Leaders of tech giants are finding ways to oppose President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, which could hurt their employees and potential new hires.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said he would consider taking legal action against the order, while the heads of other companies have pledged millions of dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

According to the Wall Street Journal, the ban affects hundreds of Apple employees. Cook told the Journal:

More than any country in the world, this country is strong because of our immigrant background and our capacity and ability as people to welcome people from all kinds of  backgrounds. That’s what makes us special. We ought to pause and really think deeply through that.

On January 27, Trump signed the executive order blocking citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria from entering the United States for at least 90 days (though the ban could be expanded), citing concerns over foreign terrorism. The measure also prevents refugees from being admitted into the country for four months.

While Cook has not specified exactly what type of action Apple would take, Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos has already taken to court to condemn the ban. The company submitted a sworn statement supporting the Washington state attorney general, who filed a lawsuit against Trump’s order. Amazon employs nearly 50 people born in one of the seven countries, and is currently offering jobs to non-U.S. citizens, some of whom were born in Iran.

Meanwhile, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey and Chairman Omid Kordestani plan to donate $1.59 million to the ACLU, respectively matching $530,000 that Twitter employees raised for the organization.

The Executive Order's humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt

— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017

The ACLU sued Trump on January 28 on behalf of two men from Iraq – one of whom is a former engineer and interpreter for the U.S. government – who were detained at JFK International Airport in New York.

The taxi service app Lyft announced support for the ACLU as well, promising to donate $1 million over the next four years. Lyft’s primary competitor, Uber, faced backlash when it continued to pick up passengers from JFK during protests – which some saw as a move to profit from the situation. Uber responded to the complaints by calling the ban “unjust” and setting up a $3 million legal defense fund for its drivers impacted by the ban.

3/ We are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. https://t.co/0umGOlkhSx

— logangreen (@logangreen) January 29, 2017

Google cofounder Sergey Brin at SFO protest: "I'm here because I'm a refugee." (Photo from Matt Kang/Forbes) pic.twitter.com/GwhsSwDPLT

— Ryan Mac (@RMac18) January 29, 2017

The blanket entry ban on citizens from certain primarily Muslim countries is not the best way to address the country’s challenges

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017

Executives and founders of companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla have also released statements criticizing the order.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Technology Companies Rally Against Immigration Ban appeared first on Law Street.

When Canadian journalist Ed Ou headed to North Dakota recently to cover the pipeline protests at Standing Rock, he didn’t expect the drama to start as soon as he reached the U.S. border. But border officials decided to detain him for over six hours and confiscate his cellphones, something that is uncomfortable for anyone, but critical for a journalist. He compared having the contents of his phones scrutinized with a doctor giving up confidential information about his patients. If Ou’s sources who have given information on the condition of anonymity are revealed, their lives could potentially be in danger.

The U.S. border agent officers asked Ou to tell them how and why he had traveled to every single country he has visited for the past five years, and if he had seen anyone die. Ou has spent 10 years covering the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, which could explain the unusual questions. The agents asked to see his phones to make sure he was “not posing next to any dead bodies.” When he refused, explaining that he is a journalist and needed to protect his sources, they simply took them anyway. When he got the phones back later, it looked as if the SIM cards had been tampered with. Agents also photocopied pages from his personal diary. In the end, Ou was denied entry into the U.S. and put on a plane back to Canada, with no other explanation than that his name matched that of “a person of interest.” One officer said that his refusal to cooperate with the phones “did not help.”

The United States Customs and Border Protection declined to comment on the event. But in a statement it said, “Keeping America safe and enforcing our nation’s laws in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully examine all materials entering the U.S.” If the authorities think that that means looking into the contacts of a well-published journalist and then refusing him entry with no valid reason, that is a huge problem for freedom of the press in the U.S.

The incident has been criticized by advocates for press freedom as well as by other journalists.

Journalists don’t get much braver or more talented than Ed Ou. What happened to him at the US border is shameful. https://t.co/4jCjUUqMaw

— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) December 2, 2016

The way journalists are being treated at the US borders is truly alarming. This happened to photographer Ed Ou https://t.co/ZZi1bNNmB8

— Liz Sly (@LizSly) November 30, 2016

Does the United States believe in freedom of speech? Apparently not @CustomsBorder, which bars entry to accomplished photographer @EdOuphoto

— Neil MacFarquhar (@NeilMacFarquhar) November 30, 2016

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, wrote a letter to Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security, signed by attorney Hugh Handeyside, in which it called the detention and treatment “harassing and exceptionally intrusive.” It said that border agents should have realized that Ou was a renowned journalist, who had often traveled to the U.S. as he has well-established professional connections with major news outlets such as Reuters, the Associated Press and the New York Times. The letter stated:

We believe that C.B.P. took advantage of Mr. Ou’s application for admission to engage in an opportunistic fishing expedition for sensitive and confidential information that Mr. Ou had gathered through his news-gathering activities in Turkey, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere.

Ou was on his way to cover the Standing Rock protests on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which the agents were apparently aware of. But individual border officials should not have the power to affect what ends up in the media. The director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Trevor Timm, said that the practice of forcing journalists who have worked in the Middle East to give up their confidential sources just to get into a country puts the U.S. in a very bad light. “If this is requisite for journalists who are not U.S. citizens to enter the U.S., that is an enormous violation of press freedom,” he said.

An important reminder to #journalists that your #data is not safe at the US Border https://t.co/oqEbH8Xz6q @ACLU @edouphoto pic.twitter.com/jvQiO113tN

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) December 1, 2016

For all intents and purposes, the Fourth Amendment does not apply when you’re at the border. Walking on the street, a police officer likely can’t go up to you and randomly search you without a warrant or arrest order. But in an airport or at a border control stop, agents can search you and your electronic devices without reason or permission from a judge. This is because of a loophole in the law that mentions bags and personal property, but was written in a time before most people had their entire private lives stored in a cellphone. A policy from 2009 says that the owner of a digital device needs to be present when agents perform a search, but that rule can be interpreted very loosely. According to the policy, agents can make copies of data, but they need to be erased within a week unless a crime is suspected or there is a probable cause to keep the data.

This incident raises a deeper question, about press freedom and Freedom of Speech in the U.S., as well as what the role of the CBP should be. As Hugh Handeyside from the ACLU said, “conditioning foreign journalists’ admission to the United States on their willingness to agree to intrusive searches encourages similarly abusive treatment of American journalists in other countries.” To treat journalists like this at borders will discourage them from reporting on important events, and stem the flow of information.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Journalist Ed Ou Detained and Denied Entry to the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

The Hastings public school district in Nebraska has recently begun following an old law requiring teachers to pledge their beliefs to American ideals. But now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nebraska has gotten involved in the attempt to stop the Hastings public school district from continuing to enforce the law.

The law dates back to 1951, during the height of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. It requires teachers to sign a pledge outlining their loyalty to the United States. The pledge given to the Hastings Public Schools teachers read as follows:

All persons engaged in teaching in the public schools of the State of Nebraska and all other employees paid from public school funds, shall sign the following pledge:

I, ………., do believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; an indissoluble nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I acknowledge it to be my duty to inculcate in the hearts and minds of all pupils in my care, so far as it is in my power to do, (1) an understanding of the United States Constitution and of the Constitution of Nebraska, (2) a knowledge of the history of the nation and of the sacrifices that have been made in order that it might achieve its present greatness, (3) a love and devotion to the policies and institutions that have made America the finest country in the world in which to live, and (4) opposition to all organizations and activities that would destroy our present form of government.

The law is actually still in place in the state of Nebraska, and information about whether or not various school districts follow it appears to be spotty. However, requiring public employees to sign such a pledge has actually been declared unconstitutional multiple times.

Despite the fact that the law has been on the books since 1951, this year appears to be the first time in recent decades that Hastings Public Schools teachers were actually asked to sign it. According to Hastings Public Schools superintendent Craig Kautz, this change is because he was not aware of the law previously, and is now following it based on legal advice. He also points out that if members of the staff choose not to sign it, it will not negatively affect their employment status in the schools.

Regardless, the Nebraska ACLU had a serious problem with the pledge, and sent the letter to warn the Hastings School District about moving forward with its enforcement. In the letter sent to the school district, Amy Miller, legal director for the Nebrasksa branch stated:

You need to know that the statute is a dead letter law which has been clearly overruled by the highest court in the land. Attempting to enforce the state statue is unconstitutional and will expose the school district to liability to a civil rights lawsuit.

Currently, there are discussions in Nebraska about whether or not to change the law, but it seems like there’s plenty of confusion over whether or not it would stand up in court. Rex Schultze, a lawyer who represents some of the Nebraska school districts that require that the law is signed, has stated:

I don’t think the (teacher pledge) law is unconstitutional because it does not require anyone to give up any constitutional rights of free speech or association. All it says is you will, as part of your employment, seek to encourage these things.

Either the Hastings Public Schools will stop requiring teachers to sign the pledge, or this could end up being examined more specifically in court, putting an end to the debate once and for all.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nebraska ACLU: McCarthy-Era Loyalty Pledge for Teachers Must Go appeared first on Law Street.

New Hampshire voters will have a new way to celebrate their civic duty come the state’s primary election in February. On Tuesday, a federal judge struck down the state’s law that banned voters from showing a completed ballot to anyone–including sharing a photo on social media. According to the ruling, ballot box selfies are now a protected form of free speech.

New Hampshire is not the only state with this sort of law, in fact, most states have laws prohibiting voters from showing their marked ballot to the public. Although many of these laws are on the books, most states tend to have lax enforcement policies. Unlike most states, however, the New Hampshire law was recently updated to include digital images and social media–effectively banning ballot selfies. Those changes prompted the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU-NH) to file a lawsuit against the state, citing the law as an undue ban on free speech.

State Representative Leon Rideout, Brandon Ross, and Andrew Langlois were the plaintiffs in the ACLU-NH’s lawsuit. All three voted in the primary election last September, took pictures of their ballots, and shared them online. Out of protest, Langlois opted to vote for his recently deceased dog, Akira, instead of the available primary candidates. While voting, Langlois took a picture of his ballot with his phone and later shared it on Facebook. Shortly after posting the photo, he got a call from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office notifying him that he was being investigated for possible election law violations. Before it was stuck down, violating the law was punishable by fines of up to $1,000. Rideout and Ross were also investigated for their posted pictures.

The ACLU-NH argued that the law’s restrictions violate voters’ right to free speech, and the court agreed. On the other hand, Secretary of State William Gardner argued that the law helped stop vote buying and coercion because it prevented someone from proving who they voted for. In a 42-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro ruled that the law was not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest in regulating free speech, the traditional test in First Amendment cases. While the judge noted that coercion and vote buying have historically been important issues, they no longer pose a risk to the election process. In his ruling, the judge noted,

He [the secretary] produced no evidence that either vote buying or voter coercion are current problems in New Hampshire. Plaintiffs, in contrast, have produced undisputed evidence that there have been no vote buying prosecutions and no complaints of vote buying in the state since at least 1976.

While the law was enacted with good intentions–preventing coercion and vote buying–the issues that it aimed to address are generally not that important anymore. Even if such fraud were to occur, other laws still make it illegal and the government can still prosecute misconduct. More to the point, selfies and the ability to share pictures of civic participation online are important forms of free speech. For better or worse, ballot box selfies are a free expression and they are here to stay–at least in New Hampshire.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Hampshire Voters: You May Now Take Ballot Selfies appeared first on Law Street.

As if Baltimore has not been in the news enough recently for civil and human rights abuses, yet another report of maltreatment surfaced today. The Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) came under fire after the American Civil Liberties Union, the Public Justice Center, and the law offices of Elizabeth Alexander filed a legal motion on behalf of detainees of the center to reopen a suit against BCDC, claiming that the terms of a 2009 settlement have not been met. The motion claims that seven preventable deaths of prisoners have occurred in the last two years due to the appalling living conditions of the center. The motion accuses state officials, who are supposed to oversee that the jail is being run appropriately, of violating the detainees’ Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

Medical neglect is reported to be rampant in the BCDC with prisoners housed in moldy, vermin-infested cells with flooding toilets, exposing inmates to bodily wastes that worsen existing health issues. The motion claims that inspections of the center revealed not only horrifying living conditions, health hazards, and a lack of basic medical care, but also that detainees were routinely denied life-saving medications. An examination of the BCDC’s medical records exposed several cases of HIV-positive inmates’ antiretroviral drugs being discontinued. Comparably detrimental were cases of diabetic detainees being denied insulin and having food restrictions ignored and mentally ill prisoners denied psychotropic drugs. The motion claims that a complete lack of medical documentation and health planning is the probable cause for the seven preventable deaths inside the center.

Debra Gardner, the Public Justice Center’s legal director, stated in a press release today, “…detainees in need of medical attention and treatment for infections, injuries, psychiatric conditions, and other urgent health concerns wait for days and weeks, their suffering prolonged to the point of cruelty.” The case’s lead counsel, Elizabeth Alexander, recently stated,

I was struck by the huge number of cells that couldn’t be occupied because they were not habitable. This is a facility that has outlived its physical life.

While all inmates morally deserve human rights and are supposed to legally be afforded them, 90 percent of BCDC inmates are awaiting trial and are therefore still innocent in the eyes of the law. Black Americans make up 62 percent of Baltimore’s population, yet they form about 80 percent of the BCDC population, and 95 percent of all juveniles detained there. Extreme racial issues have proven to be widespread in the city of Baltimore, and the case of the BCDC only continues to shed light on the severity of human rights abuses in the state.

Given that these allegations involve practices that occurred under Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley’s tenure as Governor of Maryland, it is unclear if this case will impact his bid for President in 2017. Either way, O’Malley’s inability to ensure that jails within his state provided proper medical care and basic human rights to its inmates should not be disregarded.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Horrifying Allegations Shed Light on Conditions of Baltimore Jail appeared first on Law Street.

On October 12, 2012, 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez lay dead on the Mexican side of an international street with almost a dozen bullet holes marring his body. His tragic death has sparked a legal battle that continues to this day.

The shooter, a United States Border Patrol (USBP) Agent named Lonnie Swartz, said he’d fired his .40-caliber pistol through the fence after witnessing a group of people, including Elena Rodriguez, throwing rocks at agents across the border and endangering their lives. The issue is that his description of events may not have been accurate. Two witnesses on the Mexican side of the fence swore that Elena Rodriguez was actually walking down the street when the other youths ran past just before the shooting started.

If there even was a crime, the punishment surely didn’t seem to fit it. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) agreed, calling the boy’s death yet another example of excessive force used by USBP agents and demanded action.

Two-year anniversary of the death of then 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez in Nogales, SON. pic.twitter.com/2d9jdBDoaO

— Yoohyun Jung (@yoohyun_jung) October 11, 2014

Fast forward three and a half years later and Elena Rodriguez’s case still remains suspended in limbo. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in Tucson against agent Lonnie Swartz on behalf of Araceli Rodriguez, the boy’s mother, but a federal judge is considering throwing it out. Why? According to the Associated Press, it’s on the grounds that since the boy was shot across the U.S.-Mexico border and not in the U.S. at the time, he therefore wasn’t under the protection of the U.S. Constitution.

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, argued in support for Elena Rodriguez’s family telling the AZCentral,

A Border Patrol agent can put his gun up to the fence and shoot a teenager, and the Constitution has nothing to say about that? Everything that took place, except the bullet that killed him, happened in the U.S.

However, Sean Chapman, the private attorney representing Swartz, argued Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Raner Collins that Swartz did not violate Elena Rodriguez’s constitutional rights because the Constitution does not extend to a Mexican citizen in Mexico. There’s a chance Judge Collins could agree with him.

According to the AP, there’s currently case law from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that unanimously decided that Border Patrol agents shooting on U.S. soil cannot be sued if they kill someone across the border in Mexico. While Collins isn’t bound to this ruling, since Elena Rodriguez’s case is in the 9th circuit and the 5th circuit doesn’t take precedent there, it’s something to consider.

Another alarming factor is the glaring similarities between this case and the death of Trayvon Martin. Both teenage boys were around the same age, 16 and 17 respectively, and were portrayed as thugs despite evidence to the contrary. They were also both made symbols for their communities and mourned by thousands, and so far neither one has received any justice for their deaths. Americans are beginning to care when young black boys are killed for no reason (i.e. Baltimore and Ferguson), but apparently our level of awareness hasn’t yet extended to our southern neighbors.

It’s unclear what the judge will decide in Elena Rodriguez’s case, but one thing is clear: our nation is desperate need of more accountability when it comes to these agents and our police forces, even if they are the ones responsible for protecting us.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does a Mexican Teen Killed by Border Patrol Have Constitutional Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

A fight is brewing between law enforcement officials and Facebook, and it’s just gotten some new players in the form of other social media companies. New York City has been trying to use evidence posted on Facebook as proof of fraud committed by government employees. The city has now run afoul of some of the largest social network companies, who are arguing that the actions taken by the NYPD and prosecutors are violating their users’ Fourth Amendment rights.

It all started when the NYPD discovered that a number of government employees–including fireman, police officers, and others–had been taking disability payments without actually being disabled. Evidence of their fraud came from their Facebook accounts–some of the employees supposedly on disability were also engaging in clearly strenuous physical activities during the same time period. There were also private messages sent through the social network in which the alleged fraudsters admitted to their wrongdoing.

The investigators got a warrant to search the Facebook accounts of the employees that they thought were breaking the law, as well as accounts of their families, friends, and other acquaintances. While they did eventually succeed, it was only after Facebook argued strongly against the investigation. Facebook claimed that the search of private accounts is “unreasonable” and skirts Fourth Amendment protections. The company is now filing an appeal making the same argument–and they’ve got some friends backing them up. Foursquare, Kickstarter, MeetUp, and Tumblr have all decided to stand with Facebook. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the New York Civil Liberties Union will also be getting involved.

This case is yet another example of how the intersection between new technology and existing laws can get quite messy. The warrant originally requested by the NYPD involved a grand total of 381 Facebook accounts–many of which were only connected tangentially. The requested accounts had interacted with those of the accused–nothing more. Facebook argued that the search of those 381 accounts was tantamount to searching roughly 400 homes. That argument is fair, but a bit stretched. If there was a crime committed, the NYPD would have the right to search 400 houses, as long as they could prove it was reasonable.

In response, Facebook’s Deputy Chief Counsel Chris Sonderby argued,

It appeared to us from the outset that there would be a large number of people who were never charged in court. The district attorney’s response was that these people would have their day in court. There are more than 300 people that will never have that chance.

But according to NYPD and prosecutors, they did just that–they provided almost 100 pages of documentation explaining why they were searching each account when they requested the warrant.

There’s also the question of what right Facebook has to the accounts in their system. They challenged the warrant on behalf of their clients, and there’s a lot of legal ambiguity as to whether they were able to do so. They most certainly could not have alerted their clients that they were being investigated–that would have been impeding an investigation. Facebook claims that this created a big problem for their attorneys–they couldn’t do anything to stop it on their clients’ behalf, and they couldn’t do anything to warn their customers to get them involved.

The fact that other social networks have now said they’re going to join this legal fight will go a long way. As electronic communications become more and more popular, existing laws may not be able to keep up. While the collective action of social media companies may be forming a powerful lobby, whether or not their arguments for privacy and Fourth Amendment rights will prevail is up to the appeals court.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nick Booth via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media Search Warrant Fight Heats Up appeared first on Law Street.

Recent media attention has shed light on many of the controversial aspects of police militarization, from excessive force to the use of paramilitary units in routine policing. Less frequently discussed, however, is the significant lack of transparency of these trends. The public lacks information about the extent and impact of equipment transfers and the increasingly hostile police culture. While the military has historically been able to invoke claims to national security to justify its secrecy, should local police departments, tasked to serve and protect our communities, be able to do the same?

Despite the significant lack of information on police militarization, Peter Kraska, a justice studies professor at Eastern Kentucky University, found some disturbing trends among law enforcement agencies. His article, “Militarizing Mayberry and Beyond,” documents research on police departments in small localities and demonstrates the recent changes in U.S. law enforcement. Kraska’s findings suggest that more and more low-population areas are forming SWAT teams, which are increasingly used for proactive deployment.

Roughly 40 percent of police paramilitary units, or PPUs, were engaged in warrant work in 1984. By 1995 that  statistic skyrocketed: 94 percent of these specialized, soldier-like teams were used to serve warrants. Kraska notes that the majority “of these PPUs serve in the organization as regular patrol officers during their normal duties.” Despite being trained and designed for emergency situations, PPUs are most often deployed for routine practices.

Capt. Chris Cowan of the Richland County (South Carolina) Sheriff’s Department, told the New York Times that an armored vehicle with a mounted gun, “allows the department to stay in step with the criminals who are arming themselves more heavily every day.” Kraska dismisses this perceived arms race saying, “there’s not evidence that the citizenry is grabbing this heavy weaponry themselves, going after cops.”

There is little information about the weaponization of criminals in general, which seems to be a recurring theme in FBI data collection. Kraska claims, “we don’t have good national-level statistics that provide us a good measure of the extent to which the police are fired upon using heavy weaponry, or the policing occupation is more dangerous.” The absence of data is twofold, as little information is available about the increasing militarization of both criminals and police forces.

The Relationship Between Police and Criminals

The U.S. lacks important data on the relationship between police and criminals. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report does include a publication called “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted,” which contains an entire table specifically dedicated to the “Number of victim officers killed with firearms while wearing body armor and receiving torso wounds,” yet they provide no national statistics on killings by police.

“You would think that given these are all taxpayer-funded items, and that they’re coming either directly out of the Department of Defense or they’re coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, and they’re being transferred to supposedly democratically-controlled civilian-based police agencies all over the country, that sort of simple, straight-forward program based in tax dollars, that the data and all the information about that would be easily coughed up.”

-Peter Kraska

Where’s the Data?

It is disturbing that we know so little and that such information is consistently difficult to come by. To gather information about the effects of police militarization, we have to rely on nongovernmental organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or the Cato Institute. Moreover, the little information that is available is constrained, as many law enforcement agencies will not answer independent surveys.

While data should be limited in certain circumstances, I question the possible reasons for concealing or not collecting so much important data about our law enforcement. What justification could there be for not granting U.S. citizens access to information about our law enforcement? Agencies’ justifications for refusing to provide information to the ACLU include, “the requested documents contained trade secrets, concerns about jeopardizing law enforcement effectiveness… and the costs associated with producing the documents were simply prohibitive.”

As the issue of proactive, if not aggressive, paramilitary units becomes increasingly prevalent, the situation is exacerbated by the disturbing secrecy with which our government handles data. As Kraska says in his 1997 work, the deep bureaucracy behind this kind of law enforcement “acts as a barrier to police-community ties by fostering a ‘we-they’ attitude.” This barrier not only distinguishes our police from citizens, but also separates citizens from information about our police.

Why isn’t our government providing us with uniform information? Kraska says it is a result of “the nature of military bureaucracy, and increasingly police bureaucracy. The bottom line is it’s one of secrecy.” As police culture transforms into military culture, law enforcement naturally distances itself from the community. The increase in police militarization is inexorably linked with a tightened grip on information about law enforcement practices.

I know I will not stand alone in demanding different treatment by not only those who enforce the law, but also by those who create the law. I demand that this policing style come to end. I demand that the FBI Uniform Crime Reports include information on how many people are killed by our police. I created a petition on WhiteHouse.gov asking the President to request this and filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI. We are all disenfranchised when deprived of information about the enforcement of our laws, so I think we should all demand.

#WeDemand

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [CHPSocialMedia via Wikimedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arming the Police Against American Citizens, Part II appeared first on Law Street.

So let me drop a lyric: “I meet aggression with aggression, I learned that on the streets” by 50 Cent. What does this lyric conjure?

Let us all admit that when we hear rap lyrics like this one, not all of us automatically get a warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts. In fact, many rappers are criticized for producing overly aggressive lyrics about controversial topics; the objectification of women; and violent threats towards individuals who have wronged them. Most of us consider the lyrics of rappers to be more of a style choice — the way in which they want to market themselves to their prospective audience rather than an autobiographical representation. But now a question: Have you ever considered the rap lyrics coming through your headphones to be a confession to a crime? The United States Court System has.

In the past several years, rap lyrics have been used against the accused as evidence to support their criminal actions. In 2013, it was found by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey that in 18 cases, rap lyrics were considered as possible evidence and were used in trial 80 percent of the time. When these rap lyrics are shared in court, it can be detrimental to the accused. 

A study conducted in the late 1990s explored if rap lyrics used during a trial swayed jurors’ opinions. Participants were given basic biographical information about a hypothetical 18-year-old black male, and some were shown a set of his explicit rap lyrics. Those who read the lyrics were significantly more likely to believe that the hypothetical accused would have committed a violent crime.

This bias regarding artists who express themselves through rap lyrics has repeatedly displayed itself in court, stirring debate as to whether these lyrics should be used as a form of evidence.  It is doubtful that when Vonte Skinner first wrote the lyrics, “Look in my palms. You can see what I’m gunnin with,” he would foresee their use against him in court. However, Skinner was placed on trial in 2008 for possible involvement in the shooting of Lamont Peterson in 2005. Skinner, also known by his rap name Threat, was found guilty after the prosecution read 13 pages of his violent lyrics — similar to those mentioned above. It is speculated that these lyrics have contributed to the charge and conviction against Vonte for attempted murder. This conviction was later overturned on appeal, and will be officially decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in March.

This case presents the idea that rap lyrics can be used to misrepresent the accused as a horrible or violent person. In reality, Skinner’s lyrics were written long before the shooting and subsequent paralysis of Lamont. In fact, the lyrics did not mention the victim or even specific details regarding the crime. Thus, lyrics can be used when minimal evidence is available, in order to turn the tides of a case. This exact situation occurred again when Los Angeles rapper Lil Boosie was accused of paying a hit man, Mike Loudon to shoot and kill Terry Boyd in 2009. With no physical evidence linking Boosie to the crime, prosecutors built their case around his rap lyrics. Despite the objections of the defense attorney, prosecutors went ahead and presented lyrics from songs such as “Bodybag,” claiming it was a representation of evidence to tie Boosie to the murder. Luckily, the jurors were not convinced by the lyrics. While Lil Boosie escaped conviction and Vonte Skinner will have a second chance through the Supreme Court, the issue becomes whether courts should be allowed to utilize rap lyrics as evidence.

Many believe that this “alternative form of evidence” should not be considered evidence at all. As a genre, rap is a form of entertainment, one that uses exaggerative and figurative language. Often rappers use lyrics as a form of artistic expression and this is how we should view them. Instead of taking rap for what it is — an art form — prosecutors present the lyrics of rappers as an autobiographical expression or admission to illegal behavior. Defense attorneys often object to the use of lyrics, as courts typically do not allow the presentation of evidence meant to damage a defendant when it is not directly related to a crime. However, the presiding judge over a case has the ultimate decision and rap seems to have become an exception, as many judges have allowed the use of rap in court.

Then why do rap lyrics keep presenting themselves in court? The rap industry has become synonymous with criminality, as more and more artists are going on trial and lyrics become more explicit. To this extent, it is less than surprising that musicians find their own lyrics used against them. However, the courts should find stronger evidence to tie an accused to the crime rather than obscure lyrics taken out of context. Why would anyone willingly incriminate themselves? Clearly, just because a lyric is violent, does not mean it is a confession to illegal activity. The hearing of Skinner’s case in the Supreme Court can turn the tides for rappers, and possibly end the use of lyrics as evidence in trial.

[New York Times] [North Carolina Criminal Law] [The Roott]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Susanne Davidson via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Rap Lyrics Represent an Admission of Guilt? appeared first on Law Street.