General Law and Lawsuits

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/us/parkl ... index.html

Judge says case against former Parkland school resource officer Scot Peterson can go to trial

A Florida judge ruled Thursday that a case may proceed against former Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, a school resource officer who was widely criticized after he failed to confront a shooter during the deadly massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018.

Broward Circuit Judge Martin Fein denied a motion to dismiss 11 charges, including counts of felony child neglect, according to Peterson's attorney Mark Eiglarsh.

"While we are extremely disappointed with the judge's decision and plan to appeal, we take solace knowing that the truth will come out at trial. My client is innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, and did all he could to save lives during Nikolas Cruz's abhorrent massacre," Eiglarsh said.

"The public has been fed a false narrative about Scot Peterson. We have overwhelming evidence proving that the numerous actions that my client took during the attack was done to save lives," the attorney added.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://variety.com/2021/music/news/sex ... 235042176/

Sex Pistols’ Johnny Rotten Loses Lawsuit Against Bandmates Over Danny Boyle’s ‘Pistol’ FX Show

Sex Pistols frontman John Lydon — better known as his alter ego Johnny Rotten — has lost his legal battle against bandmates Steve Jones, the group’s guitarist, and drummer Paul Cook over a contract setting out how the 1970s punk band agrees to license its music.

The decision means that Jones and Cook can now license the band’s music for Danny Boyle’s FX adaptation of Jones’s memoir, “Lonely Boy: Tales From A Sex Pistol” despite Lydon’s veto.

The legal wrangle revolved around a 1988 contract signed by Lydon, Jones and Cook that said licenses for the music could be granted by agreement from the majority of the band. Jones and Cook brought the lawsuit to enforce the contract. Lydon argued the contract had never been adhered to and any request for licenses were therefore subject to members’ individual vetoes.

After Jones and Cook took the dispute to London’s High Court last month, a judge has now ruled that the contract is in force and that the majority of the band can overrule any individual member’s veto.

[Uninformed]

“Nirvana sued by the baby from Nevermind's album cover”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58327844

[RTH10260]

“Nirvana sued by the baby from Nevermind's album cover”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58327844

I guess there will be some payouts for the use of the picture without consent of the parents under European style privacy laws, while the sexual exploitation path will go nowhere.

[RTH10260]

Supreme court orders Biden to revive Trump’s ‘remain in Mexico’ policy
Justices deny president’s effort to rescind Trump program
Blow to Biden as trio of liberal justices dissent in 6-3 ruling

Reuters
Wed 25 Aug 2021 03.23 BST

The US supreme court on Tuesday denied Joe Biden’s bid to rescind an immigration policy implemented by his predecessor, Donald Trump, that forced thousands of asylum seekers to stay in Mexico awaiting US hearings.

The court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected the Biden administration’s effort to block a Texas-based judge’s ruling requiring the government to revive Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.

The court’s 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump.

The brief order by the justices means that US district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling now goes into effect.

The court’s decision referenced its 2020 ruling that thwarted Trump’s bid to end a program introduced by Barack Obama that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants – often called “Dreamers” – who entered the United States without papers as children.

Both cases concern whether the government followed the correct legal process in unwinding a previous administration’s policy.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ant-policy

[Res Ipsa]

I dont know how I was able to do the hidden before. Cant seem to find how again.

The plaintiff is my son. She is a co-plaintiff as the mother of his son. She will recover as the mother of his son. I am only asking if I, as my son's mother, primary caretaker, both physically and financially, have a right to participate in the suit.

Bill your son for the care you have provided.

[mojosapien]

IANAL: I was handed the keys to the City of Quincy MA today.
If I don't return them with 5 days they will create another one.
ssshhh...
Blue Envelope vs Blue Card. 02908 here.

[mojosapien]

6 month exposure to jury duty.

[humblescribe]

So, apparently in the Sixth Circuit, parking enforcement cannot use chalk to mark the tires to determine the length of time a car has been parked.

https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw-bay- ... ginaw.html

I need to understand how a mere chalking of a stationary vehicle to determine whether the parked car has exceeded the allotted time is a 4A violation.

I would suppose that if this sort of action violates the 4A, then the cameras that record toll violations for turnpikes, bridges, and carpool lanes are next.

Pray tell, exactly what is a search?

[Maybenaut]

So, apparently in the Sixth Circuit, parking enforcement cannot use chalk to mark the tires to determine the length of time a car has been parked.

https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw-bay- ... ginaw.html

I need to understand how a mere chalking of a stationary vehicle to determine whether the parked car has exceeded the allotted time is a 4A violation.

I would suppose that if this sort of action violates the 4A, then the cameras that record toll violations for turnpikes, bridges, and carpool lanes are next.

Pray tell, exactly what is a search?

We’ll, I don’t think that’s exactly what they said.

First, they said it was a search because chalking amounts to a trespass by the government into the property of the plaintiffs.

And they said it wasn’t reasonable per se, but nor did they say it was unreasonable. They said the district court erred in throwing the lawsuit out:

[T]he district court went astray in three significant respects. First, it treated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim as a broad challenge to the City’s ability to regulate parking through its police powers. The issue here, rather, is whether the City’s chosen means for exerting that civil authority violates the Fourth Amendment. See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 335 (1985) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment [is] applicable to the activities of civil as well as criminal authorities.”). Second, it also seemingly placed the burden on Taylor to demonstrate that the City’s parking ordinances were “unreasonable[].” But once Taylor established that tire chalking is a search, the burden shifted to defendants to establish the reasonableness of the search by demonstrating the applicability of an exception to the warrant requirement. See Liberty Coins, LLC, 880 F.3d at 281. Third, the district court applied the wrong law when it relied on Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979), to condone defendants’ tire-chalking practice, stating “[t]he City’s use of chalk [was] reasonable because it is in the public interest [to enforce parking regulations] and the ‘severity of the interference with individual liberty’ is minimal.” Brown is not an administrative-search case (or even a search case at all), and the balancing test it prescribes has no application to these facts.

Then they remanded to fix all of that stuff. It might still be that the search was reasonable after the law is properly applied.

Here’s the decision: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinio ... 94p-06.pdf

[chancery]

I dunno what to think about this.

It strikes me that it ought to be possible to extract a waiver of the de minimis 4th amendment violation involved in chalking a tire in exchange for the privilege of parking.

[humblescribe]

Thank you, Maybe.

My eyes glaze over at times when I read these things. I understand that judgements and rulings must be not only accurate but also precise.

But sometimes, there should be a pithy summary of the decisions that we plebs can understand, especially in such common situations like this that could potentially affect millions of citizens and local governments and police agencies.

[KickahaOta]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect.

Here's the opinion that the recent one is based on. It gets pretty deep into the issue so it's hard to summarize. But I'll try.

• These days, when courts think about what constitutes a search, they tend to apply the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test -- is the government peeking into a place where a reasonable person would expect privacy? (I personally think that there's a lot of problems with the way that test is applied; but that's beside the point here.)
• This isn't from the opinion, but to give a concrete example: If the parking police had taken pictures or video of the street to see if cars were in the same place later on, that wouldn't be a search -- it's long-established case law that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you park your car on a public street.
• But there's an older test for 'what's a search?' as well. "In recent years, however, the Supreme Court revisited the seldom used 'property-based' approach to the Fourth Amendment search inquiry in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). Under Jones, when governmental invasions are accompanied by physical intrusions, a search occurs when the government: (1) trespasses upon a constitutionally protected area, (2) to obtain information." And the common-law definition of "trespass" applies.
• At common law, any intentional touching of someone else's property -- whether directly (with a body part), or indirectly (with an object) -- is a common-law trespass.
• So, by intentionally touching the car tire, the parking police are committing common-law trespass. And they're doing so with the intent of obtaining information -- how long the car parks there. So, by this older-but-still-valid test, this is a Fourth Amendment search.
• The police offered two justifications for the search: the "automobile exception" and the "community caretaker" exception. I'll get into those in a bit. But it's important to note that these are the only two justifications the police offered. Courts almost never have to bring up issues that weren't raised by the parties; and there's very often good reason for them not to bring up issues on their own. So no matter what other justifications there might be for the search, they didn't count in this case.
• The "automobile exception" allows police to search cars without a warrant, on the theory that it's otherwise too easy for the car to move out of the jurisdiction. But there still has to be justification for the search. "Here[...] the City commences its search on vehicles that are parked legally, without probable cause or even so much as 'individualized suspicion of wrongdoing'—the touchstone of the reasonableness standard." So the automotive exception is out.
• The "community caretaker" exception lets police do searches when they're acting as a caretaker -- for example, entering a house when they believe that someone is badly hurt and might need aid -- rather than as a law enforcer. "To apply, this function must be 'totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” And "the community caretaker exception does not provide the government with refuge from the warrant requirement except when delay is reasonably likely to result in injury or ongoing harm to the community at large.” Here, the police were acting to enforce the parking laws. The cars being chalked weren't creating any immediate threat of injury or harm -- they weren't stopped in the middle of the street, in front of a fire hydrant, etc. So the community caretaker exception is out too.
• Again, no matter what other legal justifications you might think of, they don't count here, because the government didn't argue them.

And here's what today's followup says:

• Back in district court, the government argued for yet another exception, the "administrative" exception. The district court agreed that this applied and ruled in the government's favor.
• The appellate panel mused about the "law of the case" doctrine -- that, in general, you can't make a legal argument once you've had a chance to make it before the appellate court and failed to do so -- but ultimately decided that it didn't apply. So the government got to argue the administrative exception even though they didn't do that on the prior appeal.
• The administrative exception lets the government enforce certain codes -- building codes, professional licensing standards, etc. -- without a warrant. But there are a number of restrictions, one of which is that the owner/resident/etc. has to be able to obtain prior review before a neutral decisionmaker. There's obviously no way that drivers can obtain prior review before their tires are chalked. So this exception doesn't work either.
• The government argued that they should get to use the exception for "closely regulated industries" -- industries that have historically been regulated closely enough that they have no reasonable expectations of privacy in their operations. But the court held that, aside from the fact that drivers parking on the street aren't part of an industry, parked cars do not "pose[] a clear and significant risk to the public welfare."
• Finally, there's a "special needs" exception that applies to a few situations like border crossings and DUI checkpoints. Suffice it to say that the panel wasn't convinced that parking enforcement was a special need.
• But even though the appellate panel ultimately held that the chalking appeared unconstitutional, it also held that the people enforcing it weren't clearly on notice of that -- good ol' "qualified immunity". So they dismissed the case. (I will wonder out loud whether this was to put the case out of its misery, rather than going through a third round of district-court proceedings. But at least the panel did stick to its holding that the chalking was a search in the first place, rather than just handwaving that away and skipping straight to qualified immunity as courts often do.)

[Maybenaut]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect.

A good way to figure out what to think about it is by reading the opinion. It gets pretty deep into the issue so it's hard to summarize. But I'll try.

• These days, when courts think about what constitutes a search, they tend to apply the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test -- is the government peeking into a place where a reasonable person would expect privacy? (I personally think that there's a lot of problems with the way that test is applied; but that's beside the point here.)
• This isn't from the opinion, but to give a concrete example: If the parking police had taken pictures or video of the street to see if cars were in the same place later on, that wouldn't be a search -- it's long-established case law that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you park your car on a public street.
• But there's an older test for 'what's a search?' as well. "In recent years, however, the Supreme Court revisited the seldom used 'property-based' approach to the Fourth Amendment search inquiry in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). Under Jones, when governmental invasions are accompanied by physical intrusions, a search occurs when the government: (1) trespasses upon a constitutionally protected area, (2) to obtain information." And the common-law definition of "trespass" applies.
• At common law, any intentional touching of someone else's property -- whether directly (with a body part), or indirectly (with an object) -- is a common-law trespass.
• So, by intentionally touching the car tire, the parking police are committing common-law trespass. And they're doing so with the intent of obtaining information -- how long the car parks there. So, by this older-but-still-valid test, this is a Fourth Amendment search.
• The police offered two justifications for the search: the "automobile exception" and the "community caretaker" exception. I'll get into those in a bit. But it's important to note that these are the only two justifications the police offered. Courts almost never have to bring up issues that weren't raised by the parties; and there's very often good reason for them not to bring up issues on their own. So no matter what other justifications there might be for the search, they didn't count in this case.
• The "automobile exception" allows police to search cars without a warrant, on the theory that it's otherwise too easy for the car to move out of the jurisdiction. But there still has to be justification for the search. "Here[...] the City commences its search on vehicles that are parked legally, without probable cause or even so much as 'individualized suspicion of wrongdoing'—the touchstone of the reasonableness standard." So the automotive exception is out.
• The "community caretaker" exception lets police do searches when they're acting as a caretaker -- for example, entering a house when they believe that someone is badly hurt and might need aid -- rather than as a law enforcer. "To apply, this function must be 'totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” And "the community caretaker exception does not provide the government with refuge from the warrant requirement except when delay is reasonably likely to result in injury or ongoing harm to the community at large.” Here, the police were acting to enforce the parking laws. The cars being chalked weren't creating any immediate threat of injury or harm -- they weren't stopped in the middle of the street, in front of a fire hydrant, etc. So the community caretaker exception is out too.
• Again, no matter what other legal justifications you might think of, they don't count here, because the government didn't argue them.

I do respectfully disagree with Maybenaut that "it might still be that the search was reasonable after the law is properly applied" -- at least with respect to this case. The "law of the case" doctrine would very likely apply here. If a case is on appeal, and you have every opportunity and reason to make a legal argument to the appellate court, and you don't make that argument, then you very likely lose the chance to make that argument later (either back in the trial court or on a later appeal). Here, the government had every opportunity and reason to make legal arguments to the appellate court as to why the chalking was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. They put forward two reasons, and they lost on those two reasons. They will probably not get the proverbial "second bite at the apple" to argue other reasons.

The opinion you linked is the earlier opinion decided in 2019, not the one decided yesterday.

[KickahaOta]

The opinion you linked is the earlier opinion decided in 2019, not the one decided yesterday.

Gah! Edited. Thanks.

[humblescribe]

Pretty neat write-up, Kicka!

But then I must inquire:

In Michigan is an ordinary local parking violation considered a crime? Or is it a civil infraction? If your trespass argument is germane, then is this trespass by the parking enforcement person civil trespass or criminal trespass? Does the Fourth Amendment apply to civil matters?

And, yes, if the lawyers did not argue any of this our discussion for the most part is moot when it comes to judicial decisions.

Cheers!

[Maybenaut]

Pretty neat write-up, Kicka!

But then I must inquire:

In Michigan is an ordinary local parking violation considered a crime? Or is it a civil infraction? If your trespass argument is germane, then is this trespass by the parking enforcement person civil trespass or criminal trespass? Does the Fourth Amendment apply to civil matters?

And, yes, if the lawyers did not argue any of this our discussion for the most part is moot when it comes to judicial decisions.

Cheers!

This was a civil rights Sec. 1983 claim; it wasn’t a criminal case. The plaintiff was arguing she shouldn’t have to pay parking fines because they violated her civil rights through unlawful search.

[raison de arizona]

That blind Macshop Hunter Biden Laptop from Hell guy got done SLAPPed.

And he gets to pay Twitter's legal fees

Thread with more at the tweet but here is the decision: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... on-mtd.pdf

[northland10]

See Corsi v. Newsmax Media, Inc., No. 20-cv-81396-RAR, 2021 WL 626855, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2021)

Klayman gets a shout-out.

ETA: He gets a half shout-out for the Zimmerman v. Buttigieg citation. He was already out of the case by the time that order came down, but much of the order was based on the original complaint Klayman filed. FYI, the case continues as they submitted an amended complaint to de-GIL the case and it appears to be proceeding more like a real case.

[RTH10260]

Three Officers and Two Paramedics Are Charged in Elijah McClain’s Death
A grand jury has issued charges in the 2019 death of Mr. McClain, a young Black man who was put in a chokehold while walking home from a convenience store.

By Jack Healy
Sept. 1, 2021

DENVER — A Colorado grand jury indicted three police officers and two paramedics in the 2019 death of Elijah McClain, a young Black man who had been walking home when he was stopped by the police, put into a chokehold and injected with a powerful anesthetic, the attorney general of Colorado announced on Wednesday.

Attorney General Phil Weiser, who had been named as a special prosecutor in the case, announced the 32-count indictment almost two years to the day after Mr. McClain’s death.

“Our goal is to seek justice for Elijah McClain, for his family and friends, and for our state,” Mr. Weiser said at a news conference announcing the charges, the culmination of months of investigation, protests and calls for justice by Mr. McClain’s family and friends that were amplified by the nationwide protests after George Floyd’s murder.

“We’re here today because Elijah McClain is not here, and he should be,” Mr. Weiser said.

The five defendants involved in Mr. McClain’s death in Aurora, Colo., just east of Denver, will each face one charge of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide as well as a variety of assault charges.

The three Aurora police officers charged in Mr. McClain’s death are Randy Roedema, Nathan Woodyard and Jason Rosenblatt, who was fired last year. The paramedics are Jeremy Cooper and Peter Cichuniec of the Aurora Fire Department. The city indicated that the officers and medics still with the department would be suspended without pay.

While it is uncommon for police officers to face criminal charges for on-duty deaths, it is rarer still for firefighters or paramedics to be charged.



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/e ... orado.html

[raison de arizona]

Recommend reading the rest of that article, it's chilling. They deserve every bit of what I sincerely hope they get. All of them. And the Aurora Police Association is evil.

[MN-Skeptic]

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/9/2 ... =emaildkre

'Gee, that’s suspicious—Black people shopping in Beverly Hills,' attorney mocks police force


A lawsuit announced Wednesday accuses the Beverly Hills Police Department, the city, and one Capt. Scott Dowling specifically of racial profiling after attorneys found 105 of 106 people arrested as part of a city task force are Black. The other person is Latino, CBS Los Angeles reported. The lawsuit filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court is spearheaded by noted civil rights attorneys Ben Crump, Bradley Gage, and Mark Harris. It centers the city police department’s Operation Safe Streets and the Rodeo Drive Task Force.

"This Beverly Hills task force was created under the guise of safety, but don't let anyone fool you," Crump said in the release. “In reality, these task forces were unjustifiably targeting people of color for things that white residents and visitors do all the time without incident.”

Salehe Bembury, former vice president of the Italian fashion brand Versace, is also a part of the lawsuit, CBS Los Angeles reported. Bembury, holding a Versace bag in an Instagram video he posted on Oct. 1, 2020, said he was searched for shopping at the store he works for “and just being Black.” An officer is shown in the video asking Bembury if he has any weapons and to produce his ID. He told the officer and another cop on the scene he didn’t have any weapons, and he gave them his ID. "So you checked my ID. What's going on?” Bembury asked toward the end of the encounter. “Do I have anything on my record? I'm good to go. That's what I thought."

► Show Spoiler

Last summer, our department responded to a significant increase in calls for service in our business community. These calls included burglaries, shoplifting, pedestrian and vehicle code violations, street gambling, public intoxication, marijuana smoking and more. This rise in crime during the pandemic and following months of civil unrest was not unique to Beverly Hills.
We received daily complaints from Rodeo Drive businesses and, in response to community concerns, our department created the Rodeo Drive Team to ensure proper staffing and appropriate response times. As a result of the newly created team, in a span of just five weeks, we recovered thirteen loaded firearms from individuals on Rodeo Drive.

This is unprecedented in the history of Beverly Hills.
As we responded to these issues, our officers also discovered widespread fraudulent use of California unemployment benefits.
We recovered over a quarter-million dollars in cash and fraudulent EDD cards with a potential value of $3 million dollars.

The majority of those arrested were not residents of California, despite possessing and using California unemployment benefit cards. I am proud that our department was one of the first to uncover the gross abuse of our state’s unemployment system. Through our efforts, many cities found similar fraud, and the state began to repair a very broken system.

[RTH10260]

As Migrants Surge Toward Border, Court Hands Biden a Lifeline
Desperate to control the unrelenting buildup on the border, Biden administration officials turn their focus to deterring migration, dashing hopes of asylum seekers.

By Natalie KitroeffPhotographs by Daniele Volpe
Sept. 6, 2021

MATAMOROS, Mexico — When the Supreme Court effectively revived a cornerstone of Trump-era migration policy late last month, it looked like a major defeat for President Biden.

After all, Mr. Biden had condemned the policy — which requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico — as “inhumane” and suspended it on his first day in office, part of an aggressive push to dismantle former President Donald J. Trump’s harshest migration policies.

But among some Biden officials, the Supreme Court’s order was quietly greeted with something other than dismay, current and former officials said: It brought some measure of relief.

Before that ruling, Mr. Biden’s steps to begin loosening the reins on migration had been quickly followed by a surge of people heading north, overwhelming the southwest border of the United States. Apprehensions of migrants hit a two-decade high in July, a trend officials fear will continue into the fall.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/worl ... order.html

[RTH10260]

‘Not Going to Do This Anymore’: Fed-Up Prosecutor Is Done With BS Traffic Stops
Andrew Boryga
Wed, September 8, 2021, 10:02 PM

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension/Reuters
John Choi said he will never forget July 6, 2016—the day 32-year-old Philando Castile was shot and killed by a St. Anthony Police Department officer during a simple traffic stop over a broken taillight.

When asked for his license and registration, Castile told officer Jeronimo Yanez he had a licensed gun. Yanez, fearful Castile might reach for it, told him not to. But despite Castile’s insistence that he was not reaching for the gun, Yanez fired seven shots from close range, killing him. Later it was revealed Yanez and another officer in the car believed Castile resembled a robbery suspect before they pulled him over.

Choi, the Ramsey County Attorney in Minnesota who charged Yanez for the shooting and later saw Yanez acquitted by a jury, told The Daily Beast he’s never stopped thinking about the way Castile’s interaction with Yanez began—over an innocuous infraction. Choi said it’s the sort of traffic stop that Black people like Castile, who’d been stopped over 40 times before his death, are subject to daily by police officers often fishing for drugs, guns, and an easy arrest.

In honor of Castile, Choi announced Wednesday his office will no longer prosecute felony cases resulting from minor traffic stops for violations like an expired registration, overly tinted windows, or broken lights. The change, Choi said, is a deliberate attempt to cut down on what he said are unnecessary stops by police of people of color that too often spiral into fatal incidents.

“I'm not going to do this anymore,” Choi told The Daily Beast. “I am not going to perpetuate these unjust practices that disproportionately impact my community.”



https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-going-an ... 07924.html