes to policy when it created it.

On the merits, this appeal presents two straightforward questions: (A) does the legislature have the power to delegate rulemaking authority over familial DNA searches to the Commission; and (B) did the legislature do so, he wrote. The Court unanimously agrees that the legislature has that power; the disagreement is whether the Databank Act granted the Commission the authority to promulgate the (Familial DNA Search) Regulations. We hold that it did so.

David Siffert, the legal director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project and an organizer with the progressive court reform group The Court New York Deserves, said that Wilson was caught between preserving the privacy rights of New Yorkers and preserving the power of state agencies.

I think he got it wrong, Siffert said of Wilsons opinion that the Commission on Forensic Science had the authority to allow familial DNA searches. He said that he agreed with the dissenting opinion, which argued that the commission only had the power to regulate full DNA matches, not the partial matches that occur when law enforcement searches for family members with similar DNA. But Siffert, an outspoken supporter of Wilsons nomination, also said that he doesnt think one case should decide the efficacy of a judges work.

He also noted that Fourth Amendment privacy rights werent mentioned in either Wilsons majority opinion or the dissent, even though allowing law enforcement to crawl DNA databases obviously puts peoples genetic privacy at stake. The case focused entirely on whether or not the state Legislature had given the Commission on Forensic Science the authority to regulate DNA searches, without even considering whether those searches would violate the Fourth Amendment which Siffert said was a sign of the general failure of our courts to uphold the Fourth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals decision could prompt the state Legislature to step in to pass a law prohibiting law enforcement from searching DNA databases for potential familial DNA matches. State Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman-Sigal told City & State that the decision calls for clarification by the legislature.

Hoylman-Sigal, a supporter of Wilsons appointment to the Court of Appeals, said that DNA is an emerging technology and legislation hasnt adapted to its advances. He also called for the NYPDs DNA database which is separate from the states DNA database to be shut down. Only one database should exist, overseen by the state, he said

The Manhattan lawmaker added that while it was important to balance privacy concerns with the needs of victims and their families, people shouldnt be routinely treated as suspects.

Antony Haynes, director of cybersecurity & data privacy at Albany Law School, said that law enforcements use of DNA searches can reinforce racial bias.

Since black and brown communities are overpoliced, police databases are more likely to contain their DNA. Allowing police to use family DNA may end up supercharging surveillance of communities of color, sweeping in DNA from uninvolved persons, and potentially furthering racial oppression, Haynes wrote in an email. One of the basic principles of American jurisprudence is to avoid unjustly harming the innocent. Because familial DNA testing targets innocent siblings, parents and children, such use appears to be contrary to this presumption, and would seem to violate the rights to genetic privacy, due process, and equal treatment under New York law.

The decision from New Yorks highest court will have ramifications for the future of policing and privacy in New York. While it may become easier to find criminals and crack cold cases, New Yorkers' genetic information will be increasingly accessible even if theyve never been arrested. Like Hoylman-Sigal, Haynes said that the expanded use of DNA searches by law enforcement was ultimately a balancing act.

For example, in California, law enforcement secretly accessed genetic data from private companies and found the Golden State Killer through family members DNA, he said. On the law and order front, it's wonderful because weve caught a serial killer, but on the privacy front, its terrible because the family members did not really consent to this use. There's a difficult balancing act between the desire to promote law and order and the need to preserve privacy and freedom.

Link:
New York's progressive chief judge joins with conservatives to ... - City & State