The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is infamous for stacking charges on defendants and arresting individuals for seemingly minor possessions. However, when it comes to its own agents, there appears to be an endless level of leniency. In 2012, DEA carried out a raid on a home and arrested a group of young people who were smoking marijuana. One was Daniel Chong. Despite the minor violation, Chong was arrested and interrogated. He was told that he would be released but DEA agents simply forgot about him and left him in a cell for five days without food or water. At one point, as the 23-year-old cried and begged for help, someone with the DEA came in and turned off the light in his cell to leave him in the dark. He was given no food or water. Someone was charged, right? Someone was fired, right? No, the DEA has decided that a few reprimands and short suspensions is fine for starving and almost killing Chong.
Category: Constitutional Law
There is an interesting development in the case of North Augusta (S.C.) officer Justin Craven in the alleged murder of 68-year-old Ernest Satterwhite. Despite public disclosure laws, the police are refusing to release the videotape because they describe it as shocking and disturbing. Some would argue that that is precisely why it should be available to the public.
I have the great honor of serving as one of the keynote speakers at the 83rd Annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. I will be speaking today at 9:30 am at the Washington Convention Center. What is particularly cool is that my speech follows the keynote given by Peyton Manning to the group on May 3rd. As a football fanatic (albeit a Bears fan), it does not get better than this lineup. Of course, if Manning is truly excited about meeting a real law professor, I would be willing to take a few seconds to indulge him. I know that many NFL MVPs silently dream of being endomorphic, middle-aged law professors. I just hope that Manning will be able handle the excitement. As for me, I am just excited as a Bears fan . . . this is the closest anyone associated with Chicago has gotten to Manning in a long long time.
Continue reading “Turley To Speak At AANS Meeting In Washington”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
You may not have heard of it before, but the government has the ability to shut off cell phone service at any time, under the guise of National Security. The Department of Homeland Security has an operating procedure known as Standard Operating Procedure 303( SOP 303) and it has been labeled as the cell phone “kill switch”.
I knew very little about the “kill switch” before today, but according to a recent Al Jezeera America article, the kill switch authority is being currently debated in Federal court. Continue reading “Is The Cell Phone Kill Switch in the Wrong Hands?”
There is a troubling case out of Houston that shows the continuing immunity of the government from even lethal acts of negligence. In Patty v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54871A, Plaintiff Steven Craig Patty sought damages in a bizarre case where the DEA paid one of his drivers, without his knowledge, to participate in a highly dangerous drug sting with one of the most violent Mexican drug cartels. Lawrence Chapa, 53, (right) the driver, (who had been arrested in 2010 for possession of a controlled substance) was shot eight times. The sting went badly and resulted in the killing of Patty’s driver and shooting up his tractor-trailer. He claimed conversion, abuse of process, and constitutional torts, but U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal ruled that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is not liable to him even for the repair of this tractor-trailer. It is all an example of the sweeping protection afforded to “discretionary” acts by federal officers.
Like many, I am still waiting for the evidence used as the basis to charge the six officers in Baltimore for the death of Freddie Gray. This morning, however, I was disturbed to read that an effort to create a fundraising site for the defense of the officers was taken down on GoFundMe. It appears that the site has a very questionable standard for funding that does not afford accused parties a presumption of innocence in asking for support to fund their defense.
Continue reading “GoFundMe Site For Six Charged Baltimore Officers Taken Down After 41 Minutes”
I have previously written about my disagreement with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision to rescind federal trademark protections for the Redskins as a racially disparaging name. That case is still being appealed but a new case may well answer some of the question raised in the prior column. An Asian American rock band called “the Slants” has appealed a decision to deny it trademark protection — allowing the question to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A panel previously upheld the denial in In re Simon Shiao Tam, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6430.
A Russian court has sentencing two women and a teenager to 15 days jail time for twerking. That’s right, twerking. The women filmed a dance video with twerking in front of a World War II memorial. The timing could not be worse — or better — depending on your perspective. The Putin regime is using the 70th anniversary of the Allied victory to rally citizens. The court ruled that the twerking constituted “hooliganism.” You will recall that this is the same undefined crime used to jail two members of punk band Pussy Riot to prison for two years for an impromptu protest at Moscow’s main cathedral in 2012.
Continue reading “Putin Does Not Twerk: Women Jailed For Twerking In Russia”
Russia Today is showing a less than positive image of the United States as a video shows its reporter trying to report on the protests in Baltimore last week only to be mugged on camera. Fortunately, police were in the area and apprehended the suspect. In the meantime, another disturbing video shows City Paper Photo Editor J.M. Giordano was tackled and beaten by Baltimore City police outside of Western District headquarters last night while covering the protests. The attack on a journalist by police was accompanied by the arrest and charging of another reporter for disorderly conduct.
A board at the University of Maryland announced it will postpone indefinitely the screening of “American Sniper” on campus after Muslim organizations opposed the watching of the film as anti-Islamic and offensive. I have not seen the movie, but the effort to prevent other people from watching films set badly with me both in terms of free speech as well as the pluralistic values governing university communities. The movie was critically acclaimed and nominated for six oscars, including best picture, actor (Bradley Cooper) and adapted screenplay. Even people like Michele Obama have publicly proclaimed how the movie touched them. This is not to say that they are right. However, opposing other people from seeing a major artistic work is part of a growing effort to curtail free speech in the West and particularly on college campuses.
There is good news for those of us who support same-sex marriage (as well as an indication in the remarkable turnaround in public attitude in a relatively short time). According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 6 out of 10 Americans now support same-sex marriage and believe that states should not be allowed to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. That is a record showing for same-sex marriage.
Continue reading “Poll: Over Sixty Percent Of Americans Support Gay Marriage”
The testimony at the penalty phase for Boston Marathon bomb Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could not be more damning in terms of the pain and suffering that he and his brother caused. Survivors detailed their suffering from injuries as well as lost loved ones with pictures that left many in tears. Such evidence is entirely appropriate as the jury debates whether to impose the death penalty on the 21-year-old defendant. One piece of evidence, however, is more controversial: the court allowed the prosecutors to show the jury a videotape of Tsarnaev flipping the bird at a camera shortly before his arraignment to show that he was not repentant after his arrest. The question is whether such a videotape is clearly probative or too prejudicial for the jury. It is a demonstration of how far the prosecutor is willing to go (even in the creation of an appellate issue) to secure a death sentence in the case.
We have another video of a police officer destroying the cellphone of a citizen who is filming an arrest in clear violation of her constitutional rights. New reports indicate that the officer holding an automatic weapon in the videotape below who is seen charging the woman and smashing her phone on the ground is a United States Marshal in California.
By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“Those situations in which the Court may require special treatment on account of religion are, in my view, few and far between, and this view is amply supported by the course of constitutional litigation in this area.”
-Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 423 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting)
Were Maurice Bessinger still alive, he would undoubtedly be a strong supporter of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Had that law been available in 1964, history might well read differently.
Mr. Bessinger owned a small chain of barbecue restaurants in South Carolina known as “Piggie Park.” As a matter of company policy, African Americans were prohibited from consuming food on the premises of his restaurants and were required to place and pick up orders from the kitchen window.
When a class action was filed against Mr. Bessinger under the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among his defenses was the claim that the Act violated the First Amendment because “his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatsoever.” Newman v. Piggy Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (1966). The court had no sympathy for his defense. “Undoubtedly,” it said, “defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence and support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.” 256 F. Supp. at 945.
Mr. Bessinger partially prevailed at the trial court on interstate commerce grounds, but lost on appeal and was assessed attorney’s fees for his trouble, the Fourth Circuit finding that in view of a prior Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the assertion that he was not bound because the law “contravenes the will of God” and constituted interference with “the free exercise of the Defendant’s religion” was legally frivolous. Newman v. Piggy Park Enterprises, Inc., 377 F.2d 433 (4th Cir. 1967), aff’d, 390 U.S. 400 (1968).
Had the Religious Freedom Restoration Act been in effect when Mr. Bessinger was sued, might he have prevailed? Perhaps.
There is an interesting lawsuit out of New Orleans where two undercover Louisiana State Police troopers, Sgt. Joseph Patout and Master Trooper Christopher Treadaway, stopped for Sushi and parked illegally across the street. A booting company employee promptly booted the vehicle and when the police came out, they ordered him to remove the boot. The employee refused without their paying the fine so they arrested him, searched him, took the key and removed the boot. The attendant, Brandon Hardeway, was never charged and the company was then fired by the parking company in what many suspect is the company’s currying favor with the police over the incident. What is most striking is that there does not appear to have been any discipline, let alone termination, of the officers responsible.