police state – Page 250 – Hellbound and Down

A SWAT Team Blew Up This Innocent Couple’s Home and Left Them With the Bill. Was That Constitutional?

A federal court yesterday heard arguments in an appeal concerning an area of law that, while niche, has seen a streak of similarly situated plaintiffs pile up in recent years. At stake: When a SWAT team destroys an innocent person’s property, should the owner be strapped with the bill?

There is what I would consider a commonsense answer to that question. But in a reminder that common sense does not always guide law and policy, that is not the answer reached by several courts across the U.S., where such victims are sometimes told that “police powers” provide an exception to the Constitution’s promise to give just compensation when the government usurps property for public use.

It remains to be seen where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit will fall as it evaluates the complaint from Mollie and Michael Slaybaugh, who are reportedly on the hook for over $70,000 after a SWAT team destroyed much of their home in Smyrna, Tennessee.

In January 2022, Mollie Slaybaugh stepped outside her house and was greeted by a police officer with his gun drawn. She was informed that her adult son, James Jackson Conn—who did not live with her but had recently arrived to visit—was wanted for questioning concerning the murder of a police officer, which she says was news to her. Although she offered to speak to Conn and bring him out of her house, law enforcement declined to permit that, or to let her re-enter at all, so she went to stay at her daughter’s house nearby.

The next day, police broke down the door and launched dozens of tear gas grenades into the Slaybaughs’ home, laying waste to nearly everything in the house. Their insurance declined to assist them, as their policy—like many policies—does not cover damage caused by the government. Yet both Smyrna and Rutherford County said they were immune from helping as well.

But despite Mollie Slaybaugh’s offer to coax Conn out sans tear gas, her complaint does not dispute that it was in the best interest of the community for law enforcement to do as they did that day. It merely contests the government’s claim that innocent property owners should have to bear the financial burden by themselves when police destroy their homes in pursuit of a suspect.

“Law enforcement is a public good. Through our taxes, we pay for the training, equipment, and salaries of police officers. We pay to incarcerate criminals. We pay for a court system and public defenders,” reads her complaint. “When the police destroy private property in the course of enforcing the criminal laws, that is simply another cost of law enforcement. Forcing random, innocent individuals to shoulder that cost alone would be as fair as conducting a lottery to determine who has to pay the police chief’s salary each year.”

That hypothetical is absurd. And yet the spirit of it is at the heart of several court decisions on the matter. That includes the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which ruled last year that the Slaybaughs were not entitled to a payout because, in the court’s view, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not apply when the state seizes and destroys someone’s property in the exercise of “police powers.”

The Slaybaughs are unfortunately not alone. The notion that “police powers” immunize the government from liability is what doomed Leo Lech’s lawsuit, which he filed after a SWAT team did so much damage to his home—in pursuit of a suspect that broke in and had no relation to the family—that it had to be demolished. In 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Keep reading

DEA Appears To Question Marijuana’s Medical Value Despite Rescheduling Recommendation

In the wake of the federal government’s marijuana rescheduling announcement last week that acknowledged the medical benefits of cannabis, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on Thursday released a report that appears to question the legitimacy of state medical programs.

“Marijuana remains illegal at the federal level; it has been ‘legalized’ or ‘decriminalized’ at the state level for recreational use in 24 states and the District of Columbia, and for ‘medical’ use in 38 states and the District of Columbia,” the annual National Drug Threat Assessment says, appearing to call those state-level changes and the medical value of cannabis into question by putting scare quotes around key words.

That’s despite the fact that DEA recently agreed to a Department of Health and Human Services recommendation to move cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, acknowledging for the first time that cannabis has an accepted medical use in the U.S.

The comments make up only a small part of the 57-page annual report, which the agency said analyzes “illicit drug threats and trafficking trends endangering the United States.”

The top-level findings, according to a statement from DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, are that the country’s shift toward synthetic substances such as fentanyl and methamphetamine—which she blamed largely on international cartels—has caused unprecedented harm.

“The shift from plant-based drugs, like heroin and cocaine, to synthetic, chemical-based drugs, like fentanyl and methamphetamine, has resulted in the most dangerous and deadly drug crisis the United States has ever faced,” Milgram said. “At the heart of the synthetic drug crisis are the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels and their associates, who DEA is tracking world-wide.”

“The suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and money-launderers all play a role in the web of deliberate and calculated treachery orchestrated by these cartels,” her statement continued. “DEA will continue to use all available resources to target these networks and save American lives.”

In 2022, drug-related deaths killed 107,941 people in the United States, DEA said in its press release about the new assessment. “Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are responsible for approximately 70% of lives lost,” it says, “while methamphetamine and other synthetic stimulants are responsible for approximately 30% of deaths.”

The agency press release doesn’t mention marijuana, though this year’s National Drug Threat Assessment itself does include some cannabis-related details.

Keep reading

CISA, FBI Resuming Talks With Social Media Firms Over Disinformation Removal, Senate Intel Chair Says

Key federal agencies have resumed discussions with social media companies over removing disinformation on their sites as the November presidential election nears, a stark reversal after the Biden administration for months froze communications with social platforms amid a pending First Amendment case in the Supreme Court, a top senator said Monday.

Mark Warner, D-Va., who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters in a briefing at RSA Conference that agencies restarted talks with social media companies as the Supreme Court heard arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, a case that first began in the Fifth Circuit appellate court last July. The case was fueled by allegations that federal agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency were coercing platforms to remove content related to vaccine safety and 2020 presidential election results.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether agencies are allowed to stay in touch with social media firms about potential disinformation. Missouri’s then-Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed the suit on the grounds that the Biden administration violated First Amendment rights pertaining to free speech online in a bid to suppress politically conservative voices.

According to Warner, communications between agencies and social platforms resumed roughly around the same time that multiple justices appeared to favor the executive branch’s stance on the issue, he said.

“There seemed to be a lot of sympathy that the government ought to have at least voluntary communications with [the companies],” he said, adding that, in the event of election interference attempts akin to Russia in 2016, the Biden administration should more forcefully call out nation-state entities that attempt to meddle in the U.S. election process.

Warner said his committee will convene a hearing on elections security in two weeks. The panel was supposed to hold the session with CISA Director Jen Easterly and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines last month, but it was postponed amid GOP attempts to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

For around six months, agencies chilled their communications with social firms about election security and other disinformation flash points. Warner previously said that White House lawyers had been “too timid” in their legal interpretation of the case, especially given that the high court allowed the Biden administration to temporarily continue their talks until a ruling was made.

Keep reading

Virginia Officials Launch ‘Surveillance System’ To Track Cannabis-Related ‘Adverse Events’ Among Children

Virginia officials are instructing health care providers to start keeping track of “adverse events” involving children and teens being exposed to cannabis products.

In an April 24 letter to clinicians, State Health Commissioner Karen Shelton said her agency had received enough reports of minors getting sick from products containing CBD and THC, chemical compounds found in cannabis, that the state was establishing a “special surveillance system” to keep tabs on the issue.

“Reported symptoms for these adverse events have included vomiting, hallucinations, low blood pressure, low blood sugar, altered mental status and anxiety,” Shelton wrote, adding that “some hospitalizations have occurred” as a result of minors consuming cannabis products.

The letter specifically asks that local health departments be made aware of any cannabis-related hospitalizations in patients under 18 years old and any “clusters of adverse events” affecting multiple minors.

“After a hospitalization or cluster is reported, VDH staff will collect information about the illness(es), possible exposures, and laboratory results,” the letter says.

The Health Department provided data showing an increase in emergency room visits involving minors being exposed to cannabis, and said the new surveillance system will help bolster those tracking efforts. In 2019, there were 52 ER visits. By 2023, the number had grown to 377.

That data only covers emergency room visits and doesn’t reflect every incident reported to health officials.

“As a result of these data, the special surveillance system was established in order for VDH to receive these reports directly and better assess the impact of adverse events related to consumption of products containing THC or CBD among children in the Commonwealth,” said Health Department spokesperson Cheryle Rodriguez.

The letter also points to an online portal allowing anyone who had an adverse experience with cannabis products to submit a report to the Health Department with information about what happened, where the product was obtained and how it was labeled. The agency also noted that lab testing is available to “support patient and product testing.”

Keep reading

Michigan Supreme Court Allows Evidence Collected by Drone, Without a Warrant

Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled unanimously that evidence collected illegally could still be used to enforce civil penalties.

Todd and Heather Maxon keep cars on their five-acre property in Long Lake Township. The township sued in 2007, alleging that the Maxons were violating a zoning ordinance by keeping “junk” on the property. When the Maxons fought back, the township agreed to drop the charges and reimburse attorney fees, and in exchange, the Maxons would not expand the number of cars on the property.

Township officials heard that the Maxons’ collection was growing, but the cars were hidden from the road, so they had no way to verify it without a warrant—or so you would think. Instead, officials hired a company to surveil the property with aerial drones on three different occasions. Finding that the collection had indeed expanded, the township sued the Maxons for violating the agreement.

The Maxons filed to suppress the drone evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation, since the township never obtained a warrant. The case made its way to the Michigan Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in October. The court had previously remanded the case back to the Michigan Court of Appeals to determine “whether the exclusionary rule applies to this dispute.” The exclusionary rule holds that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced at trial.

Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Michigan Supreme Court sided with the township. “The exclusionary rule may not be applied to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate local zoning and nuisance ordinances,” wrote Justice Brian Zahra, adding that “the costs of excluding the drone evidence outweighed the benefits of suppressing it.”

“Generally, the exclusionary rule operates to exclude or suppress evidence in certain legal
proceedings if the evidence is obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights,” Zahra wrote. “Caselaw, however, has never suggested that the exclusionary rule bars the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons. Given the history of the rule, it is only applicable when the objective of deterring wrongful law enforcement conduct is most effectively met.”

The court of appeals originally determined that the search had violated the Fourth Amendment before the higher court sent it back for further consideration. “Because the Supreme Court limited our review to the exclusionary rule’s role in this dispute, we proceed by assuming that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred,” wrote Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher of the Michigan Court of Appeals.

But the state supreme court punted on that issue: “Because the exclusionary rule did not apply in this civil proceeding to enforce zoning and nuisance ordinances,” Zahra wrote, “the Court declined to address whether the use of an aerial drone under the circumstances of this case was an unreasonable search or seizure for purposes of the United States or Michigan Constitutions.”

In other words, the state’s highest court decided that it was irrelevant whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the evidence would not be excluded either way, so long as the search was conducted to investigate civil and not criminal violations.

Keep reading

An Atlanta Cop Killed This Man For Refusing To Sign a Ticket

Johnny Hollman called 911 after he was in a minor traffic accident. But instead of helping, the responding officer beat and tased Hollman after he was hesitant to sign a ticket, resulting in the 62-year-old’s death.

Hollman’s family sued, and they’ve now been awarded a $3.8 million settlement.

“While nothing can undo what has been done,” Atlanta mayor Andre Dickens said in a statement this week, “my priority was to get this family as close to full closure from this unfortunate tragedy as soon as possible.”

During the evening of August 10th, 2023, Hollman was driving home when he was involved in a low-speed collision with another vehicle. According to Hollman’s family’s lawsuit, both Hollman and the other driver called 911 to report the accident. While no one was injured, both drivers disputed who was at fault for the accident.

After more than an hour, Atlanta Police Department Officer Kiran Kimbrough arrived on the scene. Soon after, he decided that Hollman was at fault and wrote him a citation.

However, Hollman was hesitant to sign the citation. “Deacon Hollman did not explicitly refuse to sign the citation,” the suit states. (Hollman was a Deacon at his local church). “But in each instance when directed to do so, responded that the collision was not his fault.”

Eventually, Kimbrough threatened to send Hollman to jail unless he signed the ticket, and Hollman called one of his daughters.

According to the suit, Kimbrough then began walking towards Hollman. Almost simultaneously, Kimbrough reached to grab one of Hollman’s arms, and Hollman said “I’ll sign the ticket.”

Hollman said several more times that he would sign the ticket. However, “ignoring Deacon Hollman’s concession to his request that he sign the ticket, Defendant Kimbrough performed a leg sweep maneuver on Deacon Hollman, taking Deacon Hollman to the ground,” the suit states. “While doing so, Defendant Kimbrough commented to Deacon Hollman: ‘You acting crazy!'”

Over the next several minutes, Kimbrough struck the back of Hollman’s head at least twice with his fist, tased him twice, and allowed another citizen to “assist” him by sitting on Hollman’s head and neck, while ignoring Hollman’s frequent statements that he couldn’t breathe.

Eventually, Hollman was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. An autopsy later concluded that the cause of Hollman’s death was homicide.

Keep reading

Do dying people have a ‘right to try’ magic mushrooms? 9th Circuit weighs case

Do dying patients have a “right to try” illegal drugs such as psilocybin and MDMA if they might alleviate end-of-life suffering from anxiety and depression?

That question is now before one of the nation’s highest courts, with a Seattle-based palliative care physician appealing a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration decision barring him from prescribing psilocybin to his late-stage cancer patients.

Dr. Sunil Aggarwal says he has a right to prescribe psilocybin—the hallucinogenic compound in “magic mushrooms”—under state and federal “right to try” laws, which give terminal patients access to experimental drug therapies before they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. More than 40 states, including Washington and California, have such laws in place, and Congress passed a federal version in 2018.

“I have patients who want to try psilocybin-assisted therapy for existential distress,” Aggarwal said in an interview with The Times. “And there are lots of studies that support that.”

The DEA has denied Aggarwal’s request, arguing that therapeutic use of psilocybin remains banned—even for terminal patients—under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which lists the drug as a “Schedule I” narcotic with no recognized medical use. The agency said Aggarwal could only work with the drug if he received a license to do so as a researcher, not as a regular part of his palliative care practice.

The case is one of two Aggarwal now has pending before the 9th Circuit, each pitting the DEA’s law enforcement authority against state powers to regulate medicine. In the second case, Aggarwal is asking the DEA to simply reschedule psilocybin, making it available for therapy—not just research.

Physicians and medical experts across the country are closely watching the “right to try” case, and eight states and the District of Columbia have weighed in directly in support of Aggarwal.

In February, the state coalition filed a brief that accused the DEA of reaching far beyond its law enforcement role of preventing the illegal diversion of powerful narcotics. They said the DEA’s assertion that the Controlled Substances Act trumps state right-to-try laws represented a “threat to state sovereignty.”

Keep reading

FBI Brought Props To Stage Infamous Trump Crime Scene Photo

The FBI brought props to its raid of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago for classified documents that were pictured in an infamous photo taken at the alleged crime scene, according to court documents.

Jay Bratt, the lead Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor now assigned to special counsel Jack Smith’s team, admitted in a recent court filing that FBI agents brought cover sheets reading “top secret” to the raid of Mar-a-Lago to use as placeholders in their gathering of classified documents. The classified documents, however, now appear to be out of order following their seizure, both Trump’s defense attorney and the special counsel have admitted, according to court documents first reported by Declassified with Julie Kelly.

The crime scene photo of classified documents allegedly found at Mar-a-Lago, complete with the bright red “classification” cover sheets, went viral in the weeks after the raid. Corporate media outlets breathlessly reported on the photo and the cover sheets as proof that Trump had been storing classified documents at his Florida property.

“[If] the investigative team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a placeholder sheet. The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose,” Bratt wrote in a recent filing.

In a May filing, Waltine Nauta, Trump’s defense attorney, wrote that the placeholders which the FBI brought to the scene to mark classified documents in stacks were out of place.

“Following defense counsel’s review of the physical boxes…and the documents produced in classified discovery, defense counsel has learned that the cross-reference provided by the Special Counsel’s Office does not contain accurate information,” Nauta wrote, according to Kelly.

Keep reading

The Proof of Censorship is…Censored

It’s not been a good week for the Censorship Industrial Complex.

The machine has been built and put into action over nearly a decade but largely in secret. Its way of doing business has been via surreptitious contacts with media and tech companies, intelligence carve-outs in “fact-checking” organizations, payoffs, and various other clever strategies, all directed toward boosting some sources of information and suppressing others. The goal has always been to advance regime narratives and curate the public mind.

And yet, based on its operations and insofar as we can tell, it had every intention of remaining secret. This is for a reason. A systematic effort by government to bully private sector companies into a particular narrative while suppressing dissent contradicts American law and tradition. It also violates human rights as understood since the Enlightenment. It was a consensus, until very recently, that free speech was essential to the functioning of the good society.

Four years ago, many of us suspected censorship was going on, that the throttling and banning was not merely a mistake or the result of zealous employees stepping out of line. Three years ago, the proof started to arrive. Two years ago, it became a flood. With the Twitter files from a year ago, we had all the proof we needed that the censorship was systematic, directed, and highly effective. But even then, we only knew a fraction of it.

Thanks to discovery from court cases, FOIA requests, whistleblowers, Congressional inquiries thanks to the very narrow Republican control, and some industrial upheavals such as what happened at Twitter, we are overwhelmed with tens of thousands of pages all pointing to the same reality.

The censors developed a belief at the highest levels of control in government that it was their job to govern what information the American people would and would not see, regardless of the truth. The actions became truly tribal: our side favors banning gatherings, closing schools, says the Hunter Biden laptop is a fake, favors masking, mass vaccination, and mail-in voting, and denies the import of voter fraud and vaccine injury, whereas their side takes the opposite approach.

It was a war over information, undertaken in total disregard for the First Amendment, as if it doesn’t even exist. Moreover, the operation was not only political. It clearly involved intelligence agencies that were already hip deep in the “all-of-society” pandemic response.

“All of Society” means all, including the information you receive and are allowed to distribute.

Keep reading

	Trump Claims Netanya… on Trump claims Netanyahu will sc…
	Key Trump agency unl… on Key Trump agency unleashes pro…
	Pope Leo XIV Picks a… on Pope Leo XIV Picks a Top Roths…
	Bigus Macus on Why Is The Trump DOJ Still Enf…
	High Taxes Are Turni… on High Taxes Are Turning Seattle…