R. Kelly, the R&B singer known for his outlandish, sometimes criminal behavior, is again embroiled in controversy. On Monday, BuzzFeed News reported that the 50-year-old is manipulating a group of young women, controlling everyday aspects of their lives as they stay at one of his properties, apparently by their own free will.

The report features testimony from the parents of some of these women, as well as three former members of Kelly’s entourage who corroborated the details. After luring young, attractive women into his inner circle by inviting them backstage and flying them out to concerts, Kelly would convince them to live in one of his properties in Atlanta or Chicago.

“Puppet Master”

According to the report, Kelly “controls every aspect of their lives: dictating what they eat, how they dress, when they bathe, when they sleep, and how they engage in sexual encounters that he records.” 

The famous artist, who recorded “I Believe I Can Fly” for the Space Jam soundtrack, purportedly uses his lavish lifestyle to attract women before using his verbal skills to convince them to stay with him, according to Cheryl Mack, Kelly’s former personal assistant.

“[Kelly] is a master at mind control. … He is a puppet master,” Mack told BuzzFeed.

One issue with police intervention is that the law allows consenting adults to participate in any relationship they wish, even when it is nontraditional. So when police in Illinois and Georgia performed welfare checks over the past year, no charges were filed. Instead, one 19-year-old aspiring singer staying at Kelly’s mansion in Atlanta, told authorities that she was “fine and did not want to be bothered.”

Some of the parents have spoken with FBI detectives but the bureau could not comment on the investigation to the public.

Mack, along with other former entourage members, said they wish they had documentation to prove their claims. They said Kelly controlled their cell phone usage and barred them from taking pictures of him or his homes. Kelly reportedly has the women call him “Daddy” while he calls them “babies.” He also has them request permission to contact other people besides himself.

For example, the parents of the 19-year-old singer, who last saw their daughter on Dec. 1, 2016, have only received two texts from their daughter since then. The first, sent on Christmas Day said, “I hate Christmas has to be this way this year.” The other came on Mother’s Day: “Happy Mother’s Day from me and Rob,” it said, referring to Kelly’s given name of Robert.

Kelly’s lawyer, Linda Mensch, defended her client’s actions and asked for privacy when BuzzFeed approached her with the allegations. In an email to BuzzFeed, she wrote:

We can only wonder why folks would persist in defaming a great artist who loves his fans, works 24/7, and takes care of all of the people in his life. He works hard to become the best person and artist he can be. It is interesting that stories and tales debunked many years ago turn up when his goal is to stop the violence; put down the guns; and embrace peace and love. I suppose that is the price of fame. Like all of us, Mr. Kelly deserves a personal life. Please respect that.

Criminal Past

Kelly is no stranger to criminal activity and sexual misconduct. In addition to being charged with assault and battery multiple times, Kelly has been accused of sexual relations with underage girls. He settled a dozen or more cases outside of court.

Here is one example of his clear indifference to age-related consent laws:

R Kelly said this but we still bumped “I Believe I Can Fly” at every Kindergarten graduation

pic.twitter.com/O9hlzbmclc

— (@Dr_Sweets23) July 17, 2017

Kelly is perhaps most infamous for a 2002 video which featured him having sex with, and urinating on, an underage girl. During a raid on his property, police found images of the girl on a camera hidden inside Kelly’s duffle bag. Since those images were ruled ineligible in court, Kelly was ultimately found not guilty on 14 child pornography charges. But the stain on his fame and public perception has never disappeared.

And while it’s not criminal, Kelly created the 33-part, 133-minute music video series titled “Trapped in the Closet,” which features a cheating husband, a bisexual pastor, and plenty of gun violence.

“Robert is the Devil”

According to Kelly’s former partners, the women staying at Kelly’s home, or in his Chicago recording studio last summer, include a songwriter, a singer, and a model. There is also a woman known as the “den mother” who teaches newcomers “how Kelly liked to be pleasured sexually,” according to BuzzFeed. All of the women are between the ages of 18 to 31.

Kelly reportedly keeps a black SUV stationed outside each of his properties with a “burly driver” to keep a watchful eye. This is just part of the psychological warfare Kelly wages against his “babies.”

Kelly makes the women wear jogging suits to minimize their attractiveness to other men, Mack said. If the women break one of his rules, Kelly is known to physically and emotionally abuse the women, according to Mack and fellow insider Kitti Jones. Jones said Kelly once pushed her against a tree and slapped her after she was too friendly with a male cashier at a Subway sandwich shop.

“R. Kelly is the sweetest person you will ever want to meet,” Asante McGee, another former Kelly insider said. “But Robert is the devil.”

Kelly wasn’t perceived positively by the public even before this report, but these allegations carry new weight. Every few years Kelly seems to get himself into legal trouble, so this is no surprise, but it is a horrifying portrait of a formerly well-liked artist.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post R. Kelly is Reportedly Controlling a “Cult” of Young Women appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

FBI Arrests U.S. Soldier With Ties to ISIS

The FBI has arrested an active U.S. soldier based in Hawaii for pledging allegiance to ISIS and working to buy a drone for the terrorist group. He also reportedly wanted to “kill a bunch of people” with his rifle, and copied secret military documents to give to ISIS, although none of the documents appear to have been successfully transmitted. Yesterday, Sergeant Ikaika Kang appeared in federal court in Honolulu. The FBI spent a year investigating the soldier and finally pinned him down using undercover agents posing as Islamic State representatives.

Apparently, Kang had made controversial comments in 2012, and his military clearance was revoked. But it was reinstated a year later. Then, last year, Army officials opened an investigation into Kang. Reportedly, Kang said that the Orlando nightclub shooter did “what he had to do” and that America is the only terrorist organization in the world. He also said that Hitler was right and that he “believed in the mass killing of Jews.”

U.S. Army soldier arrested on charges of helping ISIS was previously awarded “Global War on Terrorism Service Medal” https://t.co/TMFVHNYvIh

— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) July 11, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: July 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Late Wednesday, a variety of news outlets published reports that Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election, requested interviews with a trio of current and former intelligence officials.

The news was first reported by the Washington Post, and later by the New York Times. It came from anonymous sources and fueled speculation that Mueller is widening his investigation to determine whether President Donald Trump, in firing Comey last month, obstructed justice. On Thursday morning, Trump tweeted that the obstruction of justice probe is a “phony story” created by “conflicted” people:

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Mueller to lead the investigation last month, soon after Trump fired Comey, who at the time was heading the FBI’s inquiry into Russia and its potential links to the Trump campaign. Testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee–which is conducting its own investigation into Russia’s interference–last week, Comey said a number of private meetings with the president led him to document the encounters.

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document,” Comey said.

In his retelling of the events, Comey recalled Trump said he “hoped” that he would shutter the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. This, some observers have said, might amount to a case against Trump for obstructing justice. The Post’s report does indicate Mueller is indeed investigating the matter in terms of potential obstruction, but it does not mean that Trump is guilty of any misdeeds.

“This unfounded accusation against the president changes nothing,” the RNC said in a statement in response to the Post’s story, despite the fact that Mueller has yet to level any accusations against the president. “There’s still no evidence of obstruction, and current and former leaders in the intelligence community have repeatedly said there’s been no effort to impede the investigation in any way.”

According to the anonymous source, Mueller will interview three current and former high-ranking intelligence officials: Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former deputy director of the NSA Richard Ledgett.

Rogers has publicly acknowledged that he had never felt pressured to end the FBI’s probe into Flynn. During a hearing last week, he said:

“I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” Rogers said. “And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mueller’s Apparent Obstruction of Justice Investigation: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Washington nearly exploded on Thursday morning. Not literally, of course. But when James Comey, the now-ubiquitous former FBI Director, testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the capital was transfixed.

For an hour or so, it seemed like much of the country was fairly united–CNN dubbed the event “Washington’s Superbowl.”

But while all eyes were on Comey, all ears were certainly not. Some heard Comey all but indict Trump. Others heard him liberate the president, and take aim at the New York Times and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The hearing centered around the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible communications with Russia, and its meddling in the election, which Comey was overseeing before he was fired by the president last month.

Comey’s firing, coupled with a leaked memo Comey wrote (which he revealed in the hearing he had a hand in leaking) that detailed a questionable conversation with Trump, ignited claims that Trump could be guilty of obstruction of justice.

Among other things, here is what Comey revealed in his testimony to the committee: he firmly believes he was fired because he was leading an investigation into Trump’s campaign operatives and Russia; he kept detailed memos of every private conversation he had with Trump because he was afraid the president would later lie about their interactions; Comey believes Trump, in a February 14 conversation, asked him to scrap the FBI’s investigation into Michael Flynn, the former head of the NSA.

To everyone’s surprise, Trump did not tweet during the hearing. But his personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, released a statement soon after the proceedings ended. It reads:

Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today’s hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference.

The statement denied that Trump ever demanded loyalty from Comey, as the former director said he did, or that the president ever, “in form or substance,” instructed Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.

Kasowitz also called out “those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications.” He added, “Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.”

During the hearing, Comey said Lynch, the attorney general at the time, requested he publicly refer to the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation.” This, he said, along with Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, partially informed his decision to publicly announce Clinton was under investigation.

Some observers pounced on this small nugget, raising questions as to whether or not Lynch would be charged with obstruction of justice.

Will fmr AG Lynch be charged w/ obstruction of justice after Comey revelations of demands she made? Will Dems demand it?

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 8, 2017

The RNC and the DNC released two completely irreconcilable statements following the hearing.

The RNC statement read, “Today’s testimony proved what we have known all along: President Trump is not under investigation, there’s still no evidence of collusion, and he did not hinder the investigation in any way.”

In contrast, the DNC statement said Comey’s testimony “gave us the clearest and most damning evidence yet that President Trump lied to the American people and is likely under investigation for obstruction of justice–a serious and disturbing charge.”

While millions of Americas may have been united in watching Comey’s testimony, both statements illustrate the potentially unbridgeable divide in American politics.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reactions to Comey Hearing Illustrate America’s Political Divide appeared first on Law Street.

What were you doing at this time last year?

On June 8, 2016, exactly a year ago, The New York Times ran a front page story commemorating former secretary of state Hillary Clinton reaching the threshold of delegates and superdelegates needed to secure the Democratic Party nomination. This made Clinton the first woman to lead the presidential ticket for a major political party.

The front page #OTD in 2016. Hillary Clinton claims the Democratic nomination. #nytimes pic.twitter.com/IDHWQzIrK7

— New York Times OTD (@OnThisDayNYT) June 8, 2017

At this point, plenty of people had high hopes of seeing America’s first female president. Many experts doubted that Clinton, an experienced politician, would lose to real estate mogul Donald Trump, who was nearing his own nomination.

As we all know now, much has changed in the year since that front page ran. National mood has ebbed and flowed, and the feeling that it’s been a long year is pervasive across America on social media and in casual conversation. The country has undergone a serious transformation in the past year in part because of the election and in part because of current events which have stricken fear in many.

As a baseline, Trump secured the Republican nomination and fought hard against Clinton in the campaign before pulling off the upset and winning the 2016 election. But throughout the campaign there were numerous important events that continuously shocked the nation, often to no avail. There was the tape of him with Billy Bush boasting about groping women without consent. There was Trump’s defense of his gross behavior surrounding Miss Universe models, specifically 1996 winner Alicia Machado. And there was his endorsement from KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.

And since Trump’s inauguration in January, the political climate in America has been drastically altered. Trump has regularly embroiled himself in controversy, whether it was his executive orders restricting travel from mainly Muslim countries or his choice to fire FBI director James Comey. And don’t forget when Trump fired Attorney General Sally Yates after she didn’t defend his travel ban. Not to mention all of the times he’s taken to Twitter to spout baseless accusations against former President Barack Obama, the media, and other global leaders.

Most notably, since The New York Times ran that front page story the political, racial, and cultural divide has widened across America. From any vantage point, American society is different than it was when Clinton secured the nomination last June.

Polarization on the political spectrum has become more evident. It has become increasingly clear that Republicans and Democrats alike mostly discuss politics with those who agree with them, the Pew Research Center concluded.

That polarization has, at least in part, led to violence across America. Violence has broken out at numerous protests since Trump’s inauguration, including the Portland protests just this past weekend. Nationwide, racially motivated hate crimes have become a more pressing issue. After researching nine major metropolitan areas including New York City and Chicago, the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University found that hate crimes rose more than 20 percent in those areas. Hate crimes in New York City increased 24 percent from 2015 while Washington, D.C. had the largest increase at 62 percent. These hate crimes vary from racial threats to religious attacks against Jews or Muslims.

Additionally, people have become more skeptical of polling and poll analysis after pollsters’ failure to correctly predict the election. 538, an analysis site led by Nate Silver, is one of the organizations greatly criticized in the past year.

The truth is that it’s been a long year, particularly in the political realm. Many of the events that happened over this year have contributed to a feeling of despair, whether the events are related to terrorism, crime, or international affairs.

Part of this seismic shift has been the impactful global events that portray the changes over the past year. These events have shaped the past year and contributed to exhaustion of the American public. Here are some of the most notable:

• June 12: A lone gunman opened fire at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 49 in one of the worst mass shootings in US history.
• July 6: African-American men Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were killed by police officers in New Orleans and St. Paul, respectively. Both deaths were caught on camera.
• July 15: An attempted military coup in Turkey failed and nearly 6,000 were arrested
• October 18: The White House said it was “confident” that Russia was behind the recent DNC email hacking in an attempt to influence the American election.
• November 4: The Paris Agreement on climate change went into effect. Trump recently announced he would be pulling the United States out of the agreement, provoking plenty of backlash.
• December 2: Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen. This broke from traditional American “One China” policy that was put into place by President Richard Nixon in 1972.
• December 19: Andrey Karlov, Russian ambassador to Turkey, was assassinated as the lone gunman screamed “don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!”
• January 21: Over 2 million people worldwide participated in a “Women’s March,” protesting newly inaugurated President Trump.

While Trump’s rise to prominence has had ripple effects, it’s no doubt that so have these events and Trump’s response to them. With a rise in hate crimes, polarization, and controversy, the past year has been one of the most unique and unpredictable in recent history. Whether the current state of affairs continues or not is unknown. After a hectic and stressful year, many are hoping things slow down, but there’s no way to predict what Trump, or anyone else, will do next.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It Has Been a Long Year Since Hillary Clinton Was Nominated appeared first on Law Street.

A day before former FBI Director James Comey is set to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Donald Trump, who fired Comey in May, nominated his successor. The nominee is Christopher Wray, a former Justice Department official with years of experience in the private sector. Trump made the announcement on Twitter early Wednesday morning:

I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the new Director of the FBI. Details to follow.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2017

Wray served with the DOJ in various capacities. From 1997 to 2001 he was a U.S. attorney in Georgia. In 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Wray as the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Crimes Division, where he led a number of investigations.

Donald Trump chooses Christopher Wray to head the FBI https://t.co/Kp6ladW3qg

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 7, 2017

Wray “was also integral to the DOJ’s response to the 9/11 attacks and played a key role in the oversight of legal and operational actions in the continuing war on terrorism,” according to his bio on the King & Spaulding website, where he has been a partner since 2005. Specializing in white-collar crime, he has represented a wide array of clients, including: “The Governor of New Jersey in connection with investigations relating to the George Washington Bridge toll lane closings.”

Translation: Wray was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s attorney in the infamous “Bridgegate” trial, in which Christie was accused of orchestrating–or willfully ignoring–a plot to close traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge in the fall of 2013. The lane closures were allegedly a response to the actions of the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, who refused to back Christie’s re-election bid.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former colleague of Wray’s at the Justice Department, called him “smart, serious, and professional” in a blog post. He said Wray has “deep experience with federal criminal law and the FBI,” and is “a good choice, a much better choice than any of the politicians I previously saw floated, and a much better choice than I expected Trump to make.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement a few hours after Trump’s announcement, calling Wray an “extraordinary person, possessing all the gifts necessary to be a great Director of the FBI.” Sessions added: “The President asked us to look for an FBI Director who has integrity, who understands and is committed to the rule of law, and who is dedicated to protecting the American people from crime, gangs, and terrorists. We have found our man in Chris Wray.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s FBI Director Nominee is Christopher Wray: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

As former FBI Director James Comey prepares to speak on Thursday before a Senate committee on recent events surrounding Russia, President Donald Trump, and the 2016 election, many are preparing their watch parties.

First off, not only will C-SPAN and PBS be broadcasting the feed but ABC, NBC, and CBS all plan to replace their normally scheduled daytime programing with a live feed of his testimony, according to CNN.

And some bars in the nation’s capital are changing things up to show the testimony on their flat-screen televisions.

Shaw’s Tavern plans to open at 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning in preparation for Comey’s 10 a.m. testimony, according to The Washington Post. The bar is calling its viewing party a “Comey Hearing Covfefe,” nicknamed after Trump’s mysterious tweet last week.

They will be offering $5 vodka drinks along with $10 “FBI” sandwiches, according to CNN.

A bar fittingly named The Partisan will also be opening at 10 a.m. to offer food and beverages.

Other bars are running with the “covfefe” theme. Duffy’s Irish Pub, normally a Washington Nationals bar, will tune into the testimony instead of baseball. The pub is offering a “Covfefe Cocktail,” an orange drink with unknown ingredients.

Duffy’s getting in on the Comey watch party action pic.twitter.com/HvDT35YMHR

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) June 6, 2017

“…It is like drinking Kool Aid but only a small group of people know what’s in it,” the advertisement says.

“Covfefe” is quite clearly another joke on the administration. In the aftermath of Trump’s strange tweet, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer explained that “the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant,” according to CNN.

Comey’s testimony on Thursday has the potential to be an interesting morning in Washington so television networks and bars are looking to capitalize. Cheers to what may be a momentous day in American history.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Television Stations (and Bars) Prep for the Comey Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Kushner Under FBI Scrutiny

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of his closest advisers, is under FBI scrutiny regarding the Russia probe. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Kushner has done anything wrong, rather that investigators believe he has information related to the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. According to people with knowledge of the investigation who spoke to the Chicago Tribune, Kushner “is being investigated because of the extent and nature of his interactions with the Russians.” The FBI has yet to comment.

Last week, sources told the Washington Post that one of Trump’s senior advisers was under scrutiny; many hypothesized that it was Kushner. There has also been speculation that the investigators are looking into possible financial crimes on Kushner’s part, including a possible failure to disclose certain loans and assets.

The FBI turns its attention to Jared Kushner, @ariabendix reports https://t.co/WuGpKn8Mqk pic.twitter.com/NbMiYWEFNG

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) May 26, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: May 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump sent shockwaves through Washington last week when he abruptly fired James Comey, the FBI director who was investigating him for his communications with Russia during the campaign. Concerns about how a Trump-appointed director would impartially handle the investigation were somewhat placated on Wednesday, when Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor to lead the probe into Trump’s contacts with Russian officials.

But the question remains: who will Trump select to lead the FBI? The president reportedly interviewed four candidates at the White House on Wednesday, and said a selection can come as early as Friday. Here are the top candidates:

Joe Lieberman

Lieberman is no stranger to Washington, serving three terms as a Connecticut senator, twice as a Democrat and once as an Independent. The 75-year-old was Connecticut’s attorney general in the 1980s, and presidential nominee Al Gore’s running mate in the hotly contested 2000 election. On Wednesday, Lieberman said that being considered to lead the FBI was “unexpected,” and “not something I was seeking.”

People on Twitter were quick to point out Lieberman’s connections to the Trump campaign:

Joe Lieberman for FBI Director? Huh, what’s Joe been up to recently? pic.twitter.com/iGaVT7cy7h

— Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 18, 2017

Andrew McCabe

Prior to Comey’s firing, McCabe had been serving as his deputy since early 2016. He is now serving as the Acting Director of the FBI. McCabe, 49, worked in the bureau’s New York Field Office in the late ’90s, and has been with the FBI ever since. A Democrat, McCabe attracted some controversy in 2015 when his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, ran for a Virginia state Senate seat. She was endorsed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a friend of Hillary Clinton who, at the time, was being investigated by McCabe and the FBI for her use of a private email server.

Frank Keating

Most well-known for the eight years (1995 to 2003) he served as Oklahoma’s governor, Keating also has spent some time in the FBI. He briefly served in the agency in the 1970s, and was also in consideration for the director position in 2001, when then-director Louis Freeh resigned. Keating, 73, spent years in the private sector, and currently works as an attorney in the international law firm Holland & Knight. If Trump’s track record of loyalty is any indicator, Keating likely won’t get the job. In April 2016, he wrote an editorial in the Tulsa World newspaper titled, “Anyone but Trump.”

Richard McFeely

Of the candidates on Trump’s short-list, McFeely has the most experience in the FBI. The former head of the FBI’s field office in Baltimore, McFeely served in the agency from 1990 to 2014, according to his LinkedIn bio. In 2011, McFeely headed an investigation into the Baltimore Police Department that ended with 17 officers being charged with extortion. Before retiring from the FBI in 2014, McFeely was the executive assistant director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response Services Branch.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Are the Top Candidates to Replace James Comey as FBI Director? appeared first on Law Street.

Washington was hit with yet another bombshell on Tuesday: according to a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote in February, President Donald Trump might be guilty of obstructing justice. In the memo, the contents of which were divulged to The New York Times, Comey detailed a closed-door conversation he had with the president a day after he fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Trump allegedly asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn and his contacts with Russia. “I hope you can let this go,” Trump told Comey, according to the memo. The FBI investigation into Flynn is ongoing. Shortly after the news broke, Capital Hill was abuzz with accusations that Trump, in nudging Comey to end a federal investigation, crossed the line. Dozens of Democrats, and some Republicans, suggested Trump’s actions, as described in Comey’s memo, constituted obstruction of justice.

In a Twitter post Tuesday night, after the Times’ report about the Comey memo was published, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) wrote: “Just leaving Senate floor. Lots of chatter from Ds and Rs about the exact definition of ‘obstruction of justice’.” Around the same time, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), tweeted: “Asking FBI to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.”

Two prominent Republican congressmen, Justin Amash of Michigan and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, also expressed concern that Trump obstructed justice. The White House, in a statement on Tuesday, denied Comey and Trump ever had the conversation as described in Comey’s memo. “The president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the White House said.

According to legal analysts, the key to determining whether Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, and if he could eventually be charged, is determining his intent when he fired Comey.

“There’s definitely a case to be made for obstruction,” former federal prosecutor Barak Cohen told the Washington Post. “But on the other hand you have to realize that–as with any other sort of criminal law–intent is key, and intent here can be difficult to prove.” That is, in asking Comey to end the FBI’s investigation into Flynn, and subsequently firing the director a few months later, did Trump intentionally obstruct an ongoing investigation?

Federal law broadly defines what exactly obstruction of justice means. According to Title 18, the criminal code that deals with federal crimes, it is a crime if a defendant “obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding.” But again, proving intent to obstruct would be tricky. Besides, any case against Trump would have to be carried out by his own Justice Department, meaning that consequences seem unlikely.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Exactly is “Obstruction of Justice”? appeared first on Law Street.

Chinese-American Physics professor Xi Xiaoxing has filed a lawsuit, claiming that the FBI agents who accused him of espionage in 2015 knew that the evidence against him was false. The suit is claiming malicious prosecution, due process violations, and unlawful searches and seizures. The FBI alleged that Xi, a professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, was sending advanced technology to China. Xi claims that in reality, he was transmitting a technical invention he had made himself, and sent it to China as part of regular academic collaboration.

“They are paid with taxpayer money to catch spies. And they catch people like me, who have done nothing wrong,” Xi said to the New York Times. His lawyers say that the FBI was ordered to investigate Xi as a potential spy. Agents then stormed into his house and arrested him in May of 2015.

But there was allegedly no evidence of espionage. Instead, the agency charged him with handing over confidential blueprints for a piece of laboratory equipment called a “pocket heater” to Chinese researchers. But during the trial, several months after Xi was arrested and handcuffed in front of his family, leading scientists testified in court that it wasn’t even a pocket heater.

He was wrongly charged with spying for China. Now this professor is accusing the FBI of falsifying evidence https://t.co/YZohzli0et

— Karin Fischer (@karinfischer) May 10, 2017

In fact, it was a device that Xi had designed. The mistake was embarrassing for U.S. law enforcement and raised confusion about why Xi was targeted–including potential racial profiling. According to Xi’s lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, it seemed like the FBI also never consulted any experts or scientists to see what the device really was.

“If he was Canadian-American or French-American, or he was from the U.K., would this have ever even got on the government’s radar? I don’t think so,” Zeidenberg said at the time. Xi’s lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday, alleges that the FBI agent who arrested him, Andrew Haugen, knew the evidence was not what it was made out to be.

Prosecutors have never explained the 2015 decision to drop the case, and Xi never received an apology. And unfortunately he is not alone. There have been many cases in recent years of high-profile Americans with Chinese ancestry wrongly accused of espionage. But this is believed to be the first lawsuit by a Chinese-American scientist against the federal government since 2006.

Xi said he would also like an apology. After the arrest, he was suspended from work and lost the chance to become his department’s interim chairman. He could no longer enter campus or talk to students. He said that he and his family live in fear of surveillance and being targeted again. Agents storming his house with guns and handcuffing him in front of his children was also a traumatizing experience. But, he said, “They will probably never apologize.”

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 Professor Accused of Being a Chinese Spy Sues FBI Agents appeared first on Law Street.

Astounding Democrats and Republicans alike, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday evening. The abrupt firing ignited widespread calls for a special, independent inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. 

Comey was leading a probe into Trump’s and his campaign associates’ ties to Russian actors during the 2016 campaign; Russian hackers delivered Democratic operatives’ emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn made the emails public through an online database. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI, concluded that the cyber-meddling was intended to assist Trump.

Comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

Lawmakers expressed worry immediately after the Comey firing that the FBI’s inquiry into the Trump-Russia ties could be compromised. “If there was ever a time when circumstances warranted a special prosecutor, it is right now,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Wednesday morning. And Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said in a statement posted to his Twitter account that the timing of this firing is “very troubling,” and that it represents “the loss of an honorable public servant” and “a loss for the nation.”

According to people familiar with the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to Comey’s ouster, Trump was upset with Comey on two accounts: the ongoing Russia investigation, and his public rebuttal of  Trump’s claims that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. The White House is also saying that Comey’s dismissal was a result of his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” read Trump’s letter to Comey.

The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

On Wednesday, before Trump was set to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he told reporters he fired Comey “because he was not doing a good job.” Trump dispatched his aides, including counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence, to defend the decision. People familiar with Trump’s deliberations said he was surprised at the torrent of negative reactions–from Democrats, Republicans, and the press–that have followed Comey’s dismissal.

Meanwhile, current and former FBI officials, including Comey himself, were reportedly flabbergasted at the news of Comey’s ouster. “We just have no idea why this happened. No idea,” one recently retired top FBI official told Politico. “No one knew this was coming. Everyone is just shocked that this happened.”

There were conflicting reports over who exactly took the lead in the decision to fire Comey. Some said Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein led the charge. Rosenstein wrote a letter released Tuesday that pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation as the grounds for his dismissal, saying “I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.” Other White House officials told reporters that this was a unilateral decision by Trump, who directed the Justice Department to fish out a reason to fire the director.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Trump Fire FBI Director James Comey? appeared first on Law Street.

A police officer in Seattle was arrested last Friday on charges of conspiring to distribute hundreds of pounds of marijuana. According to the FBI, which has been investigating the trafficking scheme since the summer of 2015, Officer Alex Chapackdee would drive pot from Seattle to Baltimore and other neighboring cities in Virginia and Maryland.

A preliminary hearing for the 44-year-old is tentatively scheduled for May 22, but that hearing could be canceled if the grand jury returns an indictment in the case.

.@SeattlePD officer Alex Chapackdee described as ‘good, caring cop.’ Now facing drug charge. More reaction live at 6:30 @KIRO7Seattle pic.twitter.com/xqaRwLoakS

— DeborahHorne (@DeborahKIRO7) May 8, 2017

Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole called Officer Chapackdee’s conduct “disgraceful and disappointing” in a statement Monday.

“While [it is] always disturbing to investigate one of our own, I am proud of the detectives and commanders who worked diligently on this case,” the statement said. “While he will have his due process in the courts, I hope these charges demonstrate to our community that SPD will not tolerate corrupt behavior in our ranks.”

The federal complaint detailed the trafficking scheme that Chapackdee was involved in. While driving in police vans, Chapackdee and others would allegedly deliver hundreds of pounds of marijuana from the Seattle area to Baltimore and other surrounding neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland. The mules were working on behalf of Tuan Van Le, Chapackdee’s brother-in-law and ringleader of the trafficking scheme.

Trafficking any amount of marijuana across state lines is considered a federal offense. If convicted, Chapackdee faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, with a maximum stint of 40 years. He could also face a fine of up to $5 million.

Federal prosecutors allege that Chapackdee and his associates–a team of four–took several one-way flights from Seattle to Baltimore’s BWI airport in order to pick up cash payments for Le’s Seattle-grown marijuana, which they then drove back to the west coast.

According to the FBI’s complaint, Le would also pay Chapackdee $10,000 a month “to keep an eye on all of Tuan Van Le’s marijuana grow houses” and to provide him with information about law-enforcement activities.

Chapackdee’s attorney said that his client’s participation in the marijuana trafficking scheme is a “huge fall from grace, an embarrassment.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seattle Cop Caught Smuggling Marijuana to Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

During a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers he felt “mildly nauseous” that his actions may have affected the outcome on November 8. This was Comey’s first hearing since he told the House in March that the FBI has been investigating ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. It also gave a clearer view into Comey’s thoughts on the consequences of his actions leading up to Election Day.

But although Comey implied that his actions could be regretful–including publicly announcing that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was ongoing on October 28–he said concealing that information would have been “catastrophic.” Democrats–including Clinton–have derided Comey for going public with information regarding the Clinton investigation but failing to reveal the Trump investigation until months after the election.

The hearing opened with remarks from the committee’s top members from each party, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Grassley pressed for specifics on why Comey and the FBI pursued the investigation into Trump’s role in the Kremlin’s election meddling. “We need to know if there was anything improper between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” he said, or if Trump critics are merely “chasing a conspiracy theory.”

Feinstein focused on the FBI’s potential effect on the election. “I join those who believe that the actions taken by the FBI did in fact have an impact on the election,” she said. Clinton, in an extensive and unguarded interview on Tuesday, pegged her loss on Comey, WikiLeaks, and Russia. She did, however, take “absolute personal responsibility,” for losing to Trump. “I was the candidate. I was the person who was on the ballot,” she said.

Comey also made it clear in the hearing that Russia, which U.S. intelligence agencies concluded hacked Democratic operatives’ emails to aid Trump’s campaign, remains a threat. Russia is the primary threat to democracy, he said, and bluntly concurred when asked if Moscow’s cyber efforts are ongoing. “Yes,” he responded. Seemingly responding to Clinton’s remarks on Tuesday, Trump sent a series of tweets that critiqued Comey and Clinton, and referred to himself in the third person, all at the same time:

FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds! The phony…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

…Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election. Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post James Comey Feels “Mildly Nauseous” that the FBI Might Have Affected the Election appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Woman on Trial for Laughing During Jeff Sessions’ Confirmation Hearing

A female activist who was arrested back in January during Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing will stand trial. Desiree Fairooz laughed at one point during the hearing and was subsequently arrested. Prosecutors decided to pursue charges this week. Officer Katherine Coronado arrested Fairooz, 61, for laughing when Senator Richard Shelby said that Sessions’ record of treating all Americans equally is well-documented. According to Coronado, the laughter was loud enough to disrupt the hearing.

Another protester escorted out of Sessions hearing. Her original offense appeared to be simply laughing. pic.twitter.com/p6lWzBVFRW

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) January 10, 2017

Fairooz said her laughter was an involuntary reflex to what she heard. And many people expressed their support of Fairooz, saying it was understandable to laugh, as Shelby’s statement was not particularly accurate. In fact, Sessions was rejected as a federal judge in 1980 over his views on race. Fairooz is charged with “disorderly and disruptive conduct” and faces up to a $500 fine and six months in prison if convicted.

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 RantCrush Top 5: May 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It is not unusual for a politician to say one thing publicly, and believe another privately. It is also not unusual for a politician–even a president–to change his or her tune on a specific issue. Presidents’ thinking on certain issues evolve over time. But with President Donald Trump, a political novice who seems to favor a transactional style over an ideological one, his flip-flops have been seismic. Especially on foreign policy, Trump has gone from embracing marginal viewpoints antithetical to mainstream thinking to, you guessed it, mainstream thinking. Here are three of the president’s foreign policy shifts to date:

Russia

We all know the narrative for this one: throughout his campaign, Trump lavished Russian President Vladimir Putin with praise. He hinted that, if elected, he would lift the U.S.-imposed sanctions on Russia. But that barely scrapes the surface of Trump’s initial cozying up to the Kremlin. In hacking into Democratic operatives’ email accounts, Russia aimed to aid Trump in his quest for the White House, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded. And since July, the FBI has been investigating his and/or his aides’ communications with Russia. The House and Senate also have ongoing probes into potential collusion between the Trump team and Russia.

But that good will has all but dissipated. Trump has dropped the idea of lifting the sanctions, which were levied on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and its incursion into Ukraine. And earlier this month, Trump authorized a retaliatory strike on a Syrian airbase for a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials concluded was carried out by the Syrian regime. Russia, a vital backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was not happy with the action, and Trump recently said relations with Russia may be at “an all-time low.”

China

On his first day as president, Trump used to say, he would label China a currency manipulator. A dubious, if not dangerous claim, not only has that not happened nearly four months into his presidency, Trump recently wrote the idea off completely. “They’re not currency manipulators,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, referring to China. While Trump has seemingly moved on from his tough rhetoric, his administration plans on signing an executive order targeting countries that dump steel in the U.S. market, a practice long-suspected to be undertaken by China and others.

Trump has evolved on other China-related policies as well. As president-elect, Trump suggested everything regarding China was “under negotiation,” including the decades-old One China policy. A post-election phone call with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen ran counter to that policy, which recognizes Taiwan as a piece of the larger Chinese puzzle. In a February phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump affirmed his commitment to the One China view.

NATO

Obsolete. That is the adjective Trump the candidate used to describe the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Europe’s most effective bulwark against Russian aggression on the continent, and in the Baltic states in particular. He publicly pressed NATO members to pick up their slack in funding the bloc’s budget–a stance previous presidents privately shared. Since deeming the alliance “obsolete,” members of his administration–including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson–have traveled to Europe in the hopes of soothing NATO members’ concerns of a dwindling U.S. commitment.

On Wednesday, during a press conference with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump acknowledged his 180: “I said it was obsolete,” he said. “It’s no longer obsolete.” So what has led to Trump’s change in thinking, especially on foreign policy matters? Maybe it’s the fading voice of Steve Bannon, or the rising influence of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and economic adviser Gary Cohn. Or, just maybe, his more unorthodox positions have been tempered by the weight of the Oval Office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Changing Stances: Three Foreign Policies Issues POTUS Has Flipped On appeared first on Law Street.

Last August, U.S. officials obtained a FISA warrant to wiretap the communications of Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to President Donald Trump. The FBI suspected Page was working as a spy on behalf of Russia, a U.S. official told the New York Times. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the wiretap was granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, after the Justice Department provided evidence that Page might have been a mole for the Kremlin.

Previously a Moscow-based investment banker, Page is one of Trump’s former advisers many suspect FBI Director James Comey was alluding to when he said in a recent House hearing that the bureau was investigating the “nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.” Comey said the FBI had been probing the matter since July.

Securing a FISA warrant is no easy feat, and requires solid evidence to justify a wiretap. Usually, FISA warrants are used to surveil the communications of foreign agents, such as Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. For Page, the FBI pointed to two pieces of information that vindicated its suspicions about him acting as a Russian agent:

1. In 2013, Page met with a Russian man who U.S. intelligence officials identified as an undercover Russian intelligence officer. During the meeting with Page, the man was posing as a Russian businessman. Page reportedly provided the Russian agent, Victor Podobnyy, with documents pertaining to Page’s New York-based investment firm, Global Energy Capital.
2. In July 2016, after the Republican National Convention and before he left Trump’s campaign, Page traveled to Moscow to give a speech at the New Economic School. Page delivered a scathing harangue of U.S. policies toward Russia, including the sanctions imposed for its annexation of Crimea and its aggression in Ukraine.

According to the government official, the 90-day FISA warrant has been renewed more than once. Obtaining a FISA warrant is an intentionally complicated process. One of three top senior officials at the Justice Department must approve the request before it can go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Along with Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, Page is one of Trump’s former aides whose communications with Russia have caught the attention of U.S. intelligence officials. Page, according to Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks, had an “informal” role, and never had a private meeting with Trump. There has been no criminal charges brought against Page, and even months-long FBI investigations do not necessarily lead to charges.

For his part, Page has denied any wrongdoing. In an email to the Times on Tuesday, he said it “will be interesting to see what comes out when the unjustified basis of those FISA requests are more fully disclosed over time.” And on Wednesday, in an interview with CNN, he said, when asked if he has acted as a Russian agent: “Let’s not jump to any conclusions, and until there’s full evidence and a full investigation has been done, we just don’t know.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Obtained Warrant to Wiretap Former Trump Aide Carter Page appeared first on Law Street.

At the moment, there are three active investigations into the communications between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign. The Senate and House intelligence committees, as well as the FBI, are probing the matter. And while all three investigations are likely asking some of the same questions, it’s the House investigation that has generated the most noise.

That attention has largely been a byproduct of how its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), has handled intelligence reports. On Thursday, Nunes temporarily stepped aside in his role as the head of the committee’s investigation. So, what, if anything, did the committee discover since its investigation launched? And, more importantly, where is the investigation headed?

At a recent panel in Washington DC, Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), a member of the committee, said the investigation is about two things. One, he said, is answering the question of whether or not Trump or members of his administration colluded with the Russians in meddling in the election, intending, as the FBI and CIA concluded, to prop up the Trump campaign. Even if there was no collusion, Himes said, “is it nonetheless possible that the Russians have some form of compromise on the United States president?”

Himes called Nunes’s decision to recuse himself from the investigation “welcome news,” adding that while the chairman made mistakes, he is “fundamentally a decent guy.” But last week, on CNN, Himes also said Nunes’s behavior was “loopy” and “bizarre.”

Rep. Jim Himes says Rep. Devin Nunes’ behavior is “loopy” and “bizarre” https://t.co/uIuE85kQdQ pic.twitter.com/4KSvlwGHRe

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 27, 2017

Himes expressed dismay at the noise Nunes stirred up because “we were actually making pretty good progress.” He also called for “an independent, outside, bipartisan commission” to head the effort moving forward. Many have called for something akin to the special commission that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But, Himes added, regardless of who is in charge, “[the investigation] is not going to happen quickly.”

Himes was tight-lipped about what exactly the committee has dug up thus far, but he did say “there is not nothing there.” He added: “This doesn’t end I think with the conclusion that really nobody did nothing to anybody…but how serious it is I don’t want to characterize and prejudge.” Regardless of the committee’s ultimate conclusions, Himes said Russia’s actions, and its attempts to undermine America’s democratic system, deserve a “concerted response.”

Weeks before he was set to leave office, former President Barack Obama punished Russia by imposing further sanctions on individual actors, as well as barring four Russian officials from traveling to the U.S. Two Russian-owned diplomatic compounds in the U.S. were shuttered as well. Obama’s response, Himes said, was “inadequate.” He added that it is unclear what a proper response might look like, but “we do need to extract a price.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where is the House Intel Committee’s Russia Investigation Headed? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New “Extreme Vetting” Could Force Tourists to Hand Over Cellphones and Passwords

According to Trump Administration officials, the government is considering adding “extreme vetting” to the security check process at airports. Tourists and visitors could be forced to reveal their phone passwords to allow border agents to look through their contacts, social media profiles, and whatever other information they keep on their phones. Visitors could also face inquiries about their “ideology,” including questions about honor killings and the “sanctity of human life.” They could even be forced to hand over financial records. Officials said that the rules could also apply to the countries currently enrolled in the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without applying for a formal visa.

If the goal is to deter/eliminate foreign travel to the US, this would definitely do it: https://t.co/n8QG7jlCj3

— brianweeden (@brianweeden) April 4, 2017

A lot of people were pretty upset by this news and called the move intrusive and crazy. Dozens of human right groups came together and issued a joint statement saying that the new rules would enable unjustified scrutiny and invasion of privacy. It would also deter travelers from coming to the U.S., which could harm the American tourism industry.

If as reported, “extreme vetting” would be extremely destructive to our long term competiveness and global standing. https://t.co/gPSQ24xyY4

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) April 4, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: April 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would testify in the House and Senate intelligence committees’ Russia investigations in exchange for immunity, his lawyer said in a statement on Thursday. Flynn “certainly has a story to tell,” said his lawyer, Robert Kelner, who added that his client is seeking immunity because of the “highly politicized, witch-hunt environment” of the investigations.

An immunity deal would protect Flynn against criminal charges, should it come to light that he broke the law. According to a U.S. official, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is engaged in one of two congressional investigations of President Donald Trump and his advisers’ communications with Russia, denied Flynn’s immunity request. The House Intelligence Committee, which is running the second congressional investigation, has not responded as of Friday morning.

Flynn resigned in February after he misled White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the content of his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He has since become a central figure in the murky saga of Russia–which the FBI and CIA concluded meddled in the U.S. election in favor of President Donald Trump–and its communications with Trump aides during the campaign.

Congress has the ability to grant immunity, but usually consults a prosecutor first. The FBI is conducting a parallel investigation into Trump and his advisers’ ties to Russia, which director James Comey recently said has been underway since last July. The Justice Department has the power to delay–but not outright deny–an immunity request.

Kelner, Flynn’s lawyer, said in a statement, “no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.” He added, somewhat cryptically: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should circumstances permit.” Trump, in a message on Twitter early Friday, encouraged Flynn to seek immunity:

Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2017

But an immunity request does not necessarily suggest Flynn is guilty of something worthy of criminal charges. “At this early stage, I wouldn’t read anything into this request beyond smart lawyering,” Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in national security cases, told the New York Times. “In such a politically charged, high-profile national security case, I couldn’t imagine not first asking for immunity.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Michael Flynn’s Immunity Request appeared first on Law Street.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said, in a press conference on Capitol Hill and later at the White House on Wednesday, that President Donald Trump and his associates were compromised during the campaign as the result of surveillance in Trump Tower. Trump’s associates, Nunes said, were “unmasked” by the surveillance, and some of Trump’s communications were swept up in “incidental collection” as a result. He cited a classified report as the source of his claims, but did not divulge who provided him with the information.

“I don’t want to get too much into the details, but these were intelligence reports, and it brings up a lot of concern about whether things were properly minimized or not,” Nunes said. “What I have read bothers me, and I think it should bother the president himself and his team, because I think some of it seems to be inappropriate.”

This behavior by Nunes, head of the House investigation into Trump and his associates’ communications with Russia, brings up a host of questions: Can Nunes continue to lead an impartial investigation? Did he reveal any new information? What is “unmasking” and “incidental collection”? And was the surveillance that Nunes described lawful?

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said that Nunes apologized Thursday morning for going straight to the White House with his concerns, and circumventing the House Intelligence Committee. But many House Democrats, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said Nunes could no longer be expected to be an impartial voice in the Trump-Russia investigation.

The White House, in contrast, warmly embraced Nunes’s direct approach. “I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found,” Trump said, adding that he feels “somewhat” vindicated for his accusations that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, said Nunes provided “startling information.” But what exactly did Nunes reveal that was previously unknown?

The FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which are leading separate investigations into Russia’s communications with Trump and his associates, both concluded there is no evidence Trump Tower was wiretapped–by Obama or any other intelligence agency. And Nunes on Wednesday admitted as much. It is the “unmasking” of Trump’s associates that has Nunes concerned. Americans are often surveilled for communicating with foreign actors that might concern the U.S. But their identities are commonly masked, hidden from U.S. authorities who are tracking them.

Not so in the case of Trump’s associates, Nunes claims. He said the identity of those who were surveilled–Nunes said it was multiple associates, Schiff said it was one–was revealed to U.S. officials. Given the unusual nature of the investigation into people close to Trump who had ties to Russia (a common target of U.S. surveillance), it is hardly surprising that U.S. officials might not have conducted business as usual.

And according to Schiff, “unmasking” in and of itself “does not indicate that there was any flaw in the procedures followed by the intelligence agencies,” and “is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the context of collected foreign intelligence information.”

The “incidental collection” Nunes mentioned refers to Trump’s communications that might have been collected due to the surveillance of his associates. Again, there is nothing illegal about that. As to who might have been the subject of the surveillance, Nunes provided no specifics. Here’s a good bet though: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman who resigned last August after his name was included on a ledger of cash payments made by Ukraine’s former pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Devin Nunes Reveal Any New Information About Trump’s Wiretap Claim? appeared first on Law Street.

FBI to Investigate Breitbart, Other Media Outlets, Over Russian Ties

The FBI is getting ready to investigate Breitbart News and some other right wing media outlets to see whether they cooperated with Russia to boost President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. The agency is reportedly looking into online bots that pushed out fake and real news stories that were supportive of Trump. The automated bots would create millions of posts on social media that linked to far-right sites like Breitbart, and Russian-backed outlets like RT and Sputnik News. Observers noticed that whenever damaging information about Trump was revealed or his campaign was thought to be struggling, anti-Clinton posts would surge.

Investigators will try to determine whether the media outlets knew what the bots were doing when they were pushing fake news. This announcement resulted in mixed reactions on social media. While many thought this investigation was a long time coming, some expressed concerns about freedom of the press.

Am I the only one who thinks an FBI counter-intel investigation of Breitbart is a dangerous move for press freedom? https://t.co/jn0eZHM3zI

— David Mastio (@DavidMastio) March 21, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: March 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State and former CEO of oil giant Exxon Mobil, will not attend a meeting with NATO representatives next month in Brussels, a spokeswoman said on Monday. Instead, Tillerson will travel to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping. Tillerson will then travel to the G7 meeting in Sicily, Italy, followed by a jaunt to Moscow to meet with Russian officials.

In forgoing the NATO meeting in favor of a trip to meet with Kremlin officials, Tillerson is only compounding the dim view some have of his personal ties to Russia, and the Trump Administration’s connections as well. Tillerson steered Exxon through lucrative drilling contracts with Russia, and President Vladimir Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship in 2013.

And Trump himself has called NATO “obsolete,” though members of his cabinet–and Vice President Mike Pence–have since tried to walk back those remarks. Then of course, there are Trump’s murky relations with Russia: FBI Director James Comey said on Monday that Trump’s associates are currently under investigation for communications with Russia during the campaign.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said Tillerson’s decision to skip the NATO meeting would do little to alleviate the defense alliance’s concerns about U.S. support. “Donald Trump’s Administration is making a grave error that will shake the confidence of America’s most important alliance and feed the concern that this Administration [is] simply too cozy with Vladimir Putin,” Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

The State Department spokeswoman said in lieu of Tillerson, Under Secretary of State for Political Affair Tom Shannon will represent the U.S. in Brussels. Tillerson will, however, be meeting with NATO foreign ministers on Wednesday in Washington. The meeting will focus on defeating Islamic State, or ISIS, the spokeswoman said.

A former U.S. official and former NATO diplomat told Reuters that the alliance offered to change the date of the Brussels meeting so that Tillerson could attend, but that the department declined the offer. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the former diplomat said engagement with NATO is vital given the growing Russian threat. “Given the challenge that Russia poses, not just to the United States but to Europe, it’s critical to engage on the basis of a united front if at all possible,” the diplomat said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rex Tillerson to Skip NATO Meeting, Meet with Chinese and Russian Leaders Instead appeared first on Law Street.

The House Intelligence Committee convened its first public hearing with FBI Director James Comey on Monday. Fielding questions from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the committee’s chairman, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the committee, Comey was reluctant to reveal anything too explosive. He did, however, reaffirm the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusions that, contrary to President Donald Trump’s tweets, there is no evidence that Trump Tower was bugged at any time during the campaign. Comey also said the bureau is actively investigating Russia’s election meddling, including any communications it had with Trump’s campaign associates.

No Evidence of a Wiretap

To hardly anyone’s surprise (except the president’s), Comey said there is “no information” to support Trump’s accusations that President Barack Obama had his de facto campaign headquarters, Trump Tower, wiretapped. “With respect to the president’s tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets,” Comey said.

He added: “And we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components: the department has no information that supports those tweets.”

Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the same conclusion, even as Trump and his aides refused to lay the issue to rest. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, quoted a report from a Fox News reporter that suggested Obama colluded with GCHQ, the British spy agency, in bugging Trump Tower. GCHQ strongly rejected that claim, and Spicer reportedly met with the British ambassador to promise the unfounded claim would not be made again.

Russia Probe

Confirming what many privately suspected, Comey said the FBI is actively investigating Russia’s role in hacking the emails of Democratic operatives during the campaign; a cohort of Trump’s current and former campaign aides are also being investigated for their Russian ties. What was a surprise to many observers of the hearing, however, was that the FBI has been probing the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia since July of last year, well before the Obama Administration announced the possible role Russia played in hacking the Democrats’ emails.

“Because it is an open, ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining,” Comey said.

Trump, early Monday morning before the hearing, tried to deflect blame to his favorite target: Hillary Clinton. He tweeted:

The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

The hearing showcased what Democrats and some Republicans perceive as the real issues at hand. For Democrats, it is the fact that an adversary intentionally hacked the U.S. political process, and what role the current administration might have played in that plot. Republicans at the hearing largely questioned the leaks that ultimately led to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s resignation. The leaker, they seemed to imply, should be identified and punished.

“Unauthorized dissemination is punishable by felony up to 10 years in federal prison?” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) asked Comey, who responded: “Yes, as it should be.” But to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Senate minority leader, the most pressing issue facing the country is not the leaker, but the content of the leaks.

“The possibility of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials is a serious, serious matter,” Schumer said after the hearing. “The investigation must be fair, independent, and impartial in every way, and the F.B.I. must be allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the House Intelligence Committee Hearing with James Comey appeared first on Law Street.

The inspector general for the Department of Justice said Thursday that he will conduct an inquiry into the actions FBI Director James Comey took during his investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. Comey’s actions, especially the letter he sent to Congress 11 days before the election, roiled Clinton and her supporters, and instantly put Comey on the hot seat. Clinton and her aides claim that the letter turned thousands of undecided voters against her, and ultimately cost her the election.

Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, will examine three actions Comey took in the months, weeks, and days leading up to Election Day: the July news conference in which Comey called Clinton “extremely careless,” but decided not to indict her; the letter Comey sent to Congress in late October, which announced the discovery of potentially relevant emails; and the letter Comey sent to Congress on November 5, which said that those emails did not include damaging information.

In a statement, Horowitz said the inquiry is “in response to requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations, and members of the public.” Horowitz has the power to recommend a criminal investigation into Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation.

More likely, he will be determining whether Comey, a Republican appointed by President Barack Obama, violated Justice Department rules or demonstrated poor judgment. It is unclear what sort of punishment, if any, could be dealt if Horowitz finds that Comey acted irresponsibly. An internal memo sent to DOJ officials in 2012 directs employees, including the FBI director, to enforce laws “in a neutral and impartial manner.”

All parties involved in the matter expressed support for the watchdog’s probe. Comey, in a statement, said Horowitz is “professional and independent,” adding: “I hope very much he is able to share his conclusions and observations with the public because everyone will benefit from thoughtful evaluation and transparency.” Brian Fallon, Clinton’s former press secretary who was outraged by Comey’s late-October letter, echoed that support.

“This is highly encouraging and to be expected, given Director Comey’s drastic deviation from Justice Department protocol,” he said. “A probe of this sort, however long it takes to conduct, is utterly necessary in order to take the first step to restore the FBI’s reputation as a nonpartisan institution.” Trump, in a pair of tweets on Friday morning, said based on the information the FBI had regarding Clinton’s emails, she should have never been allowed to run. “She lost because she campaigned in the wrong states – no enthusiasm!” he added.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Launches Inquiry into Comey’s Handling of the Clinton Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

Hey everyone, happy winter solstice! Today marks the beginning of winter and the shortest day of the year for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere. But…that also means it’s only going to get better (and lighter) moving forward! So lean back and enjoy today’s RantCrush. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

ISIS Claims Responsibility for the Berlin attack

Yesterday, German officials released the suspect in the truck attack at a Christmas market in Berlin, as there was no hard evidence linking him to the attack. Also yesterday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that a lone “soldier” acted on the group’s behalf. The statement didn’t specify if the man was simply inspired by the group, or if he was directly affiliated with it. Either way, this means that the perpetrator is still at large, and German police launched a countrywide search. However, late last night, a warrant was issued for a 24-year-old Tunisian-born man whose residence permit was found in the truck used in the attack.

#BREAKING German officials confirm to @ABC that manhunt for perpetrator of #Christmas Market attack is 24 y/o Tunisian man pic.twitter.com/ZRFnoND23s

— Matt Gutman (@mattgutmanABC) December 21, 2016

At the same time, the far right in Germany blamed Chancellor Angela Merkel for the attack, claiming that her generous immigration policies are the problem.

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 RantCrush Top 5: December 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, there was a meeting between the heads of the country’s leading intelligence agencies: FBI Director James Comey, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and CIA Director John Brennan. The gathering’s subject matter: Russia’s hacking of email networks during the presidential election. On Friday, an official with direct knowledge of the meeting said that the agencies now agree that Russia’s hacking operation had the intention of putting President-elect Donald Trump in the White House.

When the CIA first announced its assessment that Russia had indeed hacked into both the Democratic and Republican email networks, only leaked the Democrat’s emails, and aimed to aid Trump, the FBI was hesitant to come to the same conclusion. Trump has called the CIA’s claims “ridiculous,” and continues to deflect any notion that he was aided by Russia.

The official close to the FBI said that the bureau was timid at first because officials entertained other motives for the Russian hacks: Perhaps Russia was trying to undermine Clinton’s position if she were to be elected, or maybe it was a personal rebuke as a result of her dicey past with Putin? Eventually, the FBI agreed that Russia’s actions were motivated by putting Trump in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, Trump’s opponent during the election, Democrat Hillary Clinton, told Democratic Party donors on Friday that the Russian breach was not only directed by President Vladimir Putin, but that the episode was a personal attack on her. She said Putin has a “personal beef” with her, alluding to her statement five years ago that Russia’s parliamentary elections were”rigged.” Clinton said: “Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election.”

But Clinton also called the Russian hacks “an attack against our country,” not just her campaign. “We are well beyond normal political concerns here,” she said. “This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.” President Barack Obama, in his final news conference of the year, defended his handling of the Russian hacks. He said he even delivered this stern command to Putin when they met in September: “Cut it out.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FBI Now Agrees with the CIA: Russia Intended to Help Trump appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, FBI Director James Comey announced that after reviewing new emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer, his decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton remains. Barring any new information, the FBI’s announcement effectively closes Clinton’s case–a conclusion that has left many unsatisfied.

FBI Dir just informed us “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Sec Clinton”

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) November 6, 2016

The FBI was in the process of investigating Anthony Weiner’s computer because of an alleged sexting affair with an underage girl. During the course of that investigation, the FBI found emails related to Hillary Clinton sent or received by Weiner’s estranged wife Huma Abedin, a top Clinton aide.

Soon after Comey’s announcement, conspiracy theorists and Donald Trump supporters questioned whether the FBI could review so many emails in just over a week. Michael T. Flynn, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, seemed to imply that Comey himself had looked through all of the documents.

IMPOSSIBLE:
There R 691,200 seconds in 8 days. DIR Comey has thoroughly reviewed 650,000 emails in 8 days? An email / second? IMPOSSIBLE RT

— General Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 6, 2016

It took 1 year to review 60K and 8 days to review 650K? Smart machines or not, something does not jive. Thoughts?

— General Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 6, 2016

In response to a tweeted question by journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted back an explanation of how a computer could do this:

@jeffjarvis Drop non-responsive To:/CC:/BCC:, hash both sets, then subtract those that match. Old laptops could do it in minutes-to-hours.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 7, 2016

Snowden, who revealed the NSA’s metadata surveillance program, said that such a review shouldn’t take very long. And according to reports, most of the emails, that were found on Weiner’s computer were duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI.

John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told NBC on Sunday, “In the days that come, we will have many questions about the FBI’s handling of this investigation. In the meantime, however, I welcome this news confirming again that no charges are warranted in this matter.”

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 Snowden Debunks FBI Investigation Conspiracy Theories with One Tweet appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The World’s Scariest GOTV Strategy?

A historically black church in Greenville, Mississippi was set on fire late Tuesday night and vandalized with the words “Vote Trump” spray-painted on the façade. Most of the damage was to the main building and no people were hurt. But the community is in shock over what reminds many of hateful attacks in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Black Church in Mississippi Burned Down, ‘Vote Trump’ Painted on It https://t.co/vTcPtZs72F pic.twitter.com/HUBpCy8PFB

— CitizenSlant (@CitizenSlant) November 2, 2016

Many fear that this is only the beginning of what could happen if Trump is elected president. But at the same time some crazy people think it was staged by Democrats to place blame on the Republicans.

Just like the 1960’s, #Democrats are burning churches to scare and intimidate Black Voters who are voting for Trump https://t.co/SSm317UFfL

— P. J. (@Portosj81J) November 2, 2016

The Trump campaign made sure to dissociate itself from that message.

Trump campaign statement on Mississippi church arson pic.twitter.com/d6PnyVuHBR

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 2, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 3, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader and retiring Democratic Senator of Nevada, sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey calling on him and his team to release to the public the “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government” that Comey allegedly possesses. But does the FBI possess any “explosive information” regarding Trump’s ties to Russia? And what about those recent claims by a former spy that Trump’s allies maintain a backchannel to a Russian bank?

First, a bit of background:

Comey and the FBI find themselves at the center of an extraordinarily divisive presidential campaign that cannot end soon enough for all parties (and voters). It started with an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, which concluded without an indictment. Last week, however, Comey’s team stumbled upon some emails that were pertinent to the Clinton case while reviewing Anthony Weiner’s sexting case. Comey sent a letter to Congress alerting them of the new development, which in turn sparked claims of Comey’s anti-Clinton bias by Democrats and a new round of Clinton attacks by Republicans.

A story published Monday by the website Mother Jones featured a “former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence” as a source. He said that “in recent months he provided the [FBI] with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump.”

The FBI has in fact investigated Trump’s ties to any Kremlin entities, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader who Trump has profusely praised. They also investigated, and continue to investigate, the hacks involving Democratic emails released by Wikileaks in recent weeks. FBI officials, speaking under the condition of anonymity, told The New York Times on Monday that “no clear link” has been discovered between Trump and Russia, and that the hacks are intent on undermining American democracy rather than electing Trump, as many Democrats have implied.

“It isn’t about the election,” a senior official told the Times. “It’s about a threat to democracy.” And then there are the accusations by the former spy who spoke with Mother Jones that Trump and his team maintains a back channel to Russia’s Alfa Bank, which the Clinton campaign–which seesawed between attacking Comey for his renewed probe into her emails and remaining silent on the matter–called “the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.”

The FBI investigated the Trump-Alfa Bank connection, and found “there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.” Trump’s Press Secretary Hope Hicks responded to the allegations regarding the server: “First of all, it’s not a secret server. The email server, set up for marketing purposes and operated by a third-party, has not been used since 2010,” she said. “The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.”

Alfa Bank, the largest private commercial bank in Russia, responded to the claims as well. A spokesman for the bank said rumors that the bank is involved in a shadowy connection with Trump or his campaign is  “patently false.” He said the activity between the two servers were “caused by a spam attack.” He added: “Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr Trump or his entities.” 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Credible are the Claims That Trump Has Deep Ties with Russia? appeared first on Law Street.

Did FBI Director James Comey break a federal law by sending a letter to Congress on Friday announcing the bureau’s renewed probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails? Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) seems to think so. Reid sent a letter of his own to Comey on Sunday accusing the director of breaking the Hatch Act, a little known but commonly enforced statute that prohibits federal employees from meddling in an election. “Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law,” Reid wrote.

With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong about Mr. Comey. https://t.co/7tHfOgxvCN

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) October 30, 2016

Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939, disallowing federal employees to “use [their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” The law has been repeatedly amended since, and the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 widened the scope of partisan participation granted to federal employees.

In July, the Office of Special Counsel–the agency that enforces the Hatch Act–found Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro in violation of the law. In an April interview with Katie Couric, Castro was asked about the coming election and his endorsement of Clinton. He responded: “Now, taking off my HUD hat for a second and just speaking individually, it is very clear that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced, thoughtful, and prepared candidate for President that we have this year.” The OSC wrote that Castro violated the Hatch Act “by advocating for and against Presidential candidates.”

According to Reid, Comey’s withholding of information regarding Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, along with the timing of his letter (11 days before Election Day), was “intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group,” which is a breach of the Hatch Act and a clear “double-standard.” Reid writes:

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government–a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity.

Aside from Reid’s statement, there is no evidence that Trump or his advisors have ties to the Russian government, though Trump has repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin–even calling on him to double down his hacking of Clinton’s emails. U.S. officials have found evidence that Russia is behind the recent hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta.

Harry Reid is a disgrace to American politics, among worst men ever in Senate. He can’t go soon enough, & many Democrats privately agree. https://t.co/4lCKx5pKi4

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) October 30, 2016

By alerting Congress to the emergence of new evidence in the Clinton email case–emails were found on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide, and her former husband Anthony Weiner–Comey may have roused enough partisan passions to affect the presidential race, though more likely, down-ballot congressional races. His letter shifted the spotlight off Trump. It reminded voters of Clinton’s weaknesses. It provided fodder for Republican lawmakers, and buoyed Trump’s spirits. But proving Comey intended to cause any of these effects with his actions does not seem likely.

After sending his letter to Congress, Comey sent a letter to FBI employees that offered more details regarding his decision to send a fairly vague letter in the first place. He wrote:

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

President Obama appointed Comey as director in 2013, and his ten-year term is set to end in 2023. In a briefing with reporters on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama does not think Comey is trying to influence the election. He also said Obama believes Comey is a “man of integrity and good character” and that he’s in a “tough spot.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did James Comey Break Federal Law with His Letter to Congress? appeared first on Law Street.

FBI Director James Comey, in a letter sent to Congress on Friday, announced a new probe into emails Hillary Clinton sent over a private sever. The new investigation is unrelated to the previous one that ultimately found Clinton not guilty of any criminal offense, but of being “extremely careless.” Comey writes:

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation

The New York Times is reporting that the emails were discovered after the FBI investigated devices belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her ex-husband, Anthony Weiner, in their case involving Weiner’s sexting practices. Apparently, there are three emails, not necessarily even involving Clinton, being reviewed.

Despite Election Day’s rapid approach, Comey said he “cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work.” Comey’s letter had an unexpected ripple effect after its release today: the stock market dipped, as many investors expecting a Clinton victory on November 8 were caught off guard. The Dow Jones average fell by over 150 points.

But a source told NBC’s Pete Williams that the FBI’s second look at Clinton’s email practices does not quite constitute a “reopening,” (in fact, Comey does not use this word in his letter) as many media outlets are reporting. Williams said that it appears that the new probe involves “another device,” and while Clinton could face a political fallout from the announcement, there might not be legal ramifications.

Donald Trump seemed excited by the FBI’s announcement. At a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, he said he was “very proud” of the bureau, adding “I think they are going to right the ship, folks.” On cue, the crowd commenced with their go-to chant: “Lock her up!” Trump also said Clinton’s seemingly immortal email scandal is “bigger than Watergate.”

While social media is bursting with Clinton supporters questioning Comey’s motives, and Clinton detractors reading his letter as the final dagger in her candidacy, Comey might simply be doing his job by reexamining fresh evidence, saying nothing of the content of that evidence–damaging or not. According to Newsweek, Comey likely did not have a choice but to renew the investigation: “because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.”

The Associated Press is also reporting that according to a U.S. official, the new emails did not come from Clinton’s private server. Hang on folks, Election Day is almost here. Until then, stay tuned to Law Street for the latest updates on this and other issues.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the FBI Reopening its Investigation into Clinton’s Emails? appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday the Justice Department announced new guidelines for collecting nationwide data on law enforcement officials’ use of force in encounters with civilians. According to the New York Times, this is the biggest effort of its kind that the federal government has ever made to account for use of force.

“Accurate and comprehensive data on the use of force by law enforcement is essential to an informed and productive discussion about community-police relations,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch in a statement. She said that the purpose of these new steps is increased transparency and a better understanding between law enforcement officials and the communities that they serve.

The FBI is currently developing a national database as part of the Department of Justice’s efforts to gather… https://t.co/9LE1tzKQ7m

— QkTip (@QkTipcom) October 13, 2016

The Death in Custody Reporting Act (DCRA) that was passed in 2014 requires officials to record and report all deaths of civilians that occur either in custody or during interaction with officers. But they are not required to report non-fatal cases. With the new initiative, officers must collect, maintain and report data on all shootings or violent encounters involving an officer, whether fatal or not, and the same goes for people already in custody.

Last year, the FBI started working on developing a National Use of Force Data Collection, an online portal for reporting use-of-force data from all over the country, in collaboration with local law enforcement. Bigger city police departments and the FBI will start reporting data early next year.

The past year has been dramatic and traumatic and seen several fatal encounters between police and civilians, with casualties on both sides and violent protests as a result. If these new procedures could help to resolve the societal tensions, it is a good start.

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 The DOJ Will Start Collecting More Info on Police Officers’ Use of Force appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street Media’s comprehensive Crime in America 2017 coverage provides a look at the safety of our cities and towns around the United States. Based on data provided in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, Law Street analyzes the data to provide lists of the safest and most dangerous cities around the U.S. Take a look at the rankings and features below to discover how safe your city actually is. Check back regularly for continued reporting and additional features.

Rankings

Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000

Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000

Safest Cities Over 200,000

Safest and Most Dangerous States

Interactive Dashboard

Crime Trends in America’s Largest Cities

Charts and Data

NOTES

• What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports
• Methodology

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 Crime in America 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Rockford, Illinois, is the most dangerous city in the U.S. with a population between 100,000-200,000 people, displacing Little Rock, Arkansas, which now ranks as #2. Tallahassee, Florida moved onto the list at #8 after just missing the cut at #12 last year; Odessa, Texas also moved from #11 to #9. Many of the rest of the positions held steady and only saw small increases or decreases in their violent crime rates.

All statistics are based on 2015 data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Check out the slideshow below for the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000.

Click here for the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000

Click here for the Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000

#1 Rockford, Illinois

Image courtesy of Alexbaumgarner via Wikimedia Commons

Rockford, Illinois has displaced Little Rock, Arkansas, as the most dangerous city with a population between 100,000-200,000 people. Rockford saw a 28 percent increase in its violent crime rate last year, after a 10 percent decrease the year before. However, Rockford’s murder rate only increased slightly, from 11 per 100,000 people in 2014 to 13 per 100,000 people in 2015. The most dramatic jumps came from increases in the numbers of robbery and aggravated assault, rising by 22 percent and 30 percent respectively.

Violent Crime Rate:  1,585/100,000 people
Murder Rate: 13/100,000 people
Population: 148,178
Officer to Population Ratio: 1:529
Rank Last Year: #2

—

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Click here for additional information on Law Street’s crime-ranking methodology.

Source:

FBI: Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics, measured January – December 2015.

Editor’s Note: This post was updated to remedy a spelling issue. 

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 Crime in America 2017: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000 appeared first on Law Street.

St. Louis, Missouri moved from #4 to #1 this year on Law Street’s list of Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 after its violent crime rate rose by more than 8 percent. As violent crime increased nationally by nearly 4 percent, many cities in the top 10 saw substantial increases. Detroit is #2 on this year’s list, moving down after three consecutive years at the top of the list due to an 11.5 percent decrease in its overall violent crime rate. Notably missing from this year’s list is Cleveland, Ohio, which had ranked #8 on last year’s list. The FBI did not provide information for Cleveland this year, and therefore the city cannot be ranked.

All statistics are based on 2015 data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Check out the slideshow below for the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000.

CLICK HERE FOR THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES UNDER 200,000

CLICK HERE FOR THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES OVER 200,000

#1  St. Louis, Missouri

Image courtesy of Kevin McCoy via Wikimedia Commons

A significant violent crime spike in St. Louis, Missouri put the city at the top of Law Street’s list of the Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000. The violent crime rate in St. Louis went up by more than 8 percent in 2015, going from 1,679 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in 2014 to 1,817 per 100,000 last year. That increase moved the city up from the #4 spot in last year’s rankings. St. Louis also saw 29 additional murders in 2015, going from 159 in 2014 to 188 in 2015. The city had a murder rate of 59 murders per 100,000 in 2015. Additionally, the number of robberies and aggravated assaults both experienced notable increases last year, going up 15 percent and 5 percent respectively.

Violent Crime Rate:  1,817/100,000 people
Murder Rate: 59/100,000 people
Population: 317,095
Officer to Population Ratio: 1:258
Rank Last Year: #4

—

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Click here for additional information on Law Street’s crime-ranking methodology.

Source:

FBI: Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics, measured January – December 2015.

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 Crime in America 2017: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 appeared first on Law Street.

Some of the exchanges question Bernie Sanders’ faith. Some show attempts to undermine his campaign’s credibility. One describes him as an outsider with “no understanding of what we do.” Monday morning, the FBI announced they will be investigating the leak of the nearly 2,000 emails sent between top Democratic National Committee members, which were released by WikiLeaks on Friday. Hillary Clinton insists the leak is the work of Russia, in an attempt to give Donald Trump a boost.

The emails–part one of WikiLeaks’ “Hillary Leaks series”–proved so damaging that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chairwoman, announced her resignation on Sunday. She will address delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this week before ceding her post to Donna Brazile, the vice chairwoman of the DNC. Monday morning, Wasserman Schultz was booed at a Florida delegate breakfast in Philadelphia.

While journalists have been combing through the emails, which include over 8,000 attached documents, some shocking exchanges between key party figures have been revealed. In one, Brad Marshall, chief financial officer of the DNC suggests questioning Sanders’ Jewish beliefs as a way to dissuade pious voters in Kentucky and West Virginia from voting for him:

He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist…It’s these Jesus thing.

In a statement issued on Sunday, Sanders, who has been claiming that the DNC rigged the primary fight in favor of Clinton for months, thanked Wasserman Schultz for her years of service, but said she made the “right decision” by resigning. “The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race,” he added.

The Democrats are in a total meltdown but the biased media will say how great they are doing! E-mails say the rigged system is alive & well!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 24, 2016

For her part, Clinton also thanked her “longtime friend” for her five years as DNC leader, and announced she will act as a Clinton surrogate in Florida, a key swing state, as well as other states. “I look forward to campaigning with Debbie in Florida and helping her in her re-election bid–because as President, I will need fighters like Debbie in Congress who are ready on day one to get to work for the American people,” Clinton’s statement read.

Trump quickly seized on the second email scandal involving his rival party during the campaign. He took to Twitter to publicize his views on the matter, firing off a round of tweets Monday morning: “Crooked Hillary Clinton knew everything that her ‘servant’ was doing at the DNC–they just got caught, that’s all! They laughed at Bernie.”

The Democratic Party will seek to show itself as unified, in contrast to the fractured Republicans, during the convention in Philadelphia this week. But the email leak could prove difficult to paper over, especially for Sanders’s supporters and delegates who remain steadfast in their support, even as the senator endorsed Clinton and ended his White House ambitions a few weeks ago.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DNC Emails: Wasserman Schultz Resigns, FBI to Investigate the Leak appeared first on Law Street.

The jokes started out pretty harmless, referencing some of our favorite childhood cartoons.

#MoreTrustedThanHillary Spongebob’s magic conch pic.twitter.com/Vmn714Gpav

— Preston (@PrestonFlowers) July 6, 2016

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post #MoreTrustedThanHillary Trend Takes Twitter by Storm appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s emails, clap your hands.

James Comey is right there with you. The FBI Director said Tuesday that the bureau is recommending to the Department of Justice that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for using a personal email server during her term as secretary of state.

Some people are pretty mad.

Declining to prosecute Sec. Clinton for recklessly transmitting national security info will set a terrible precedent https://t.co/URtm1pFIIB

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) July 5, 2016

The Background

In 2012, Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in an attack in Benghazi, Libya, prompting a long string of investigations and questions about officials’ actions at the time–officials including a key player, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Part of the investigation was a look into Clinton’s email, which revealed that she had been using a personal server during her time heading up the State Department, which got more than a few people feeling uneasy. As secretary of state, she had access to a lot of classified information, which wasn’t supposed to be mixed in with her personal notes or hair appointment confirmations. This scandal has followed Clinton all throughout her campaign.

What’s Next?

 Comey said that the FBI didn’t find enough evidence to show that she intentionally mishandled the classified information, but did slide a little commentary in about how she was “extremely careless” with it. The Bureau is technically passing the case over to the Department of Justice to make a prosecutorial decision, but its recommendation essentially means there will be no prosecution.

While Hillary supporters are rejoicing, this recommendation is fuel for certain other candidates who don’t play nice with the Clintons and use “Crooked Hillary” in a good portion of their tweets.

FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 5, 2016

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

As police violence has garnered much of the public’s attention, some believe that increased scrutiny of law enforcement has led to a “war on police.” The best way to understand the extent of the violence police face and how it has changed over time is to look at the FBI’s statistics on officer assaults in the line of duty.

In the map below, darker red states have a higher rate of assaults per 100 employed officers. The second chart details the number of employed officers based on the population that they cover. In total, there were 48,315 assaults in the line of duty in 2014. For the United States as a whole, there were nine assaults per 100 law enforcement officers that year.

In the second map, darker blue states mean there is a higher number of officers per 100,000 people. The FBI’s data includes statistics from 11,150 law enforcement agencies that employ more than 536,000 officers. The agencies included in the report cover more than 75 percent of the U.S. population. All data is from the 2014 calendar year.

Read More: What We Know About Officer Deaths in the Line of Duty

*Use landscape mode if viewing on mobile*

The Rockford, Illinois and Maui, Hawaii police departments are the only agencies in their states with available data. You can view both police departments’ statistics here.

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 Police in America 2016: State-by-State Breakdown of Officer Assaults in the Line of Duty appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI recently released a snapshot of law enforcement officer deaths in 2015, indicating that such deaths decreased last year. But that is only a small subset of the available information on officer deaths. Now that policing has reached the center of the public’s attention, statistics about what happens to officers while they’re on duty are sure to be an important part of the debate.

Interactive Map: Officer Assaults and Employment by State

The FBI publishes an annual report on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted in the Line of Duty (LEOKA), which can provide some interesting insights into the matter and inform debates about police deaths. The annual LEOKA publication is one of the most detailed data sets kept by the FBI. For obvious reasons, it’s important for the FBI and all law enforcement agencies to keep track of and understand the situations in which police officers are killed and assaulted.

Here’s what the FBI data tells us:

More Officers Die from Accidents than Felonies

Source: FBI LEOKA 2014     |     Includes Preliminary 2015 Data

The chart above details the number of officer deaths from both accidents and felonies between 2005 and 2015. The average number of felonious deaths during that 11 year period is about 50, while the average number of accidental deaths is just below 60. Last year saw particularly low numbers for both felonious and accidental deaths, with 41 and 45 respectively.

The data can also tell us a lot about the causes of these deaths. Nearly 60 percent of accidental deaths that occurred between 2005 and 2014 were the result of automobile accidents. If you broaden the category to include motorcycle and aircraft accidents they account for more than 70 percent in total.

The chart below details the trends over time:

Source: FBI, LEOKA and *Preliminary 2015 Data

There has been a slight downward trend in both felonious and accidental police officer deaths. The preliminary numbers for 2015 are also encouraging, as the number of accidental deaths tied its 10-year low with 45, and the number of felonious deaths matched the second lowest point in the same period at 41. Law enforcement deaths in the line of duty is certainly an important thing to track, but when it comes to assessing the threat that officers face every day, looking at assault statistics can be particularly informative.

 What We Know About the Offenders

Source: FBI, LEOKA – Table 47

The FBI keeps detailed information on both victims and offenders, allowing felonious offenders to be broken down by race, sex, and several other categories. Between 2005 and 2014, there was a total of 563 offenders involved in felonious officer deaths. When you break those numbers down by race, 309, or 55 percent of the known offenders are white and 224, or 40 percent are black. Asian/Pacific islanders, Native Americans, and offenders whose race was not reported account for less than 2 percent each.

Offenders are also overwhelmingly male–nearly 97 percent of known offenders are men. The vast majority–83 percent–have also had prior criminal arrests and just over one-quarter of all offenders were under some form of judicial supervision.

Assaults and Injuries have Been Decreasing

Source: FBI, LEOKA – Table 76

Assaults on police officers have generally trended downward over the past 10 years. After peaking at 61,257 in 2007, the total number of assaults has decreased to 48,315 in 2014, a decrease of more than 20 percent. The chart above also details the number of officers who sustained injuries from an assault. All injury numbers are estimates–based on percentages provided by the FBI–with the exception of 2014, which is the exact number recorded by the FBI.

The number of assaults that caused injuries also followed a downward trend, with approximately 16,866 in 2007 and 13,654 in 2014. Although the number of injuries has not dropped as quickly as the total number of assaults, this is certainly an encouraging sign for police officers.

Moving Forward

The 2015 assault and injury statistics, which will be released later this year, will be particularly interesting in light of recent discussion of the so-called “Ferguson effect,” in which some argue that the perceived threat to law enforcement officers has caused proactive policing to decline and crime rates to go up. These numbers will also help inform the debate on the alleged “war on police,” a related argument in which some claim that officers are being attacked more as protests and movements like Black Lives Matter have called more attention to issues surrounding police violence.

Based on the preliminary numbers for felonious deaths, that does not appear to be the case. But we do not yet know whether increased scrutiny is correlated with an increase in assaults. As the chart above indicates, the number of assaults has gone down steadily over the past several years, but in time, we’ll know if 2015 is an exception.

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 Police in America 2016: What We Know About Officer Deaths in the Line of Duty appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street Media’s Police in America coverage takes a look at statistics on law enforcement officers in the U.S. As the conversations around police policies, use of force, and police deaths feature prominently in public discourse, Law Street strives to provide the most up-to-date facts, numbers, and coverage of Police in America.

Officer Deaths by the Numbers

What We Know About Officer Deaths in the Line of Duty

State-by-State Breakdown of Officer Assaults in the Line of Duty

Latest News:

Preliminary Data Shows Drop in Police Officer Deaths

When Does Racial Bias Affect Police Officers’ Use of Force?

To read more about crime rates in U.S. cities, states, and metropolitan areas, check out Law Street’s Crime in America coverage.

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 Police in America 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In an “SNL” skit that aired last November, a politically (and factually) incorrect relative at Thanksgiving dinner claimed that she “actually saw an ISIS in the A&P the other day.” While just a joke, when you consider how the FBI is acting these days, the sentiment doesn’t actually seem too crazy. The Bureau has a long history of secretive tactics, but has reached a new high with regards to terrorism-related cases, according to a recent New York Times analysis.

In investigations against Americans suspected of involvement with the Islamic terrorist group, undercover “sting” operations have played a part in two-thirds of cases, or 67 percent, since February 2015, compared to 30 percent in 2014, according to the analysis. During these sting operations, FBI employees or informants pose as Jihadists, bomb-makers, and gun dealers to connect with ISIS members.

Undercover operators have helped suspects acquire weapons and plan routes to Syria to join the Islamic State. Some have gone so far as to drive a suspect to a synagogue where he wanted to carry out a bombing, arresting the bomber as he stepped out of the car with the bomb in his hand.

Michael B. Steinbach, Executive Assistant Director of the FBI’s National Security Branch told the Times, “We’re not going to wait for the person to mobilize on his own time line.”

The FBI’s tactics, though effective, put their employees in a risky legal situation. Agents have to toe the line between allowing a crime and provoking one to avoid illegal entrapment, an issue which has surfaced in court.

In 2013, four terrorists tried to appeal their convictions by accusing officers of entrapment among other crimes, like perjury. The court found that the agents had not entrapped the criminals, even though the investigation was intense and included an FBI-manufactured fake missile that was delivered to the men.

When it comes to search and seizure issues, undercover operations are in their own category and do not require a warrant, but some still find the practices unethical.

Former undercover FBI agent Michael German told the New York Times that the FBI is “manufacturing terrorism cases…these people [working undercover] are five steps away from being a danger to the United States.” 

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Agents are Posing as Terrorists appeared first on Law Street.

Andy Warhol’s soup cans are one of the most iconic images of American pop art–and last week, someone decided to take them for a walk. The Springfield Art Museum of Springfield, Missouri reported a burglary last week that involved several prints made by Warhol in 1968. The FBI has announced a $25,000 reward for information leading to the apprehension of the thieves–which seems excessive until you consider that a single one of Warhol’s soup can prints sold for $30,660 last year at Christie’s. The reward also pales in comparison to the $5 million reward offered for information regarding the Isabella Stewart Gardener Museum robbery–during which multiple pieces by Renoir and Vermeer were stolen. Yet it is still a massive sum that will hopefully tempt informants to come forward.

The FBI has a specially designated Art Crime Team brought in to handle matters involving stolen artwork but unless the prints are found relatively quickly, they may be transferred into the collection of a private buyer via the black market and never seen again. The FBI operates a National Stolen Art File, which provides a comprehensive index of art that has been stolen worldwide, but with a piece as recognizable as Warhol’s soup cans, putting it in the index is not even necessary. The print could never go to auction in a traditional showroom, which means tracking it will be an infinitely difficult task. Law enforcement will be forced to rely heavily on anonymous tips and confidential informants, which is why they have drawn attention to their tip line with a cash incentive.

However, that incentive may not seem justified from all quarters. Why is the FBI designating such a massive cash prize to the Warhol paintings when it could donate the same prize to informants who call in regarding violent actions or organized crime? Why is the FBI designating that money to prizes at all when it could be using it to finance operations and hire the best possible analysts (instead of potentially losing them to the private sector)? The Art Crime Team would respond that stealing art can be equated with stealing history, taking away the identity and history of a given people. This argument holds up when considering the team’s successful recovery of artifacts stolen from archaeological sites and public museums, but when examining private collections, we come to gray area. Should the government be tasked with providing a reward for the theft of a privately owned painting or should that responsibility fall to the owner, who has the ability to insure the painting?

On its website, the Art Crime Team has listed several of its successes, including the case of “approximately 100 paintings stolen from a Florida family’s art collection in a fine art storage facility. This collection included works by Picasso, Rothko, Matisse and others that were recovered from Chicago, New York and Tokyo.” Stealing a painting from a venue like the Springfield Art Museum does impact the community’s ability to access and enjoy art but if it was stolen from a private collection, the public would have just as little access to the artwork after the theft as they did before. The reward offered in the case of the Warhol prints may turn up valuable information, but it could also be a waste of government funds that will do virtually nothing to return the prints. 

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should the FBI Offer Reward Money for Stolen Art? appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s annual Crime in America Rankings take an in-depth look at crime rates and important crime statistics for major cities across the country. The following infographic gives a visual summary of the report’s highlights and major findings:

Image copyright Law Street Media

Using statistics from the FBI, Law Street ranked cities, states, and metro areas according to their violent crime rates. Topping the list of most dangerous cities with populations over 200,000 is Detroit, Michigan with 1,989 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. The Memphis-TN metro area is the most dangerous metro and Alaska is the most dangerous state based on their violent crime rates per 100,000 people. The city with the lowest crime rate based on Law Street’s criteria is Irvine, California, which continues its streak at the top of the list of safest cities. Maine has the lowest crime rate out of all 50 states.

Read More: Crime in America 2016

One of the more interesting findings of Law Street’s reporting is the wide range in the number of police officers relative to the number of city residents, which Law Street termed the officer to population ratio. Among cities with populations greater than 200,000, Washington, D.C. has the most sworn officers relative to its population size. On the other end of the spectrum is Santa Ana, California, which has just one police officer for every 1,274 residents. When taking a closer look at the rankings, many of the cities with fewer police officers relative to their size are also some of the safest cities in the country while some of the most dangerous cities have notably high ratios.

There are some important exceptions to those trends. For example, Stockton, California has one police officer for every 807 citizens, which is notably higher than other cities on the Most Dangerous Cities list. Stockton ranks in the top 20 in terms of its officer to population ratio but makes the top 10 list of dangerous cities. A likely explanation for this case is the fact that Stockton recently went through bankruptcy, which caused cutbacks in many government offices. This case may be an example of an understaffed and underresourced police department that, among other things, contributes to an above average crime rate.

Law Street’s analysis of the FBI’s half year data for 2015 shows how crime rates changed from January to June compared the year prior. The graph at the bottom of the infographic depicts the changes among the most dangerous cities over 200,000. While Detroit, Michigan experienced a notable decrease in its violent crime rate, St. Louis saw its rate increase by nearly 23 percent in the first half of 2015.

For an even more in-depth look at Law Street’s crime coverage check out Crime in America 2016.

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 Infographic: Visualizing Crime in America 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Most people know that the prison population in the United States has grown dramatically over the past several decades. While it’s true that the number of people in U.S. prisons has grown significantly, we don’t have a concrete understanding of how that growth compares to changes in crime rates–are more people sent to prison because there was more crime or did we start punishing crime more? The Pew Charitable Trusts attempts to fill that gap with its punishment rate calculation, which provides some interesting details about how punishment varies over time and between states.

According to the Public Safety Performance Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts, the imprisonment rate increased by 149 percent between 1983 and 2013 while the punishment rate increased by 165 percent for the United States as a whole. In its research, Pew noticed that all states became more punitive from 1983 to 2013, but the changes varied widely among states.

With its new punishment rate measurement, Pew sought to look at the prison population relative to both the frequency and severity of crime in each state. Doing so helps provide a better understanding of how the incarceration rate changed relative to the prevalence of serious crime. Looking at imprisonment rates in the context of crime rates also helps illustrate differences in how states punish crime and whether certain states are more punitive than others.

Based on the report’s findings, Mississippi’s punishment rate of 818  in 2013 was the highest among all of the states and significantly greater than the national average, which was 477 that year. On the other side of the spectrum is Maine, which had a punishment rate of just 231. In the 30-year period that the researchers analyzed, Colorado experienced the largest increase in its punishment rate, going up 417 percent between 1983 and 2013.

For a full breakdown of the report’s findings and a look at each state’s ranking, you can read more here.

The researchers looked at instances of violent crime using data from the FBI’s uniform crime reporting program for all seven Part I offenses–murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. They then weighed each crime according to its severity, which was determined by the average length of a prison sentence for each crime.

In the end, the authors were able to determine which states were the most punitive based on how many people they imprisoned in relation to the frequency and severity of crime. A state with a relatively low rate of serious crime but a high prison population would have a high punishment rate, indicating that it is more punitive than other states.

While the Pew Charitable Trusts report provides some much-needed context to discussions of the U.S. prison system, it’s important to note that the measure is still far from perfect. In his thoughtful critique of Pew’s research, Tom Meagher at the Marshall Project notes that the punishment rate metric uses the best available information, but its limitations highlight the inherent challenges in measuring the criminal justice system.

Arguably the most significant gap in the measurement is the difficulty that the model has taking drug offenses into account. Drug crimes have been one of the largest contributors to the growth in the prison population, but because they are not tracked by the FBI’s uniform crime reporting system the weighting model cannot take them into account.

In the brief on the punishment rate, the researchers address the issue of drug crime and other offenses not tracked by the FBI, noting:

Although the imprisonment rate counts drug offenders—who make up nearly a fifth of the state prison population—drug crimes are not counted among the FBI’s Part I offenses, so the severity-weighted crime rate does not include them.

Pew acknowledges these drawbacks but argues that the punishment rate can still provide important context when looking at the criminal justice system. While there are imperfections in the data and limitations in terms of what the measurement can tell us, looking at punishment rates and how they vary across states can help understand the way in which prisons are utilized in the criminal justice system.

The report also doesn’t get into why exactly both incarceration and punishment rates increased over the 30-year period, but it does point to existing research that explains, at least in part, the trend. The authors note that changes in policies, rather than crime rates, largely explain the imprisonment growth. Ultimately they conclude, “States that imprison a large share of their residents, for example, can have a high crime rate or a low one; the same is true for states that lock up a small proportion of their populations.” While the report may not tell people which policies are responsible for potentially unnecessary levels of punishment, it may prompt states to start looking at the effects of their criminal justice decisions.

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 The Punishment Rate: A New Way to Look at the U.S. Prison System appeared first on Law Street.

The fight between the FBI and Apple over a locked iPhone definitely isn’t going to be resolved anytime soon. On Tuesday, Apple General Council Bruce Sewell and  FBI Director James Comey both went before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions relating to the investigation into one of the San Bernardino shooters’ phones.

If you need a refresher from my last post, the case pretty much boils down to these three facts:

• The shooter’s iPhone is encrypted and the FBI wants help to unlock it, in order to continue its investigation.
• FBI officials have asked Apple to create software that would allow them to have unlimited attempts to guess the phone’s password.
• Apple, however, refuses to do any of these things, arguing that they will potentially jeopardize the security of all iPhone users if the software is used by hackers.

During Tuesday’s hearing Director Comey attempted to defend his agency’s motives to lawmakers. Comey explained that the FBI’s intent is to gain as much information as possible regarding the San Bernardino attack, and not to expand its surveillance power. He said,

We are asking to ensure that we can continue to obtain electronic information and evidence pursuant to the legal authority that Congress has provided us to keep America safe.

But as it turns out, the only reason the FBI even needs Apple’s help is because “there was a mistake made” in the 24 hours after the attack. FBI officials believed they could reset the phone’s iCloud password in order to access information, but instead it ended up completely locking them out. According to the New York Times, the FBI’s ineptitude drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans at the hearing.

Sewell also testified in Apple’s defense, reiterating prior assertions that creating this type of technology for the FBI would create a backdoor that could be used on other iPhones and compromise customers’ privacy. Sewell stated,

We don’t put up billboards that market our security. We do this because we think protecting security and privacy of hundreds of millions of iPhones is the right thing to do.

Recently Apple had a major win in the case after a New York judge ruled in another case that the government can’t force the company to break an iPhone’s passcode security. The precedent-setting case involved a similar situation where the FBI wanted Apple to create software to access a meth dealer’s iPhone data.

The presiding judge, Federal Magistrate Judge James Orenstein determined that,

Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come. I conclude that it does not.

The All Writs Act (AWA) is a 227-year-old federal statute that essentially authorizes federal courts to compel people to do things within the scope of the law. Orenstein found the FBI’s use of the statute to be a stretch and said that “he found no limit on how far the government would go to require a person or company to violate the most deeply-rooted values.”

This decision will undoubtedly help Apple with its continued resistance against the FBI, but as of yet there is no definitive outcome in sight.

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 Apple, FBI Testify Before Congress Over Locked IPhone Dispute appeared first on Law Street.

Researchers have determined that there’s a relationship between college football games and incidences of reported rape. The study was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research late last year, but has broken into the news recently, as the conversations around college sexual assault and the violence of football have continued into the new year.

The researchers, led by Professor Jason Lindo at Texas A&M University, discovered that:

Home football games increase reports of rape by 41 percent on the day of the game while away games increase reports by 15 percent. They estimate that Division 1A football games cause between 253 and 770 additional rapes of college-aged victims per year across 128 universities.

The researchers don’t claim this is a direct link–rather they were attempting to look at the connection between events that sparked heavy drinking and partying, and reports of sexual assault. Understandably, then, they found higher reports of rape when something worth “celebrating” happened during a football game–for example, underdog teams upsetting better-ranked rivals. Additionally, game days saw a spike in other crimes–such as disorderly conduct, DUIs, and public intoxication. Given that big college football games usually happen on Saturdays and Sundays–busy party days for college students–the researchers attempted to control for that. According to NPR’s Social Science Correspondent Shankar Vedantam:

Lindo and his colleagues actually tried a control for this by comparing reports of rape on a days the college team was playing to reports of rape on other Saturdays of the year when the team was not playing. So this analysis is focused on the additional rapes being reported to college police and local law enforcement on days the college team is playing compared to what’s reported on a typical Saturday.

In order to conduct the study, the researchers looked at 22 years of FBI data on rape. Given that those statistics have received criticism for being undercounts of sexual assaults, the numbers could be even higher. Additionally, the statistics can’t provide a full picture of all big college football schools, as only 96 of the 128 schools with Division I teams voluntarily reported enough data to be included in the study. However, as they stand, the statistics are certainly worrisome, and worth a look as the fight to prevent sexual assault on college campuses continues.

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 Is There a Connection Between College Football and Rape? appeared first on Law Street.

An iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in the San Bernardino shooting has become the subject of an intense battle over cell phone privacy after Apple publicly refused to help the FBI hack into it.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple Tuesday to provide “reasonable technical assistance” to the FBI, which has been struggling to unlock Syed Rizwan Farook’s password-protected phone. More specifically, the FBI wants Apple to develop a custom version of the iPhone software that could be loaded onto Farook’s phone in order to unlock the device. Apple, however, has opted to challenge the court order in a stand to protect encryption rights and customers.

In an open letter to Apple customers, CEO Tim Cook explained Apple’s decision, stating:

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

Apple claims the software would essentially create a “back door” or “key” in the system that could potentially be used later by sophisticated hackers and cyber-criminals, which would effectively put tens of millions of Americans at risk. Cook continued writing,

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

But without Apple’s help, there is possibly some important information that the FBI could be missing out on that remains buried inside the encrypted iPhone.

According to CBS, investigators are still trying to uncover what happened during the 18-minute gap in the timeline between the shooting at the Inland Regional Center and the police shootout that ended both shooters’ lives. The FBI is also most likely still looking for information that could connect the shooters to a possible terror network, or reveal evidence of possible co-conspirators in the attack. While the shooting may have been inspired by ISIS, the terrorist group has never taken responsibility for the attack.

Therein lies the catch-22 that Apple faces. If the issue only concerned Farook’s phone, it’s highly doubtful Apple would even be making a stand.

When asked by the New York Times about Apple’s resistance, the Justice Department pointed to a statement by Eileen M. Decker, the United States attorney for the Central District of California that read,

We have made a solemn commitment to the victims and their families that we will leave no stone unturned as we gather as much information and evidence as possible. These victims and families deserve nothing less.

As of yet, it’s unclear what kind of legal repercussions Apple could face in the standoff, but the company has been extremely transparent with its intentions to fight the order and protect encrypted information on its devices.

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 Why is Apple Refusing to Unlock the San Bernardino Shooter’s IPhone? appeared first on Law Street.

The year 2015 will be marked by many advances for the transgender community, both in the media (hello Caitlyn Jenner) and in legislatures across the United States and the world. All in all, 2015 was a year when transgender rights came further into the forefront of our daily lives and vocabulary. But there was a dark side to 2015 as well. Somehow, even though trans rights were gaining ground, it was still the year with the most trans murders on record. Read on to learn about the transgender murder crisis in 2015.

Why Are Trans People Getting Murdered?

Many of the trans people who were murdered in 2015 were victims of hate crimes. Even worse, the majority were perpetrated against transgender women of color.

Hate crimes, specifically those against people identifying with a certain gender, have occurred for years. But these crimes came into the spotlight in 2009 when Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which added gender identity to the list of possible motivations for hate crimes. The act also requires the FBI to track statistics on gender identity-motivated hate crimes, but those statistics rely on voluntary reporting from law enforcement agencies and many believe that they are grossly underestimated. These crimes may be undercounted because police officers may not report the murders of trans people as hate crimes–or treat these murders like hate crimes–because their gender is often misidentified.

Who are the victims?

Some of the victims, such as Mercedes Williamson and Keyshia Blige, were killed by strangers in the typical sense of a hate crime–people who didn’t want someone different, or outside of their norm, in their community. There is also a subset of these murders that were committed by loved ones. Around half of the transgender murders in 2015 were committed by people who knew their victims. Two examples include Yazmin Vash Payne, who was killed by her boyfriend after an argument, and Bri Golec, who was stabbed to death by her father.

How Many Trans Murders Were There in 2015?

According to the Human Rights campaign, there were at least 21 murders specifically of trans individuals in the United States in the first 10 months of 2015. But these are only the murders that were reported and identified by that group, and only includes part of the year. Other counts put that statistic higher, but the fact of the matter is that based on the available data, we do not know how many trans murders occured. Even then, the 21 identified by the Human Rights campaign marks a notable increase from previous years. In 2013, there were at least 19 murders of trans people and in 2014, there were at least 13.

The true number is almost certainly higher. There have been many articles in the last couple of months detailing the attacks and profiling the victims of these attacks, which flips the normal crime story on its head (since most crime stories talk only about the perpetrator rather than the victims). These profiles and articles were mainly released before November 20, which is the Transgender Day of Remembrance in the United States. There were also protests surrounding the Day of Remembrance where people lay in the streets, feigning death in order to draw attention to this seemingly invisible problem.

Official hate crime statistics from the FBI for the 2015 calendar year won’t be released until later in the year, but that only includes incidents identified as hate crimes and are widely regarded as an undercount of the actual number.

Why the FBI Stats are Lacking

According to the hate crime statistics released by the FBI last November for the 2014 calendar year, there were only 109 gender-identity motivated hate crimes, of which only 23 fit into the FBI’s violent crime category. However, the FBI’s hate crime numbers are thought to be considerably lower than the actual number of offenses. This is because the statistics are voluntarily submitted by law enforcement agencies, many of which reported zero hate crimes in 2014. The Human Rights Campaign even identified crimes that should have been considered hate crimes but were not appropriately reported. In fact, the FBI’s 2014 statistics indicate that of the 4,048 total hate crimes classified as “crimes against persons,” only four were murders, and that includes all potential bias motivations, not just gender identity.

While each jurisdiction has its own reasons for the differing data submissions to the FBI, problems with the statistics could be due to the fact that these crimes may look like accidents. Also, murders aren’t typically considered hate crimes when they are committed by a family member, friend, or partner. Police may also have trouble identifying victims as transgender in the first place, making it harder for data to be accurately gathered–many of the victims identified by the Human Rights Campaign weren’t identified as transgender by the police or media. For these reasons, among others, these murders aren’t being thought of or investigated as hate crimes and are not being reported to the FBI as such.

There is little that the FBI can do about this–it relies entirely on information provided by law enforcement across the country. So it doesn’t matter how many protests take place–as long as law enforcement doesn’t consider these murders to be hate crimes, they will not be included in the FBI’s statistical reports. However, this also provides a glimmer of hope for the trans and LGBTQ community at large. The number of crimes that are classified as hate crimes is getting larger each year, including the number of hate crimes motivated by a person’s gender identity. In fact, 2014’s number is triple the amount of reported hate crimes motivated by gender identity in 2013. The rate of murders against transgender people may not change that much from year-to-year, instead, they may be getting reported more regularly. Therefore, there is hope that the statistics that the FBI releases may be much closer to accurate in the future.

What Can Be Done?

There are several things that can be done to decrease the number of transgender murders in the future. The first is already underway–the FBI has begun keeping track of statistics for hate crimes involving gender identity. The FBI only started gathering statistics on gender identity motivated hate crimes five years ago. There is a lot of room for growth in how the FBI gathers the information for these statistics, but improvement has so far been made each year. Hopefully, these hate crime statistics will give the country–including law enforcement and legislators–an idea of what is happening in the United States and what else needs to be done to protect transgender people. Congress recently created a Transgender Equality Task Force to help identify issues that transgender people face, which according to advocates should include tracking incidents of violence.

Allies and education are other key ways to prevent the murders of transgender people in the future. When any marginalized group of people has allies on their side, it is easier to fight back. Allies, in this case, are people who do not identify as transgender but who support the causes important to transgender people, such as safe spaces and the legal right to be recognized as an individual’s identified gender. Education about what it is like to be transgender is another small thing that can go a long way. Both trans people and allies can work to educate people throughout the country, hopefully helping develop a broader sense of understanding of what it is like to be transgender and what kinds of rights transgender people are still fighting for.

A Look at the Numbers

There is some good news: trans support in the United States is increasing. In April 2015, the Human Rights Campaign noted that the number of people who say they know a transgender person is up 5 percent from the previous year, and 66 percent of those people look favorably on their transgender acquaintances. The percentage of people who were polled by YouGov as saying that they believe being transgender is immoral is down to 31 percent. While it’s still unclear what the actual transgender population is in the United States–FiveThirtyEight postulates that many of the people who claim to not know any transgender people likely do–each person’s choice on how broadly to share their personal life differs.

All of these statistics show a changing tide in the fight for transgender rights, and also show that younger generations are even more likely to support transgender rights and fight for an end to violence against the trans population.

Conclusion

In 2015, there were at least 21 transgender women who were the victims of murders across the United States. 2015 also marked the highest number of murders against transgender people on record. These murders were committed by both strangers and loved ones of the victims, and they have been classified as hate crimes by activists and by the people who were close to the victims. But until law enforcement consistently reports on the set of criteria that would classify transgender murders as hate crimes, the statistics that the FBI is required to release each year will fall short of being accurate. While we do not yet have reliable statistics about murders and hate crimes against transgender people, as awareness increases that will likely improve. While there are many ways to support transgender people–including activism–the most effective way to shrink the number of murders in the future is to compile and release accurate statistics that would show these crimes for what they are. Until then, these sad and gruesome crimes will continue to occur, and transgender people will continue to be victimized.

Resources

Primary

The Federal Bureau of Investigation: FBI Releases 2014 Hate Crimes Statistics

The Federal Bureau of Investigation: Matthew Shepard/James Byrd Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 Brochure

Additional

The New York Times: Obama Calls for End to ‘Conversion’ Therapies for Gay and Transgender Youth

Vanity Fair: Caitlyn Jenner: The Full Story

Rolling Stone: The 5 Best and Worst Trans Moments of 2015

Slate: Five Things Trans People Teach Us All About Ourselves

Huffington Post: Lives Guided By Fear: In Honor of the Transgender Day of Remembrance

Human Rights Campaign: Addressing Anti-Transgender Violence: Exploring Realities, Challenges, and Solutions for Policymakers and Community Advocates

Huffington Post: What Does Transgender Day of Remembrance Mean to the Trans Community?

Broadly: ‘He’s Not Done Killing Her’: Why So Many Trans Women Were Murdered in 2015

Broadly: A Crisis of Violence: Transgender Murders Increased 84% This Year

Vice: Trans Women of Color Face an Epidemic of Violence and Murder

Fusion: 20 Trans People Were Murdered This Year. This is What Happened.

Mother Jones: It’s Incredibly Scary to Be a Transgender Woman of Color Right Now

Time: Why Transgender People Are Being Murdered at a Historic Rate

Rolling Stone: More Trans People Have Been Killed in 2015 Than Ever Before

Crime Museum: History of Hate Crime

The Williams Institute: Suicide Attempts Among Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Adults

USA Today: Transgender People Face an Alarmingly High Risk of Suicide

Think Progress: As 2015 Sees a Record Number of Documented Transgender Murders, a Glimmer of Hope

Human Rights Campaign: Survey Shows Striking Increase in Americans Who Know and Support Transgender People

YouGov: One-third Think it is Morally Wrong to be Transgender

FiveThirtyEight: Most Americans Say They Don’t Know a Transgender Person – But Many of Them Probably Do

Huffington Post: The Kids Are All Right with Transgender Rights

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Transgender Murder Crisis: Why Were There So Many Killings in 2015? appeared first on Law Street.

Violent crime increased by 1.7 percent nationally in the first half of 2015, according to a preliminary report released by the FBI. Although violent crime was up slightly from January to June last year, that increase comes during a long and continuous drop in violent crime. In every other year since 2007–with the exception of 2012, which saw a slight increase as well–the FBI’s preliminary statistics have showed a drop in violent crime in the first six months of the year.

The FBI’s preliminary semiannual crime publication details crime statistics for different population groups, regions, and individual cities for the first six months of 2015. Several cities experienced notable changes in their violent crime rates. Detroit, Michigan, for instance, experienced a significant decrease in its violent crime numbers relative to the previous year, as violent crime dropped by over 9 percent. The city’s violent crime decreased in every category, particularly incidences of murder, rape, and robbery. In total, Detroit had 581 fewer violent crimes in the first half of 2015 than it did in the same period of the previous year. On the other end of the spectrum was St. Louis, Missouri, which saw its violent crime statistics go up by about 23 percent. Notably, the number of murders went up by 58.6 percent, with 34 additional murders in the first half of 2015.

Many mid-sized cities experienced large changes as well. Rockford, Illinois saw its violent crime increase by roughly the same margin as St. Louis, going up by 23.2 percent. Lansing, Michigan’s capital city, experienced a notable decrease in crime, which fell by nearly 13 percent in the first half of last year.

See how the other cities on Law Street’s crime rankings fared in the FBI’s preliminary statistics:

Dangerous Cities Over 200,000: Detroit, St. Louis See Big Changes

Dangerous Cities Under 200,000: Mixed Bag of Results for Early 2015 Crime

Safest Cities: Five of Top 10 See Crime Decrease in First Half of 2015

According to the FBI’s recent report, changes in violent crime varied widely in different parts of the country. While the Northeast actually reported a 3.2 percent decrease in violent crime, the West saw crime go up by more than 5 percent relative to the first half of 2014. As 2015 progressed, murmurs of a crime increase spread, and while current data suggests that may be the case, such a conclusion remains preliminary. The largest increase by population grouping occurred in cities with populations between 250,000 to 499,999 people–where crime grew by 5.3 percent.

It is important to note that the FBI’s statistics are preliminary and may be revised as the FBI gets more data from local police departments. Additionally, trends may have shifted by the end of the year, which we will not be able to have definitive statistics on until the FBI releases its annual Crime in the United States Publication.

Changes in year-to-year crime statistics have been attributed to a wide variety of developments ranging from new policing tactics to factors as simple as cold weather. While national trends may be able to explain changes in crime rates, it’s best to look at changes on a case by case basis. While the national increase in the first six months of last year is notable, it is also important to realize that crime rates remain near historic lows.

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 Violent Crime Ticks up Slightly in First Half of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Half of the cities on Law Street’s list of Most Dangerous Cities over 200,000 experienced an increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015, following the national trend according to FBI statistics released Tuesday. Violent crime was up approximately 1.7 percent across the United States. St. Louis, Missouri experienced the single largest increase in violent crime in 2015 relative to 2014 with an increase of 22.9 percent. Detroit, Michigan experienced the largest decrease, as the city saw its violent crime drop by over 9 percent in 2014. Two of the top 10 Most Dangerous Cities do not have preliminary data available.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2015–the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations greater than 200,000 people appears below as an update to our most recent Crime In America Rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS UNDER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE SAFEST AND MOST DANGEROUS STATES.

#1 Detroit, Michigan

In the first six months of 2015, Detroit–the most dangerous city over 200,000–continued its downward trend with a notable decrease in violent crime. In total, Detroit had 581 fewer violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the same period in 2014, a drop of over 9 percent. Violent crime was down in every category in Detroit, but the most significant drop occurred in the city’s robbery statistics, which fell by nearly 30 percent last year. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -9.2 %
(2014: 6,292; 2015: 5,711)
Murder: -20.7%
(2014: 135 ; 2015:107)
Rape: -17.6%
(2014: 284; 2015: 234)
Robbery: -29%
(2014: 1,589; 2015: 1,128)
Aggravated Assault: -1%
(2014: 4,284; 2015: 4,242)

#2 Memphis, Tennessee

Memphis experienced a slight decrease in violent crime in the first six months of 2015, going down 2.1 percent relative to the previous year. Although Memphis experienced a small increase in aggravated assaults, decreases in all three of the other categories contributed to the overall drop. The largest decreases occurred in the city’s reported rape and robbery statistics, which fell by 10.4 percent and 9.9 percent, respectively. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -2.1%
(2014: 5,633; 2015: 5,517)
Murder: -1.5%
(2014: 65; 2015: 64)
Rape: -10.4%
(2014: 269; 2015: 241)
Robbery: -9.9%
(2014: 1,553; 2015: 1,400)
Aggravated Assault: +1.8%
(2014: 3,746; 2015: 3,812)

#3 Oakland, California

Oakland, California is the #3 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population over 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Oakland’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information.

#4 St. Louis, Missouri

St. Louis experienced a notable increase in violent crime in the first six months of 2015, reporting an increase of 22.9 percent. In total, the city had 522 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 than it did in the first half of 2014. St. Louis saw increases in three of the four categories of violent crime. One of the most noteworthy increases occurred in its murder statistics, which went from 58 in the first half of 2014 to 92 in the first half of 2015, an increase of almost 60 percent. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +22.9%
(2014: 2,284; 2015: 2,806)
Murder: +58.6%
(2014: 58; 2015: 92)
Rape: -11.8%
(2014: 144; 2015: 127)
Robbery: +40.1%
(2014: 594; 2015: 832)
Aggravated Assault: +17.9
(2014: 1,488; 2015: 1,755)

#5 Birmingham, Alabama

Birmingham, Alabama experienced a modest increase in its reported violent crimes in the first half of 2015. In total, the city had 137 more violent crimes from January to June 2015 than it did in the same period of the previous year. Higher numbers of robberies and aggravated assaults largely explain the increase overall, which rose by 11.7 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +8.5%
(2014: 1,619; 2015: 1,756)
Murder: +30.4%
(2014: 23; 2015: 30)
Rape: -7.2%
(2014: 83; 2015: 77)
Robbery: +11.7%
(2014: 454; 2015: 507)
Aggravated Assault: +7.8%
(2014: 1,059; 2015: 1,142)

#6 Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Milwaukee, Wisconsin experienced a very slight decrease in crime in the first half of 2015, going down about 1 percent relative to the previous year. Although crime was down overall the city did have a notable spike in murders, which went from 36 in the first half of 2014 to 75 in the first half of 2015, an increase of 108 percent. Aside from murders, the other categories of violent crime either remained constant or decreased. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -0.9%
(2014: 3,957; 2015: 3,921)
Murder: 108.3%
(2014: 36; 2015: 75)
Rape: -12.5%
(2014: 192; 2015: 168)
Robbery: -3.2%
(2014: 1,551; 2015: 1,501)
Aggravated Assault: 0%
(2014: 2,178; 2015: 2,177)

#7 Baltimore, Maryland

Baltimore, Maryland experienced a 6 percent increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015, with 235 more crimes than in the previous year. Much of that increase can be attributed to the city’s higher number of robberies, which went up by 11.3 percent. The city also had a notable increase in murders, going from 99 in 2014 to 144 in 2015, a 45.5 percent increase. Baltimore faced several challenges in terms of policing and crime last year, some of which may not be accounted for in these statistics because they only include data from the first half of the year. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +5.9%
(2014: 3,989; 2015: 4,224)
Murder: +45.5
(2014: 99; 2015: 144)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 129 ; 2015 revised definition: 140)
Robbery: +11.3%
(2014: 1,641; 2015: 1,826)
Aggravated Assault: -0.3%
(2014: 2,120; 2015: 2,114)

*Baltimore, Maryland began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#8 Cleveland, Ohio

Cleveland experienced a modest decrease in violent crime in the first half of last year, going down 4.4 percent. Much of the city’s overall drop can be attributed to a decrease in the number of reported robberies, which fell by nearly 9 percent. While the city did have an overall drop, it reported an increase in aggravated assaults and murders in the first half of the year. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -4.4%
(2014: 2,499; 2015: 2,390)
Murder: +42.3%
(2014: 26; 2015: 37)
Rape: -19.2%
(2014: 266; 2015: 215)
Robbery: -8.7%
(2014: 1,408; 2015: 1,286)
Aggravated Assault: +6.6%
(2014: 799; 2015: 852)

#9 Stockton, California

Stockton, California followed the national trend with a modest increase in its violent crime statistics from January to June last year. In total, Stockton’s violent crime went up by 2.4 percent, reporting 47 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the previous year. The largest increase came in the city’s robbery statistics, which were up by over 7 percent. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +2.4%
(2014: 1,972; 2015: 2,019)
Murder: -14.3%
(2014: 21; 2015: 18)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 61; 2015 revised definition: 65)
Robbery: +7.1
(2014: 532; 2015: 570)
Aggravated Assault: +0.6
(2014: 1,358; 2015: 1,366)

*Stockton, California began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#10 Indianapolis, Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana is the #10 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population over 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Oakland’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

—

Research and analysis by Law Street Media’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

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 Dangerous Cities Over 200,000: Detroit, St. Louis See Big Changes appeared first on Law Street.

According to FBI statistics released on Tuesday, the United States saw violent crime increase nationally by 1.7 percent in the first half of 2015 relative to the previous year. But it was a mixed bag for the most dangerous cities with populations between 100,000 and 200,000. Five of the cities saw increases in violent crime, three saw decreases, and two did not have information available from the FBI. Rockford, Illinois, the number two city on the list, saw the largest increase, as violent crime went up 23.2 percent in the first half of last year.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2015–the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations under 200,000 appears below as an update to our most recent Crime In America Rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS Over 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE SAFEST AND MOST DANGEROUS STATES.

#1 Little Rock, Arkansas

Little Rock, Arkansas is the #1 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population between 100,000 and 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Little Rock’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information.

#2 Rockford, Illinois

Rockford saw a sharp increase in violent crime in the first six months of 2015. While there was only a moderate increase in reported rapes and robberies in Rockford, the number of aggravated assaults increased by 28.4 percent. The number of aggravated assaults in Rockford went from 670 in the first half of 2014 to 860 in the same period in 2015. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +23.2%
(2014: 927; 2015: 1,142)
Murder: -10%
(2014: 10; 2015: 9)
Rape: +13%
(2014: 69; 2015: 78)
Robbery: +9.6%
(2014: 178; 2015: 195)
Aggravated Assault: +28.4%
(2014: 670; 2015: 860)

#3 Springfield, Missouri

Springfield, Missouri saw a moderate increase in its violent crime in the first half of 2015. While it seems as though the murder rate experienced a sharp increase based on the percentage change, the increase in raw numbers is relatively low, as the city had two additional murders in 2015. Robbery and aggravated assault increased by 17.1 percent and 15.5 percent respectively, accounting for most of the increase in overall crime. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +12.8%
(2014: 942; 2015: 1,063)
Murder: +40%
(2014: 5; 2015: 7)
Rape: -5.9%
(2014: 136; 2015: 128)
Robbery: +17.1%
(2014: 181; 2015: 212)
Aggravated Assault: +15.5%
(2014: 620; 2015: 716)

#4 Lansing, Michigan

Lansing, Michigan saw a decrease of 12.7 percent in the number of reported violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the same period in the previous year. With the exception of rape, crime rates fell across the board. Due to the relatively low number of reported rapes in Lansing, the 2.6 percent increase is the result of just one additional offense in 2015. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -12.7%
(2014: 537; 2015: 469)
Murder: -20%
(2014: 5; 2015: 4)
Rape: +2.6%
(2014: 38; 2015: 39)
Robbery: -24.8%
(2014: 109; 2015: 82)
Aggravated Assault: -10.6%
(2014: 385; 2015: 344)

#5 Hartford, Connecticut

Hartford saw a slight increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015. Robbery had a moderate increase of 10.5 percent and aggravated assaults were up but by a very small margin. The number of reported rapes fell noticeably by 31.8 percent relative to the previous year. The murder rate was up by 100 percent, going from 7 in the first half of 2014 to 14 in the first half of 2015. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +3.9 %
(2014: 671; 2015: 697)
Murder: +100%
(2014: 7; 2015: 14)
Rape: -31.8%
(2014: 22; 2015: 15)
Robbery: +10.5%
(2014: 229; 2015: 253)
Aggravated Assault: +0.5%
(2014: 413; 2015: 415)

#6 Springfield, Massachusetts

Violent crime increased by 7.7 percent in Springfield, Massachusetts in the first half of 2015. The number of reported rapes and robberies were both down, but aggravated assault saw a notable increase of 16.3 percent. Additionally, more than twice as many people were murdered in the first half of 2015 as 2014, going from 6 to 13. In total, Hartford had 60 more violent crimes from January to June 2015 than in the same period of the previous year. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +7.7%
(2014: 777; 2015: 837)
Murder: +116.7%
(2014: 6; 2015: 13)
Rape: -15.7%
(2014: 51; 2015: 43)
Robbery: -5.4%
(2014: 261; 2015: 247)
Aggravated Assault: +16.3%
(2014: 459; 2015: 534)

#7 Springfield, Illinois

Springfield, Illinois followed the national trend with a slight increase in the number of reported violent crimes from January to June 2015 relative to the same period in the previous year. The total violent crime was up just 1.3 percent. Changes in the robbery and aggravated assault rates were almost negligible, and while the murder rate shows a 100 percent increase, that is a result of two additional murders in the first half of 2015 relative to the same period in 2014. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +1.3%
(2014: 551; 2015: 558)
Murder: +100%
(2014: 2; 2015: 4)
Rape: +11.9%
(2014: 42; 2015: 47)
Robbery: -0.9%
(2014: 111; 2015: 110)
Aggravated Assault: +0.3%
(2014: 396; 2015: 397)

#8 New Haven, Connecticut

New Haven, Connecticut is the #8 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population between 100,000 and 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Oakland’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information.

#9 Chattanooga, Tennessee

Chattanooga, Tennessee had a modest drop in the number of violent crimes in the first half of 2015, going down 7.4 percent relative to the same period in 2014. Particularly notable were the 27.5 percent drop in robbery, and a 30 percent decrease in reported rapes. Aggravated assault, however, had a small increase of 1.8 percent. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -7.4%
(2014: 883; 2015: 818)
Murder: -47.1%
(2014: 17; 2015: 9)
Rape: -30%
(2014: 60; 2015: 42)
Robbery: -27.5%
(2014: 182; 2015: 132)
Aggravated Assault: +1.8%
(2014: 624; 2015: 635)

#10 Worcester, Massachusetts

Worcester, Massachusetts saw a slight decrease in violent crime of 5.4 percent in the first half of 2015. While aggravated assault was down by 8.8 percent, robbery was up by 8 percent. The number of reported rapes fell by 42.9 percent, however, given the relatively low number offenses, a drop from seven rapes to four yields a high percentage change. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -5.4%
(2014: 814; 2015: 770)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 4; 2015: 4)
Rape: -42.9%
(2014: 7; 2015: 4)
Robbery: +8.0%
(2014: 175; 2015: 189)
Aggravated Assault: -8.8%
(2014: 628; 2015: 573)

—

Research and analysis by Law Street Media’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

FBI: Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report

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 Dangerous Cities Under 200,000: Mixed Bag of Results for Early 2015 Crime appeared first on Law Street.

Nationally, violent crime increased by approximately 1.7 percent from January to June 2015 relative to the same period in 2014. Four of the safest cities followed the national trend with crime increases and one city did not have preliminary statistics available through the FBI. The 25.2 percent increase in violent crime in Fremont, California was the largest among the top 10 safest cities, as the city saw 29 additional violent crimes in the first half of last year. On the other hand, Plano, Texas experienced the largest decrease among the top 10 safest cities, as violent crime fell by 20.3 percent.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2015–the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Safest Cities with populations greater than 200,000 people appears below as an update to our most recent Crime In America Rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS Over 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 Most Dangerous Cities with Populations Under 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE SAFEST AND MOST DANGEROUS STATES.

#1 Irvine, California

Irvine California, the safest city with a population greater than 200,000, followed the national trend with a slight increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015 relative to the previous year. Although Irvine had an increase of 3.7 percent, the increase in raw numbers appears much smaller–the city only had two more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 than it did in the same period of the previous year. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +3.7%
(2014: 54; 2015: 56)
Murder: +100%
(2014: 0; 2015: 1)
Rape: N/A
(2014 legacy definition: 9; 2015 revised definition: 11*)
Robbery: +17.6%
(2014: 17; 2015: 20)
Aggravated Assault: -14.3%
(2014: 28; 2015: 24)

*At some point during this year, the Irvine, California police department moved from the legacy definition of rape to the FBI’s revised definition. As a result, Irvine’s 2014 rape statistics are not comparable to its 2015 statistics. The FBI changed the definition of rape in 2013 to be more accurate and inclusive. For more information click here.

#2 Gilbert, Arizona

Gilbert, Arizona experienced a notable decrease in its violent crime statistics from January to June 2015. Violent crime in the city fell by 18.6 percent, which was the second largest decrease among all of the top 10 safest cities. The largest decrease occurred in the number of reported robberies, which fell by more than 50 percent. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -18.6%
(2014: 113; 2015: 92)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 0; 2015: 0)
Rape: +44.4%
(2014: 9; 2015: 13)
Robbery: -54.8%
(2014: 31; 2015: 14)
Aggravated Assault: -11%
(2014: 73; 2015: 65)

#3 Fremont, California

Fremont, California experienced a 25 percent increase in violent crime from January to June 2015 relative to the same period in the previous year. In total, the city reported 29 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 than it did in the first half of 2014. The largest increase occurred in Fremont’s robbery statistics, which went up by over 37 percent, from 51 in 2014 to 70 last year. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +25.2%
(2014: 115; 2015: 144)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 1; 2015: 1)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 7; 2015 revised definition: 19)
Robbery: +37.3%
(2014: 51; 2015: 70)
Aggravated Assault: -3.6%
(2014: 56; 2015: 54)

*Fremont, California began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#4 Virginia Beach, Virginia

Virginia Beach went against the national trend with a modest decrease in violent crime in the first half of last year. In total, the city reported 22 fewer violent crimes last year than it did in 2014, a drop of 6.7 percent. The biggest change occurred in the number of reported rapes, which fell by 34.5 percent. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -6.7%
(2014: 327; 2015: 305)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 12; 2015: 12)
Rape: -34.5%
(2014: 55; 2015: 36)
Robbery: +4.1%
(2014: 123; 2015: 128)
Aggravated Assault: -5.8%
(2014: 137; 2015: 129)

#5 Santa Clarita, California

Santa Clarita, California is the #5 Safest City in the country with a population greater than 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Santa Clarita data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information.

#6 Henderson, Nevada

Henderson, Nevada experienced a modest increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015. In total, Henderson reported 31 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the first half of 2014, an increase of 15.7 percent. Much of that increase was the result of higher numbers of reported rapes and robberies, which increased by 54.5 percent and 20.3 percent, respectively. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +15.7%
(2014: 198; 2015: 229)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 1; 2015: 1)
Rape: +54.5%
(2014: 33; 2015: 51)
Robbery: +20.3%
(2014: 69; 2015: 83)
Aggravated Assault: -1.1%
(2014: 95; 2015: 94)

#7 Plano, Texas

Plano, Texas experienced a modest decrease in violent crime in the first half of 2015, going down 10.4 percent relative to the first half of the previous year. The largest decrease came in the number of robberies, which fell by more than 20 percent. Plano’s violent crime decreased in every category with the exception of murder which had a slight increase. Although the percentage of murders increased significantly, that change was the result of one additional murder relative to the previous year. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -10.4%
(2014: 249; 2015: 223)
Murder: +50%
(2014: 2; 2015: 3)
Rape: -2.1%
(2014: 47; 2015: 46)
Robbery: -21%
(2014: 81; 2015: 64)
Aggravated Assault: -7.6%
(2014: 119; 2015: 110)

#8 Chandler, Arizona

Chandler, Arizona also went against the national trend in the first half of 2015 with a decrease in violent crime of nearly 10 percent. In total, Chandler had 22 fewer crimes from January to June 2015 than it did in the same period of the previous year. Much of that decrease is the result of a 12.8 percent drop in the number of aggravated assaults. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -9.6%
(2014: 228; 2015: 206)
Murder: Went from 1 to 0
(2014: 1; 2015: 0)
Rape: +8.3%
(2014: 24; 2015: 26)
Robbery: -7.3%
(2014: 55; 2015: 51)
Aggravated Assault: -12.8%
(2014: 148; 2015: 129)

#9 Irving, Texas

Irving, Texas reported the largest decrease in violent crime in the first half of 2015, as the number of crimes dropped by 20.3 percent. That decrease is a result of a significant drop in the number of aggravated assaults, which went from 169 in the first half of 2014 to 112 in 2015, a drop of 33.7 percent. Although the percentage of murders reported in Irving increased greatly, that was the result of four additional murders in 2015. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -20.3%
(2014: 271; 2015: 216)
Murder: +200%
(2014: 2; 2015: 6)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 19; 2015 revised definition: 15)
Robbery: +2.5%
(2014: 81; 2015: 83)
Aggravated Assault: -33.7%
(2014: 169; 2015: 112)

*Irving, Texas began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#10 Chula Vista, California

Chula Vista, California experienced an 8.9 percent increase in violent crime from January to June 2015 relative to the same period in the previous year. This increase is largely a result of a higher number of robberies, going up 13.1 percent relative to the previous year. The overall increase may also be a result of the Chula Vista police department’s change in its definition of rape. In 2015, the city began submitting rape statistics according to the FBI’s revised definition, which was changed in 2013 to be more inclusive and accurate. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +8.9%
(2014: 292; 2015: 318)
Murder: +33.3%
(2014: 3; 2015: 2)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 20; 2015 revised definition: 30)
Robbery: +13.1%
(2014: 107; 2015: 121)
Aggravated Assault: +1.9%
(2014: 162; 2015: 165)

*Chula Vista, California began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

—

Research and analysis by Law Street Media’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

FBI: Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report

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 Safest Cities: Five of Top 10 See Crime Decrease in First Half of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore recorded its 300th homicide of 2015 last month, marking the highest number of killings for the city since 1999. Given the decrease in the city’s population over the past several decades, the actual murder rate in 2015 may be the highest in the city’s history. While the rising number of homicides is certainly troubling for Baltimore, it is not the only U.S. city experiencing a spike in homicides. The explanations for this abrupt rise, after years of decline, range from the after-effects of much-publicized police killings to a drug epidemic to simply warmer weather. This article will examine this rise and seek to determine if it is an outlier or a sign of some new trend.

Murders on the Decline?

Before even getting to whether homicides are an increasing threat or even up in 2015, the numbers have to be put into perspective. The much larger trend at play has been a large and consistent decline in violent crime, including homicides, over the past few decades.

Since 1993, the violent crime rate per 100,000 people in the United States has dropped by more than 50 percent. Additionally, while the drop was felt nationwide, it was also specifically evident in cities like New York that have historically been associated with crime, though that association may be starting to wear off. In 1990, there were 2,245 homicides in New York City. By contrast, there were 328 murders in 2014, the lowest number seen since 1963 when New York was also a much smaller city. In other words, crime is down, way down, from twenty years ago. Two other examples are Los Angeles and Washington D.C., which saw their murder rates drop 90 and 76 percent respectively since 1992.

The explanations behind these drops range far and wide. A number of factors have been suggested, including a better economy, higher incarceration rates, the death penalty, more police officers, and even the greater acceptance of abortions to name a few. While all these have been suggested, however, none has necessarily been shown to hold water. Interestingly one of the most scientifically supported reasons has been the reduced use of lead in everyday goods because lead exposure in children is believed to cause more violent behavior. Reduced drug and alcohol use is another factor that has been cited in the reduction.

What’s Going on This Year?

In August, the New York Times published an article noting that 35 U.S. cities have seen their murder rates rise in 2015. This includes a number of major cities in the U.S. such as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and even the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. After years of dramatic decline, what could be causing these rates to reverse course and begin to rise again?

The Devil is in the Details

While the data seems to suggest a rise in violent crime and there are several plausible sounding theories to support it, is it actually happening?  The answer to that question is both yes and no. After the New York Times published its article, Five Thirty Eight decided to take a closer look at the statistics. Using partial-year data for the nation’s 60 largest cities, it found that homicides are indeed up 20 percent from last year in 26 of the nation’s 60 largest cities and 16 percent overall. However, they were also down in 19 of the same 60 cities including places like Boston, Las Vegas, and San Diego to name a few. In other words, the results used in the sample from the Times article may be skewed. While certain cities’ homicide numbers are up, at most they are only up a fraction or not at all. It is also important to look at the raw numbers in addition to the percentages when there is a relatively small number of homicides to begin with. For example, Five Thirty Eight found that Seattle, Washington experienced a 20 percent increase in homicides at the end of August relative to the previous year, but that increase was the result of three additional murders–going from 15 in 2014 to 18 this year. It is also important to acknowledge that the data is preliminary and only includes part of the year. The full, definitive dataset will not be available until the FBI publishes its annual statistics next fall.

While certain cities’ homicide numbers are up, in most they are only up a fraction or not at all. It is also important to look at the raw numbers in addition to the percentages when there is a relatively small number of homicides to begin with. For example, Five Thirty Eight found that Seattle, Washington experienced a 20 percent increase in homicides at the end of August relative to the previous year, but that increase was the result of three additional murders–going from 15 in 2014 to 18 this year. It is also important to acknowledge that the data is preliminary and only includes part of the year. The full, definitive dataset will not be available until the FBI publishes its annual statistics next fall.

Thus, while the overall rise in the national rate of 16 percent is statistically significant–Five Thirty Eight’s finding among the largest 60 cities–many cities’ individual changes are not. Statistical significance is a test to determine whether or not a change or relationship is the result of chance. It is also worth noting that in 2005 almost an identical rise of 15 percent in the national rate of homicides occurred before the number regressed to the mean and continued its slow decline.

The Who, What, Where, and Why

There seem to be as many explanations for murders may be rising in these cities as there were in explaining the large decline in violent crime over previous two decades. However, many of theories behind the recent rise in homicides do not seem to stand up to scrutiny either.

One that has gained a lot of traction is a theory known as the “Ferguson Effect.” According to this theory, a major contributing factor to the spike in violence is a growing reluctance among police officers to carry out routine police work in fear of criticism. This theory is largely a response to the controversial shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri as well as the death of Freddie Gray while in the custody of Baltimore policy. Put simply, bad guys are running free because police officers fear public damnation.

Ironically, there is competing theory from a community perspective, arguing that police actions have made regular citizens less likely to go to the police for assistance and more willing to take matters into their own hands. In either case the rise in violence in St. Louis or Baltimore, which has been attributed by some as the result of a Ferguson Effect, actually started prior to the highly publicized incidents of police brutality so these explanations do not seem very plausible. Attorney General Lauretta Lynch also testified before Congress saying that there is “no data” to support that theory.

Another explanation is the vast number of guns in the United States. While the exact number of guns in civilian circulation is impossible to pinpoint, it is estimated there are as many as 357 million nationwide–approximately 40 million more guns than U.S. citizens. Once again, while having more guns around likely leads to more gun-related deaths, there were hundreds of millions of guns around prior to this year so that explanation is also not very convincing.

Others argue that an increase in gang violence, fueled by drugs, has led to increased homicides. Of the reasons given, increased gang warfare is one of most likely explanations because it would likely affect only certain neighborhoods or cities and not the entire country. Some argue that cities like Chicago, are experiencing an increase in gang violence and illegal guns, which may explain recent spikes in homicides, but that is unlikely to be the case for every city.

Even the economy has been blamed as part of the “routine activities theory,” which suggests that when people are better off financially they more likely to go shopping or out to eat and thus more likely to encounter criminals. Others argue that crime generally goes down when the economy is doing well. However, John Roman, a senior fellow at the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, noted in an interview with Vox that a good economy can also lead to higher crime if improvements are not distributed equally and the needs of the underserved are not addressed.

When you look at all of the data and try to make sense of it with the competing theories, it seems likely that each city has its own explanation. We do not yet know whether or not the spike identified this summer is indicative of a trend, but if that is the case we likely need more data to determine what might be causing it.

The accompanying video looks at the increase and some of the reasons suggested for it:

Perception is Believing

Despite what the numbers say or whether the theories much of this data is based on are viable, people ultimately make up their own minds on what is true or not. In a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, 56 percent of  those polled believed that gun violence was higher than it was 20 years earlier, but in reality, gun homicides had nearly been cut in half by 2013.  This poll was conducted before the recent spate of highly publicized police killings, indicating the number may even be even higher now. It is not surprising the notion of higher homicide rates resonate with people, even if they are a one term aberration and near historic lows. The following video looks at the perception or misperception of crime in the United States:

Conclusion

While violent crime, including homicides, has been decreasing since the early 90s, recent evidence suggests there may be a spike in homicides this year–at least in some of the United States’ largest cities. But it remains unclear whether this is emblematic of a trend, or even if it was just a brief increase as has often occurred in the past. Even with this increase, however, the rate is nowhere near approaching the record highs from two-decades ago.

In light of these findings, many questions emerge. Why is the homicide rate up this year? Are these numbers skewed by an unrepresentative sample? Is this the sign of a trend or just a temporary blip? Questions like these will not be answered for years if they are answered at all. While it is necessary to try and understand the data in order to improve policing and crime-related public policy, it is important to take a more local look at why homicides might be going up in each city. A spike in several cities is not necessarily indicative of a national problem.

Resources

The Washington Post: Baltimore’s 300th Killing This Year: A violent Milestone in a Riot-Scarred City

NYC: News from the Blue Room

The New York Times: Murders in New York Drop to a Record Low, but Officers Aren’t Celebrating

Forbes: What’s Behind the Decline in Crime?

The New York Times: Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities

Vox: Why Murder Rates are Up in St. Louis, Baltimore and Some Other Cities

The Washington Post: There are Now More Guns Than People in the United States

Five Thirty Eight: Scare Headlines Exaggerate the U.S. Crime Wave

Stat Pac: Statistical Significance

Pew Research Center: Gun Homicide Steady After Decline in the 90s; Suicide Rates Edge Up

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rising Homicides in Some American Cities: What’s Actually Going on? appeared first on Law Street.

We often talk about crime statistics in terms of the safest and most dangerous cities, but many of the most popular cities in the United States rarely make those lists. In fact, many of the top travel destinations may actually have lower crime rates than you would think. We looked at the top 10 U.S. cities on Trip Advisor’s list of Travelers’ Choice Destinations to determine the most popular cities for visitors, and then broke down their actual crime rates.

A notable example of is Chicago, a city that many people think has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. In raw numbers, Chicago does have a lot of violent crime–over 24,000 violent crimes in 2014–but given its large population, its rate does not place it among the top 10 highest. To break the top 10, Chicago would need almost 1.5 times as many violent crimes, given its current population of over 2.7 million people.

This is true for many of the most popular American cities, particularly those with very large populations. For each city on Trip Advisor’s ranking, we list its violent crime statistics, which include murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. We also indicate each city’s rank in terms of violent crime rate among the 111 U.S. cities that have a population greater than 200,000 people and available data from the FBI.

All data is based on the FBI’s most recent Crime in the United States publication, which includes statistics from the 2014 calendar year. It is important to note that this is not a ranking of cities’ crime statistics, rather a look at how crime rates vary across popular American cities. A wide range of factors contributes to a city’s violent crime rate, particularly among cities of different sizes and demographics.

Check out the slideshow below to see how violent crime statistics varies among top travel destinations in the country.

Click here to see the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000

Click here to see the Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000

Click here to see all of Law Street Media’s Crime in America Coverage

New York, New York

Image courtesy of Peter McConnochle via Flickr

Violent Crime Rate: 597 per 100,000 people
Overall Rank: #53
Population: 8,473,938
Total Violent Crime: 50,564
Murder: 333
Rape: 2,190*
Robbery: 16,518
Aggravated Assault: 31,460

The overall rank is relative to the 286 U.S. cities with populations over 200,000 people and available FBI data.

*New York began the year submitting rape data classified according to the legacy UCR definition. However, at some point during the calendar year, the agency modified its reporting methods and began classifying and submitting rape offenses according to the revised UCR definition of rape. For more details click here.

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 Crime Rates in the Most Popular U.S. Travel Destinations appeared first on Law Street.

A development that has so far been described using anecdotal evidence now has some data to back it up: in the wake of the Paris attacks, hate crimes against Muslims and mosques may be increasing. An analysis from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism found that the number of hate crimes since the Paris attacks is nearly three times greater than the monthly average in the past five years. While this finding is striking, it is important to acknowledge how incomplete hate crime data is in the United States.

According to the analysis–which used the FBI’s criteria and definitions from American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code to identify hate crime incidents in news reports–the study found 37 suspected hate crimes between November 13 and December 13. Brian Levin, the director of Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, notes that these findings represent a significant increase based on available data. According to FBI statistics, the United States averaged 12.6 hate crimes with an anti-Islamic bias each month over the previous five years. There were 11 anti-Islamic hate crimes in the week after the San Bernadino shootings alone.

It is important to note that the FBI data on hate crime is, put simply, incomplete. The statistics published each year by the FBI are almost certainly an undercount of the total number of hate crimes. The data, which includes incidents and offenses known to law enforcement, are voluntarily submitted by local law enforcement agencies. While 15,494 agencies participated in Hate Crime Statistics Program last year, only 1,666 agencies reported crimes.

To get a sense of how much information might be missing from the data, let’s look at the numbers. Florida, the third most populous state in the country with nearly 20 million residents, reported 72 hate crimes in 2014. By contrast, the District of Columbia has fewer than 660,000 residents but reported 87 hate crimes over the same period. The FBI even publishes an additional table with all of the agencies that reported zero hate crimes.

Survey data on hate crimes further highlights the gaps in the FBI’s statistics. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, an annual survey of a nationally representative sample of American households, there were about 293,800 hate crimes in 2012, while the FBI data shows fewer than 6,000.*

It is important to note that both data sets are trying to measure different things–the survey tracks self-identified victimization while the FBI data includes incidents known to law enforcement–but the massive gap illustrates that the FBI data is most likely missing something. Even when you account for the fact that approximately 60 percent of survey respondents did not report their victimization to the police, the numbers remain far apart.

So does this mean we should dismiss the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism’s analysis? Researchers claim that there was a significant increase in anti-Islamic hate crimes after the Paris attacks, but they are comparing news reports to FBI data, which is most likely incomplete. The lack of accurate data on hate crimes makes it difficult to draw sweeping conclusions, but there is additional evidence to suggest that Islamaphobia is on the rise in America. Another review of anti-Islamic crimes found that crimes targeting mosques increased after the Paris attacks as well. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations–which tracks damage, harassment, intimidation, and zoning incidents related to mosques–2015 experienced a significant increase in incidents, especially in recent months. There have also been widespread reports of mosques increasing security because of the perceived threat against Muslims. Even if there has not been a dramatic growth in hate crimes, the perception among Muslims in the United States and around the world is, by itself, a notable consequence of these trends.

While researchers look at a possible increase in hate crimes, anti-Islamic rhetoric has been on the rise. Donald Trump has said we should temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country, supports a database to track Muslims, and said that the United States should consider shutting down mosques. Marco Rubio went further to say that the government should not only shut down mosques but any place where radicalization happens. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz have argued that preference should be given to Christian refugees fleeing prosecution, indicating that they pose less of a threat than Muslims fleeing the same thing. Ben Carson even used an analogy to compare Syrian refugees to a rabid dog.

We may not know the extent to which growing fear of terrorism has caused hate crimes, but as public resentment towards Muslim Americans grows the evidence, while anecdotal, seems difficult to dismiss.

*The FBI added an addendum to its 2012 report to include additional submissions from Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas, but even when the additional data is accounted for the total doesn’t increase much. [back]

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 As Anti-Islamic Rhetoric Grows, Hate Crime Against Muslims May be Rising appeared first on Law Street.

While crime in the United States continued its downward trend last year, some metropolitan areas experienced relatively high rates of violent crime when compared to the rest of the country. According to the most recent crime data from the FBI, which covers the 2014 calendar year, the Memphis, TN-MS-AR metro area had the highest violent crime rate in both the south and the entire United States for the second year in a row. The Memphis metro area had approximately 1034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Of the 15 metro areas with the highest crime rates, nine are located in the Southern region of the United States while none of the top 15 are located in the Northeast.

Check out the slideshow below to see the rankings of the Top 15 Most Dangerous metro areas across the United States. All rates below are calculated per 100,000 people. Ranking metropolitan areas provides additional insight about crime in the United States because the statistics account for crime in a principal city as well as surrounding suburbs, which tend to be both socially and economically integrated.

Read More: Crime Rankings for the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West

Read More: Interactive Crime Map of the United States

#1 Memphis, TN-MS-AR      

Image courtesy of James Blucher via Flickr

Overall Rank: #1
Rank in South: #1
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 1034
– Murder: 13
– Rape: 51
– Robbery: 270 
– Aggravated Assault: 699
Population: 1,348,092

The Memphis, TN-MS-AR metro area includes Crittenden County, AR; Benton, DeSoto, Marshall, Tate, and Tunica Counties, MS; and Fayette, Shelby, and Tipton Counties, TN as well as the city of Memphis, TN.

More info on metro areas:

The Office of Management and Budget began delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the 1950s in order to provide an established level of analysis for government reports and statistics. MSAs are characterized as having an urban core with more than 50,000 people and surrounding areas that have close social and economic integration. The FBI does not provide data on all of the 388 MSAs defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Click here to see the FBI’s explanation for why all MSAs are not included. MSAs are organized by counties or their equivalent. All statistics in Law Street’s Crime in America metro rankings are presented as rates per 100,000 people, and they are taken from the FBI’s annual Crime in the United States publication section on metropolitan statistical areas. To see the FBI’s data click here.

Click here to see full Crime in America 2016 Coverage, including the Safest & Most Dangerous Cities and States.

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 Crime in America 2016: Top 15 Most Dangerous Metro Areas appeared first on Law Street.

The Springfield, IL metro area sits atop the list of the most dangerous metro areas in the Midwest for the second year in a row. According to the latest FBI crime statistics, which cover the 2014 calendar year, Springfield, IL had a violent crime rate of 767 per 100,000 people, the fourth highest in the country. The Wausau, WI metro area was the safest metro in the Midwest for a second straight year. In total, Wisconsin had five of the top 10 safest metro areas in the Midwest. In 2014, the Midwest region of the United States held about 21 percent of the country’s population, but just 19 percent of its violent crime.

The rankings below detail the violent crime rate for cities and their surrounding metropolitan area across the Midwest. Check out the rankings below to see the Top 10 Safest and Top 10 Most Dangerous metro areas across the South. All rates below are calculated per 100,000 people. Click here to read more information about Metropolitan Statistical Areas and these rankings.

Read More: Crime Rankings for the Northeast, South, and West

Read More: Slideshow: Top 15 Most Dangerous Metros in the United States

Read More: Interactive Crime Map of the United States

Top 10 Most Dangerous Metros in the Midwest

#1 Springfield, IL Metro Area

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #4
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 767
 – Murder: 9
 – Rape: 71
 – Robbery: 138
 – Aggravated Assault: 549
 Population: 211,855

The Springfield, IL metro area includes Menard and Sangamon Counties as well as the city of Springfield.

#2 Rockford, IL

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #19
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 665
 – Murder: 7
 – Rape: 57
 – Robbery: 144
 – Aggravated Assault: 458
 Population: 343,135

The Rockford, IL metro area includes Boone and Winnebago Counties as well as the city of Rockford.

 #3 Saginaw, MI

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #21
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 660
 – Murder: 8
 – Rape: 82
 – Robbery: 84
 – Aggravated Assault: 486
 Population: 195,891

The Saginaw, MI metro area includes the Saginaw County and the city of Saginaw.

#4 Flint, MI

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #22
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 652
 – Murder: 8
 – Rape: 70
 – Robbery: 117
 – Aggravated Assault: 458
 Population: 413,337

The Flint, MI metro area includes Geneseee county and the city of Flint.

 #5 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #24
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 646
– Murder: 8
– Rape: 39
– Robbery: 209
– Aggravated Assault: 390
Population: 1,971,378

The Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN metro area includes Boone, Brown, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, Putnam, and Shelby Counties as well as the city of Indianapolis3, the city of Carmel, and the city of Anderson.

 #6 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #25
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 634
 – Murder: 6
 – Rape: 33
 – Robbery: 251
 – Aggravated Assault: 343
 Population: 1,573,272

The Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI metro area includes Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha Counties as well as, the city of Milwaukee, the city of Waukesha, and the city of West Allis.

 #7 Danville, IL

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #30
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 592
– Murder: 1
– Rape: 91
– Robbery: 108
– Aggravated Assault: 392
Population: 79,939

The Danville, IL metro area includes Vermillion County and the city of Danville.

 #8 Toledo, OH

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #41
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 559
 – Murder: 5
 – Rape: 50
 – Robbery: 171
 – Aggravated Assault: 334
 Population: 608,517

The Toledo, OH metro area includes Fulton, Lucas, and Wood Counties as well as the city of Toledo.

 #9 Battle Creek, MI

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #44
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 538
– Murder: 3
– Rape: 90
– Robbery: 65
– Aggravated Assault: 380
Population: 134,882

The Battle Creek, MI metro area includes Calhoun County and the city of Battle Creek.

 #10 Springfield, MO

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #45
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 536
 – Murder: 5
 – Rape: 74
 – Robbery: 94
 – Aggravated Assault: 364
 Population: 452,154

The Springfield, MO metro area includes Christian, Dallas, Greene, Polk, and Webster Counties and the city of Springfield.

Top 10 Safest Metros in the Midwest

#1 Wausau, WI

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 90
 – Murder: 2
 – Rape: 13
 – Robbery: 9
 – Aggravated Assault: 66
 Population: 135,783

The Wausau, WI metro area includes Marathon County and the city of Wausau.

 #2 Columbus, IN

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 110
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 17
– Robbery: 30
– Aggravated Assault: 62
Population: 80,345

The Columbus, IN metro area includes Bartholomew County and the city of Columbus.

 #3 La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 113
 – Murder: 0
 – Rape: 23
 – Robbery: 25
 – Aggravated Assault: 65
 Population: 135,985

The La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN metro area includes Houston County, MN and La Crosse County, WI as well as the city of La Crosse, WI and the city of Onalaska, WI.

 #4 Midland, MI

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 124
– Murder: 1
– Rape: 42
– Robbery: 11
– Aggravated Assault: 70
Population: 84,059

The Midland, MI metro area includes the Midland County and the city of Midland.

 #5 Eau Claire, WI

Click to enlarge

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 131
 – Murder: 0.6
 – Rape: 27
 – Robbery: 12
 – Aggravated Assault: 92
 Population: 165,411

The Eau Claire, WI metro area includes Chippewa and Eau Claire Counties as well as the city of Eau Claire.

#6 Ames, IA

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 132
 – Murder: 0
 – Rape: 41
 – Robbery: 17
 – Aggravated Assault: 74
 Population: 93,130

The Ames, IA metro area includes Story County and the city of Ames.

 #7 Appleton, WI

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime:  137
 – Murder: 0
 – Rape: 16
 – Robbery: 11
 – Aggravated Assault: 110
 Population: 231,052

The Appleton, WI metro area includes Calumet and Outagamie Counties as well as the city of Appleton.

#8 Rochester, MN

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 141
 – Murder: 1
 – Rape: 29
 – Robbery: 26
 – Aggravated Assault: 85
 Population: 213,400

The Rochester, MN metro area includes Dodge, Fillmore, Olmsted, and Wabasha Counties and the city of Rochester.

#9 Sheboygan, WI

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 163
 – Murder: 0.9
 – Rape: 24
 – Robbery: 18
 – Aggravated Assault: 119
 Population: 114,823

The Sheboygan, WI metro area includes Sheboygan County and the city of Sheboygan.

#10 Michigan City-La Porte, IN

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 166
– Murder: 5.4
– Rape: 8
– Robbery: 73
– Aggravated Assault: 80
Population: 111,335

The Michigan City- La Porte, IN metro area includes La Porte County as well as Michigan City and the city of La Porte.

—
More info on metro areas:

The Office of Management and Budget began delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the 1950s in order to provide an established level of analysis for government reports and statistics. MSAs are characterized as having an urban core with more than 50,000 people and surrounding areas that have close social and economic integration. The FBI does not provide data on all of the 388 MSAs defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Click here to see the FBI’s explanation for why all MSAs are not included. MSAs are organized by counties or their equivalent. All statistics in Law Street’s Crime in America metro rankings are presented as rates per 100,000 people, and they are taken from the FBI’s annual Crime in the United States publication section on metropolitan statistical areas. To see the FBI’s data click here.

Click here to see full Crime in America 2016 Coverage, including the Safest & Most Dangerous Cities and States.

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

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 Crime in America 2016: Safest & Most Dangerous Midwest Metros appeared first on Law Street.

The Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ metro area is the number one most dangerous metro in the Northeast United States for the second year in a row. According to the latest crime data from the FBI, which covers the 2014 calendar year, the Vineland-Bridgeton metro had a violent crime rate of 511 per 100,000 people. The Bangor, ME metro area also retains its spot atop the top 10 safest northeast metro areas with only 77 violent crimes per 100,000 people. While the Northeast is home to about 18 percent of the U.S. population, it had just 15 percent of the nation’s total violent crime last year.

Check out the rankings below to see the Top 10 Safest and Top 10 Most Dangerous metro areas across the Northeast. All rates below are calculated per 100,000 people. Click here to read more information about Metropolitan Statistical Areas and these rankings.

Read More: Crime Rankings for the Midwest, South, and West

Read More: Slideshow: Top 15 Most Dangerous Metros in the United States

Read More: Interactive Crime Map of the United States

Top 10 Most Dangerous Metros in the Northeast

#1 Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #54
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 511
– Murder: 11
– Rape: 29
– Robbery: 211
– Aggravated Assault: 261
Population: 157,616

The Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ metro area includes Cumberland County as well as the city of Vineland and the city of Bridgeton.

#2 Springfield, MA

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #56
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 507
– Murder: 3
– Rape: 51
– Robbery:  136
– Aggravated Assault: 318
Population: 629,676

The Springfield, MA metro area includes Hampden and Hampshire Counties as well as the city of Springfield.

#3 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #75
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 460
– Murder: 7
– Rape: 34
– Robbery:  180
– Aggravated Assault: 239
Population: 6,054,007

The Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD metro includes the Metropolitan Divisions of Camden, NJ; Montgomery County-Bucks County-Chester County, PA; Philadelphia, PA; and Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ as well as the city of Philadelphia, PA and the City of Wilmington, DE.

#4 Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #85
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 436
– Murder: 6
– Rape: 31
– Robbery:  156
– Aggravated Assault: 243
Population: 1,135,581

The Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY metro area includes Erie and Niagara Counties as well as the city of Cheektowaga Town and the city of Niagara Falls.

#5 Barnstable Town, MA

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #91
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 426
– Murder: 1
– Rape: 40
– Robbery:  32
– Aggravated Assault: 352
Population: 215,384

The Barnstable Town, MA metro area includes Barnstable County and the city of Barnstable.

#6 Worcester, MA-CT

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #97
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 421
– Murder: 0.9
– Rape: 25
– Robbery:  74
– Aggravated Assault: 321
Population: 856,152

The Worcester, MA-CT metro area includes Windham County, CT and Worcester County MA as well as the city of Worcester, MA.

#7 Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #123
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 384
– Murder: 6
– Rape: 20
– Robbery:  177
– Aggravated Assault: 181
Population: 276,587

The Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ metro area includes Atlantic County as well as Atlantic City and the city of Hammonton.

#8 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #133
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 371
– Murder: 3
– Rape: 17
– Robbery:  135
– Aggravated Assault: 216
Population: 20,070,688

Includes the Metropolitan Divisions of Dutchess County-Putnam County, NY; Nassau County-Suffolk County, NY; Newark, NJ-PA; and New York-Jersey City-White Plains, NY-NJ as well as New York, NY; Newark, NJ; Jersey City, NJ; White Plains, NY; the city of New Brunswick, NJ; and Lakewood Township, NJ.

#9 Trenton, NJ

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #151
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 347
– Murder: 9
– Rape: 11
– Robbery:  150
– Aggravated Assault: 177
Population: 371,608

The Trenton, NJ metro area includes Mercer county and the city of Trenton.

#10 Norwich-New London, CT

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #159
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 340
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 45
– Robbery:  62
– Aggravated Assault: 232
Population:  146,061

The Norwich-New London, CT metro area includes New London County, the city of Norwich and the city of New London.

Top 10 Safest Most Dangerous Metros in the Northeast

#1 Bangor, ME

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 77
– Murder: 3
– Rape: 12
– Robbery:  23
– Aggravated Assault: 40
Population: 153,425

The Bangor, ME metro area includes Penobscot County and the city of Bangor.

#2 State College, PA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 82
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 25
– Robbery:  8
– Aggravated Assault: 49
Population: 155,684

The State College, PA metro area includes Centre County and the city of State College.

#3 Gettysburg, PA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 102
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 20
– Robbery:  10
– Aggravated Assault: 73
Population: 101,545

The Gettysburg, PA metro area includes Adams County and the city of Gettysburgh.

#4 Glens Falls, NY

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 111
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 47
– Robbery:  8
– Aggravated Assault: 57
Population: 128,487

The Glens Falls, NY metro area includes Warren and Washington Counties as well as the city of Glens Falls.

#5 Portland-South Portland, ME

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 128
– Murder: 1
– Rape: 26
– Robbery:  27
– Aggravated Assault: 73
Population: 522,033

The Portland-South Portland, ME metro area includes Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York Counties as well as the city of Portland and the city of South Portland.

#6 Lewiston-Auburn, ME

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 142
– Murder: 2
– Rape: 42
– Robbery:  38
– Aggravated Assault: 60
Population: 107,711

The Lewiston-Auburn, ME metro area includes Androscoggin County as well as the city of Lewiston and the city of Auburn.

#7 Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 149
– Murder: 3
– Rape: 27
– Robbery:  40
– Aggravated Assault: 79
Population: 152,602

The Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA metro area includes Franklin County as well as the city of Chambersburg and the city of Waynesboro.

#8 Lebanon, PA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 154
– Violent Crime: 154
– Murder: 5
– Rape: 21
– Robbery:  34
– Aggravated Assault: 94
Population: 135,898

The Lebanon, PA metro area includes Lebanon County and the city of Lebanon.

#9 Lancaster, PA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 165.1
– Murder: 2
– Rape: 38
– Robbery:  51
– Aggravated Assault: 74
Population: 531,837

The Lancaster, PA metro area includes Lancaster County and the city of Lancaster.

#10 Johnstown, PA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 165.3
– Murder: 5
– Rape: 10
– Robbery:  35
– Aggravated Assault: 115
Population: 139,742

The Johnstown, PA metro area includes Cambria County and the city of Johnstown.

—
More info on metro areas:

The Office of Management and Budget began delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the 1950s in order to provide an established level of analysis for government reports and statistics. MSAs are characterized as having an urban core with more than 50,000 people and surrounding areas that have close social and economic integration. The FBI does not provide data on all of the 388 MSAs defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Click here to see the FBI’s explanation for why all MSAs are not included. MSAs are organized by counties or their equivalent. All statistics in Law Street’s Crime in America metro rankings are presented as rates per 100,000 people, and they are taken from the FBI’s annual Crime in the United States publication section on metropolitan statistical areas. To see the FBI’s data click here.

Click here to see full Crime in America 2016 Coverage, including the Safest & Most Dangerous Cities and States.

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 Crime in America 2016: Safest & Most Dangerous Metros in the Northeast appeared first on Law Street.

The Memphis, TN-MS-AR metro area tops the list of the most dangerous metro area in the South for the second year in a row. Memphis is also the most dangerous metro area overall according to its violent crime rate per 100,000 people, which in 2014 was 1,034. In contrast, the Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY metro area is the safest metro in the South for a second year with a violent crime rate of just 92 per 100,000 people. In 2014, the South had about 38 percent of the U.S. population, but 42 percent of the nation’s violent crime. All of the data comes from the FBI’s Crime in America publication, which details crime statistics for the 2014 calendar year.

Check out the rankings below to see the Top 10 Safest and Top 10 Most Dangerous metros in the South. All rates below are calculated per 100,000 people. Click here to read more information about Metropolitan Statistical Areas and these rankings.

Read More: Crime Rankings for the Midwest, Northeast, and West

Read More: Slideshow: Top 15 Most Dangerous Metros in the United States

Read More: Interactive Crime Map of the United States

Top 10 Most Dangerous Metros in the South

#1 Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metro Area

Click to enlarge

Overall Rank: #1
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 1,034
– Murder: 13
– Rape: 51
– Robbery: 270 
– Aggravated Assault: 699
Population: 1,348,092

The Memphis, TN-MS-AR metro area includes Crittenden County, AR; Benton, DeSoto, Marshall, Tate, and Tunica Counties, MS; and Fayette, Shelby, and Tipton Counties, TN as well as the city of Memphis, TN.

#2 Alexandria, LA

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #3
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 812
– Murder: 7
– Rape: 31
– Robbery: 126
– Aggravated Assault: 648
Population: 155,023

The Alexandria, LA metro area includes Grant and Rapides Parishes as well as the city of Alexandria.

#3 Hammond, LA

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #5
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 761
– Murder: 8
– Rape: 41
– Robbery: 97
– Aggravated Assault: 615
Population: 126,481

The Hammond, LA metro area includes Tangipahoa Parish and the city of Hammond.

#4 Jackson, TN

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #6
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 756
– Murder: 9
– Rape: 34
– Robbery: 113
– Aggravated Assault: 600
Population: 131,143

The Jackson, TN metro area includes Chester, Crockett, and Madison Counties as well as the city of Jackson.

#5 Lubbock, TX

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #10
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 738
– Murder: 5
– Rape: 52
– Robbery: 113
– Aggravated Assault: 568
Population: 305,514

The Lubbock, TX metro area includes Crosby, Lubbock, and Lynn Counties as well as the city of Lubbock.

#6 Lawton, OK

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #12
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 705
– Murder: 8
– Rape: 62
– Robbery: 150
– Aggravated Assault: 484
Population: 131,086

The Lawton, OK metro area includes Comanche and Cotton Counties as well as the city of Lawton.

#7 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #13
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 696
– Murder: 8
– Rape: 50
– Robbery: 140
– Aggravated Assault: 499
Population: 729,360

The Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR metro area includes Faulkner, Grant, Lonoke, Perry, Pulaski, and Saline Counties as well as the city of Little Rock, the city of North Little Rock, and the city of Conway.

#8 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #14
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 685.45
– Murder: 7
– Rape: 63
– Robbery: 154
– Aggravated Assault: 462
Population: 2,319,802

The Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL metro area includes Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties as well as the city of Orlando, the city of Kissimmee, and the city of Sanford.

#9 Pine Bluff, AR

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #15
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 685.37
– Murder: 18
– Rape: 63
– Robbery: 150
– Aggravated Assault: 454
Population: 94,694

The Pine Bluff, AR metro area includes Cleveland, Jefferson, and Lincoln Counties as well as the city of Pine Bluff.

#10 Tallahassee, FL

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #16
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 679
– Murder: 5
– Rape: 70
– Robbery: 94
– Aggravated Assault: 510
Population: 377,234

The Tallahassee, FL metro area includes the Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, and Wakulla Counties as well as the city of Tallahassee.

Top 10 Safest Metros in the South

#1 Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 92
– Murder: 0.7
– Rape: 28
– Robbery: 17
– Aggravated Assault: 47
Population: 152,068

The Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY metro area includes Hardin, Larue, and Meade Counties as well as the city of Elizabethtown.

#2 Owensboro, KY

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 128
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 29
– Robbery: 36
– Aggravated Assault: 63
Population: 116,963

The Owensboro, KY metro area includes Daviess, Hancock, and McLean Counties as well as the city of Owensboro.

#3 Harrisonburg, VA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 141
– Murder: 2
– Rape: 32
– Robbery: 13
– Aggravated Assault: 93
Population: 130,160

The Harrisonburg, VA metro area includes Rockingham County and the city of Harrisburg.

#4 Staunton-Waynesboro, VA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 148
– Murder: 5
– Rape: 28
– Robbery: 21
– Aggravated Assault: 93
Population: 119,879

The Staunton-Waynesboro, VA metro area includes Augusta County as well as the city of Staunton and the city of Waynesboro.

#5 Bowling Green, KY

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 157
– Murder: 0.6
– Rape: 38
– Robbery: 44
– Aggravated Assault: 74
Population: 164,892

The Bowling Green, KY metro area includes Allen, Butler, Edmonson, and Warren Counties as well as the city of Bowling Green.

#6 Charlottesville, VA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 162
– Murder: 4
– Rape: 27
– Robbery: 26
– Aggravated Assault: 106
Population: 225,461

The Charlottesville, VA metro area includes Albemarle, Buckingham, Fluvanna, Greene, and Nelson Counties as well as the city of Charlottesville.

#7 Decatur, AL

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 167
– Murder: 1
– Rape: 24
– Robbery: 27
– Aggravated Assault: 114
Population: 153,346

The Decatur, AL metro area includes Lawrence and Morgan Counties as well as the city of Decatur.

#8 Winchester, VA-WV

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 176
– Murder: 2
– Rape: 57
– Robbery: 27
– Aggravated Assault: 90
Population: 132,823

The Winchester, VA-WV metro area includes Frederick County and Winchester City, VA and Hampshire County, WV as well as the city of Winchester, VA.

#9 Gainesville, GA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 177
– Murder: 4
– Rape: 16
– Robbery: 38
– Aggravated Assault: 118
Population: 190,345

The Gainesville, GA metro area includes Hall County as well as the city of Gainesville.

#10 Parkersburg-Vienna, WV

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 182
– Murder: 1
– Rape: 26
– Robbery: 8
– Aggravated Assault: 148
Population: 92,202

The Parkersburg-Vienna, WV metro area includes Wirt and Wood counties as well as the city of Parkersburg and the city of Vienna.

—
More info on metro areas:

The Office of Management and Budget began delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the 1950s in order to provide an established level of analysis for government reports and statistics. MSAs are characterized as having an urban core with more than 50,000 people and surrounding areas that have close social and economic integration. The FBI does not provide data on all of the 388 MSAs defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Click here to see the FBI’s explanation for why all MSAs are not included. MSAs are organized by counties or their equivalent. All statistics in Law Street’s Crime in America metro rankings are presented as rates per 100,000 people, and they are taken from the FBI’s annual Crime in the United States publication section on metropolitan statistical areas. To see the FBI’s data click here.

Click here to see full Crime in America 2016 Coverage, including the Safest & Most Dangerous Cities and States.

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

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 Crime in America 2016: Safest & Most Dangerous Metros in the South appeared first on Law Street.

The Anchorage, AK metro area is the number one most dangerous metro in the West for the second year in a row as well as the number two most dangerous metro area overall. According to the most recent FBI data, which covers the full 2014 calendar year, Anchorage had 844 violent crimes per 100,000 people, an increase of over 6 percent from the previous year. California had four of the top 10 most dangerous metro areas while Oregon had three of the top 10 safest metros. In total, the West had roughly 23 percent of the U.S. population in 2014 as well as about 23 percent of the total violent crime.

Check out the rankings below to see the Top 10 Safest and Top 10 Most Dangerous metro areas across the West. All rates below are calculated per 100,000 people. Click here to read more information about Metropolitan Statistical Areas and these rankings.

Read More: Crime Rankings for the Midwest, Northeast, and South

Read More: Slideshow: Top 15 Most Dangerous Metros in the United States

Read More: Interactive Crime Map of the United States

Top 10 Most Dangerous Metros in the West

#1 Anchorage, AK

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #2
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 844
– Murder: 4
– Rape: 127
– Robbery: 159
– Aggravated Assault: 554
Population: 316,696

The Anchorage, AK metro area includes the Anchorage Municipality, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the city of Anchorage.

#2 Stockton-Lodi, CA

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #7
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 750
– Murder: 9
– Rape: 25
– Robbery: 209
– Aggravated Assault: 508
Population: 712,619

The Stockton-Lodi, CA metro area includes San Joaquin County as well as the city of Stockton and the City of Lodi.

#3 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #8
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 743
– Murder: 7
– Rape: 48
– Robbery: 268
– Aggravated Assault: 420
Population: 2,066,423

The Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV metro area includes Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, and the city of Henderson.

#4 Albuquerque, NM

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #9
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 740
– Murder: 5
– Rape: 54
– Robbery: 171
– Aggravated Assault: 510
Population: 903,982

The Albuquerque, NM metro area includes Bernalillo, Sandoval, Torrance, and Valencia counties, as well as the city of Albuquerque.

#5 Redding, CA

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: # 11
Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 707
– Murder: 4
– Rape: 62
– Robbery: 95
– Aggravated Assault: 546
Population: 180,406

The Redding, CA metro area includes Shasta County and the city of Redding.

#6 Fairbanks, AK*

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #23
Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 648
– Murder: 12
– Rape: 110
– Robbery: 158
– Aggravated Assault: 369
Population: 34,712

The Fairbanks, AL metro area includes the Fairbanks, North Star Borough and the City of Fairbanks.

*A large portion of the North Star Borough is policed by Alaskan State Troopers, which report their data as one agency. As a result, data is only available for a portion of the Fairbanks metropolitan area.

#7 Madera, CA

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #34
Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 578
– Murder: 6
– Rape: 25
– Robbery: 65 
– Aggravated Assault: 483
Population: 153,544

The Madera, CA metro area includes Madera County and the city of Madera.

#8 Pueblo, CO

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #36
Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 575
– Murder: 6
– Rape: 96
– Robbery: 116
– Aggravated Assault: 357
Population: 162,854

The Pueblo, CO metro area includes Pueblo County and the city of Pueblo.

#9 Merced, CA

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #42
Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 558
– Murder: 11
– Rape: 16
– Robbery: 91
– Aggravated Assault: 440
Population: 266,350

The Merced, CA metro area includes Merced County and the city of Merced.

#10 Farmington, NM

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #46
Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 535
– Murder: 4
– Rape: 81
– Robbery: 46 
– Aggravated Assault: 405
Population: 125,309

The Farmington, NM metro area includes San Juan County and the city of Farmington.

Top 10 Safest Metros in the West

#1 Albany, OR

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 98
– Murder: 3
– Rape: 15
– Robbery: 32 
– Aggravated Assault: 48
Population: 119,734

The Albany, OR metro area includes Linn County and the city of Albany.

#2 Wenatchee, WA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 117
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 22
– Robbery: 19 
– Aggravated Assault:  76
Population: 114,491

The Wenatchee, WA metro area includes Chelan and Douglas Counties as well as the city of Wenatchee.

#3 Corvallis, OR

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 120
– Violent Crime: 120
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 25
– Robbery: 18
– Aggravated Assault: 77
Population: 87,222

The Corvallis, OR metro area includes Benton County and the city of Corvallis.

#4 St. George, UT

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 135
– Murder: 1
– Rape: 33
– Robbery: 19
– Aggravated Assault: 81
Population: 150,723

The St. George, UT metro area includes Washington County and the city of St. George.

#5 Idaho Falls, ID

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 155
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 35
– Robbery: 7
– Aggravated Assault: 114
Population: 138,893

The Idaho Falls, ID metro area includes Bonneville, Butte, and Jefferson Counties as well as the city of Idaho Falls.

#6 Ogden-Clearfield, UT

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 155
– Murder: 2
– Rape: 50
– Robbery: 25
– Aggravated Assault: 78
Population: 629,218

The Ogden-Clearfield, UT metro area includes Box Elder, Davis, Morgan, and Weber Counties as well as the city of Ogden and the city of Clearfield.

#7 Cheyenne, WY

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 160
– Murder: 3
– Rape: 19
– Robbery: 18
– Aggravated Assault: 121
Population: 96,236

The Cheyenne, WY metro area includes Laramie County and the city of Cheyenne.

#8 Bend-Redmond, OR

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 168
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 30
– Robbery: 30
– Aggravated Assault: 109
Population: 168,749

The Bend-Redmond, OR metro area includes Deschutes County, the city of Bend, and the city of Redmond.

#9 Casper, WY

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 184
– Murder: 4
– Rape: 23
– Robbery: 16
– Aggravated Assault: 142
Population: 81,960

The Casper, WY metro area includes Natrona County and the City of Casper.

#10 Lewiston, ID-WA

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people: 
– Violent Crime: 188
– Murder: 5
– Rape: 26
– Robbery: 22
– Aggravated Assault: 136
Population: 62,666

The Lewiston, ID-WA metro area includes Nez Perce County, ID and Asotin County, WA as well as the city of Lewiston, ID.

—

More info on metro areas:

The Office of Management and Budget began delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the 1950s in order to provide an established level of analysis for government reports and statistics. MSAs are characterized as having an urban core with more than 50,000 people and surrounding areas that have close social and economic integration. The FBI does not provide data on all of the 388 MSAs defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Click here to see the FBI’s explanation for why all MSAs are not included. MSAs are organized by counties or their equivalent. All statistics in Law Street’s Crime in America metro rankings are presented as rates per 100,000 people, and they are taken from the FBI’s annual Crime in the United States publication section on metropolitan statistical areas. To see the FBI’s data click here.

Click here to see full Crime in America 2016 Coverage, including the Safest & Most Dangerous Cities and States.

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 Crime in America 2016: Safest & Most Dangerous Metros in the West appeared first on Law Street.

Caught up in the whirlwind of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris was an interesting little footnote: American FBI agents headed to France to assist in the investigation. The FBI going to Paris or anywhere else outside the United States may, on its face, seem like the agency is overstepping its jurisdiction. When it comes to matters outside the borders of the country most assume that the Central Intelligence Agency would be the organization involved, not the FBI, whose mandate is more domestically focused. However, as this recent example and others have shown, the FBI does, in fact, operate abroad. Read on to see what the FBI does around the globe, how its role has changed over the years, and how all this activity is perceived internationally.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation Abroad

The beginning of the FBI’s work abroad can be traced back to World War II. In 1940, as the war intensified and the prospect of the United States joining in the fight grew, President Roosevelt assigned the Federal Bureau of Investigation to handle intelligence responsibilities for the Western Hemisphere. In an era before internationally-focused agencies like the CIA existed, the FBI was given the task. This initial step centered on finding and exposing Nazi spies who were attempting to sneak into the United States from South America.

The FBI realized early on that in order to maximize its effectiveness it needed to coordinate with local authorities in other countries. Starting in Bogata, Columbia, the FBI began assigning special agents to positions that would eventually be known as Legal Attachés or “Legats.” When WWII ended, the CIA took over much of the foreign intelligence work and the FBI shifted its international focus to training and developing working relationships abroad. Since then the program has continued to expand. According to the FBI’s Legal Attaché website:

Today, we have Legal Attaché offices—commonly known as Legats—and smaller sub-offices in 75 key cities around the globe, providing coverage for more than 200 countries, territories, and islands. Each office is established through mutual agreement with the host country and is situated in the U.S. embassy or consulate in that nation.

In addition to Legat offices in foreign countries, the FBI coordinates with similar organizations overseas like Europol. The following video looks at what the FBI does abroad with a focus, in this case, on investigation:

What the FBI Does

So what does the FBI do with all these agents and other personnel stationed abroad? A major focus of the FBI’s effort abroad is training. Among other things, the FBI’s training focuses on providing information on kidnapping, fingerprinting, and corruption. As part of this exchange, the FBI also welcomes a growing number of foreign nationals to its training facility in Quantico, Virginia.

In addition to training, the FBI assists with investigations in other countries. In the most recent example, the terrorist attacks in Paris, the FBI sent agents with particular expertise. According to the New York Times, the agents sent by the FBI have skills that focus on recovering data from electronic devices. The agents will help assist French police recover intelligence about the attackers and provide any information about U.S. security interests back to the United States. The FBI conducted a similar operation in Uganda in 2010. In that investigation, a large contingent of FBI agents were sent to the African nation to investigate the terrorist attacks and aid in identifying potential suspects.

In order to understand the FBI’s role abroad, it is important to look at how the bureau changed in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001. After the attacks, the FBI moved away from its traditional role of investigating domestic crime to a new focus on counterterrorism and intelligence gathering. This transition has been widely documented and is openly accepted by the bureau itself. According to an FBI report on its counterterrorism program after 9/11,

Since the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have implemented a comprehensive plan that fundamentally transforms the organization to enhance our ability to predict and prevent terrorism. We overhauled our counterterrorism operations, expanded our intelligence capabilities, modernized our business practices and technology, and improved coordination with our partners.

A major driver behind the FBI’s international cooperation is enabling other countries to handle terrorism within their own borders so the FBI does not have to bring a suspect back to the United States to faces charges.

Abuse Abroad?

While the FBI’s methods are targeted to prevent terrorism and assist organizations abroad, the bureau has faced a lot of scrutiny for its actions in other countries. There are several examples of people, often American nationals abroad, alleging that improper techniques were used to extract information or force compliance.

One example is of an American national, Gulet Mohamed, who was detained in Kuwait on suspicion of being connected with known terrorist Anwar Al-Awalaki. Gulet, who had traveled in Yemen and Somalia, was detained and aggressively interrogated. He was then placed on the no-fly list. Amir Meshal, another American national, fleeing Somalia and headed to Kenya, shared a similar fate. Meshal was detained in Kenya and claims that he was tortured in order to force a confession. Another instance is the case of Raymond Azar. Azar, a Lebanese citizen, was captured, stripped, and taken from Lebanon then flown to the United States to be charged with bribery.

Yonas Fikre is yet another example. Fikre was arrested in the UAE at the behest of the FBI. He claims that he was detained after he refused to be an FBI informant. According to Fikre, he was then subsequently tortured and added to the FBI’s no-fly list. Fikre is one of nine members of his mosque who he claims have been added to the FBI’s no-fly list for refusing to become informants. In Uganda, four men from Kenya and Tanzania claim that they were illegally detained and abused by FBI agents. They claim that they were tortured in relation to a bombing in Kampala that killed 76 people, a crime which they were suspected of committing. A spokesperson for the FBI said that all agents act within FBI guidelines and the laws of the country where they operate.

These methods have not gone unchallenged. Both Fikre and Gulet challenged their place on the no-fly list and the methods employed by the FBI during their detentions. Meshal also took issue with his capture and actually attempted to file a lawsuit against the FBI. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied him the opportunity because his case dealt with national security. The suspects allegedly tortured in Uganda took issues with the conduct of the FBI as well. Their allegations of abuse led to an internal investigation by the FBI. Ultimately, though, following the investigation, no charges were filed. In all cases, the FBI has maintained that its agents acted appropriately.

The video below details the specifics of the case:

Conclusion

Unbeknownst to many citizens, the FBI has had a large and increasing presence abroad since the early days of World War II. This presence generally takes the form of agents, known as legal attachés, who are stationed at American embassies all over the world. The agents are primarily concerned with acquiring information and disseminating it to local law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies in the United States. This system helps empower countries to effectively combat terrorism and domestic threats as well as further U.S. security interests abroad.

Aside from information gathering and training, FBI Legal Attachés are often called on for assistance in investigating crimes and terror threats. There are numerous examples of this, from the recent attack in Paris to earlier attacks in Africa; the FBI also has its own list of selected accomplishments. In these cases, the FBI offered expertise in analyzing a crime scene or technical skills that the local government did not have.

Nevertheless, the FBI’s efforts abroad are not universally acclaimed. In the course of its investigations, the agency has repeatedly faced criticism for abuse and punishments for not cooperating, such as adding suspects names to the no-fly list without probable cause. Despite criticism, the FBI often maintains that its agents acted properly and internal investigations rarely find wrongdoing.

The FBI’s shift from focusing on domestic investigations to gathering counterterrorism intelligence has led many to criticize the agency. But the FBI maintains that it must change in order to be “a global organization for a global age.” The FBI has continued to grow its international presence in the form of Legal Attachés and several counterterrorism task forces after the 9/11 attacks. While some may criticize this trend, most evidence suggests that it will continue.

Resources

New York Times: F.B.I. Sending Agents to Assist in Paris Investigation

San Diego Union-Tribune: Al-Shabab Leader Threatens More Ugandan Attacks

New York Times: In 2008 Mumbai Attacks, Piles of Spy Data, but an Uncompleted Puzzle

New York Times: Detained American Says F.B.I. pressed him

CBS News: American Can’t Sue FBI Over Abuse Claims, Federal Appeals Court Says

Los Angeles Times: Lebanese Man is Target of the First Rendition Under Obama

Open Society Foundation: FBI Responds to Kampala Abuse Allegations Cited in Open Society Justice Initiative

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the FBI Do Abroad? appeared first on Law Street.

The data below is from January 2014–December 2014 for all cities with a population over 100,000 people.

To search for a city or state use the search box on the right. To reset your view clear the search box and hit the home button on the top left of the map.

Click here to see the Top 10 Rankings and all coverage of Crime in America 2016.

—

—

* The figures shown in this column for the offense of rape were reported using the legacy UCR definition of rape. See here for more information.
(1) The FBI determined that the agency’s data were underreported. Consequently, those data are not included in this table.
(2) The population for the city of Mobile, Alabama, includes 55,819 inhabitants from the jurisdiction of the Mobile County Sheriff’s Department.
(3) This agency began the year submitting rape data classified according to the legacy UCR definition. However, at some point during the calendar year, the agency modified its reporting methods and began classifying and submitting rape offenses according to the revised UCR definition of rape.
(4) Because of changes in the state/local agency’s reporting practices, figures are not comparable to previous years’ data.
(5) The FBI determined that the agency did not follow national UCR Program guidelines for reporting an offense. Consequently, this figure is not included in this table.

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 Interactive Map: Crime Rates Across the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street Media’s comprehensive Crime in America 2016 coverage provides a look at the safety of our cities and towns around the United States. Based on data provided in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, Law Street analyzes the data to provide lists of the safest and most dangerous cities around the U.S. Take a look at the rankings and features below to discover how safe your city actually is. Check back regularly for continued reporting and additional features.

Rankings

Metro Area Rankings

Interactive Dashboard

Crime Trends in America’s Largest Cities

CHARTS AND DATA

NOTES

• What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports
• Methodology

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 Crime in America 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Former University of Mississippi student, Graeme Phillip Harris, has announced he will plead guilty to a charge of using a threat of force to intimidate African-American students and employees at the university. Harris, who is white, was charged after hanging a noose around a college statue dedicated to integration and diversity. In February of 2014 Harris placed a noose and the former Georgia state flag that featured the Confederate battle emblem on the James Meredith statue on the Ole Miss campus in Oxford, inciting anger and horror.

James Meredith is a civil rights activist who made history when he enrolled as the first African-American student at Ole Miss in 1962. The Meredith statue was erected in 2006, although not without controversy.

Harris, originally from Alpharetta, Georgia, may face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. Because he is pleading guilty he likely won’t be prosecuted for the other charge from his March indictment, conspiracy to violate civil rights, which could have landed him in prison for 10 years.

Harris was a member of the Sigma Phi Epsilon chapter during his time at Ole Miss. After three of the chapter’s members were accused being involved with this incident, the national office of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity suspended the chapter. The names of the students were not released at the time but The Washington Post reported that all were expelled. Sigma Phi Epsilon CEO, Brian C. Warren Jr., said it was “embarrassing” that they were members. Harris withdrew from the university last spring following the incident.

Ole Miss officials stated that they turned the case over to federal prosecutors. Since the statue was not damaged or broken, prosecutors said vandalism charges didn’t apply, but the intimidation and conspiracy charges were applicable. There were also no state charges filed because no state laws were broken. James Meredith, who is now 81, said Friday that that it appears the only justice black people could expect is from the federal government and not from state officials.

When the indictment was first released, then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder explained his frustration stating:

This shameful and ignorant act is an insult to all Americans and a violation of our most strongly-held values. No one should ever be made to feel threatened or intimidated because of what they look like or who they are.

University of Mississippi Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Brandi Hephner LaBanc, said,

I can’t help but feel the pain of the student and the parents who will now feel the full weight of our justice system, but also feel the pain of our campus community and the entire Ole Miss family, which suffered greatly from the terrible act committed a year ago. We’re hopeful that this indictment will begin to bring closure and the next step in healing for our university.

Mississippi’s NAACP branch has called Harris’ actions a “racial hate crime.” FBI statistics relating to hate crimes show that nearly half of the victims were targeted because of their race. Hates crimes are happening everywhere for varied reasons such as the victim’s race, sexual orientation, and religion. Whether they occur at a college campus, workplace, or even at home it is important that those who commit these crimes are persecuted. Harris will pay the price for his actions, and hopefully dissuade others from committing similarly upsetting crimes.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Ole Miss Student to Pay the Price for Hate Crime appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, United States officials revealed that they believe Chinese hackers were responsible for the May cyber attacks on U.S. federal agencies. The attacks compromised the personal information of more than four million current and former government workers. China responded by dismissing such accusations as “groundless” and “irresponsible,” stopping just short of ensuring that China does not condone cyber attacks. “We are very firm on this,” said China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei. This is just the latest incident in a back-and-forth saga between the U.S. and China when it comes to cyber crimes.

Lei’s statement may not have been completely truthful. In May 2014, Lei released a similar response to the Justice Department’s indictment of five Chinese hackers for cyber crimes against five U.S. companies and a labor union in the steel, solar, and nuclear-power industries. According to the Guardian, “China’s foreign ministry called the allegations preposterous and accused the U.S. of double standards.” But the accused in the 2014 case were members of China’s People’s Liberation Army. In other words, their attacks do represent China engaging the United States. It is evident that the U.S. must take a firm stand against China’s aggression. Nevertheless, there are numerous challenges and implications to consider on that front.

For one, China’s assertion that the U.S. resentment of Chinese attacks represents a double standard is justified. Edward Snowden’s release of NSA files unveiled a surveillance program that spanned numerous countries, including China. In March of last year, Snowden leaked another document exposing the NSA’s penetration into the networks of Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies in search of evidence that the company was involved in espionage operations for Beijing. This complicates how far the U.S. can go to condemn China’s actions in the cyber sphere.

The potential costs of engaging China in cyber warfare are massive. Cyber attacks can threaten the control systems of dams, water-treatment plants, and power grids, compromise sensitive information stored on government networks, and access video surveillance cameras. Electronic door locks, elevators, and even life-sustaining medical devices are vulnerable to cyber attacks. While the U.S. rarely has to worry about war in its territory, in the cyber realm, physical boundaries are irrelevant. The statistics regarding the cost of cyber crimes are staggering. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates the annual cost of cybercrime and economic espionage to the world economy at $375-575 billion. Telecommunications giant IBM claims that there were 1.5 million monitored cyber attacks in the United States in 2013 alone. In a “60 Minutes” interview, FBI Director James Comey said, “There are two kinds of big companies in the United States. There are those who’ve been hacked by the Chinese, and those who don’t know they’ve been hacked by the Chinese.”

Political action is fraught with challenges, too. China, with its massive population and rapidly developing economy, lends itself to lucrative opportunities for American corporations. Consequently, the Chinese and U.S. economies are closely intertwined. According to the CIA World Factbook, China ships 17 percent of its exports to the U.S. and is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury bills, bonds, and notes. So, the government response to Chinese cyber attacks cannot deter China from doing business with American corporations. Germany’s cancellation of its longstanding contract with Verizon following Snowden’s NSA leaks serves as a cautionary tale, and the fact that most major Chinese corporations are government owned only further complicates the issue.

So, the U.S. government is left with few options. One thing it can do is encourage the development of cyber technology. The government should support programs such as the DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge, a competition aimed towards creating an automated cyber defense system, and incentivize the best cyber experts to work with the government by providing resources and appropriate compensation.

More importantly, the government needs to send the message that attacks on American networks will not be tolerated. This could mean under-the-table threats of retaliation to avoid negative media attention. Fear of retaliation should deter Chinese attacks, and if attacks persist, the government can deny visas to Chinese citizens, limit military ties, or implement economic sanctions. It is important to keep the campaign low-key and ensure that economic sanctions do not incite an aggressive Chinese response.

Examples of the United States asserting itself following a breach of security are littered throughout history; the U.S. defeat of Japan following Pearl Harbor and the assassination of Osama bin Laden following 9/11 demonstrated that we are not afraid to track down and engage our enemies. It is time to assert our status as the world’s leading superpower once again.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Needs to Take a Firm Stand Against China on Cyber Attacks appeared first on Law Street.

Portions of a law known as the Patriot Act were allowed to expire on May 31, 2015. The Patriot Act is one of the most controversial laws in U.S. history, originating in a time of fear and later being at the heart of leaks by Edward Snowden that revealed a massive data gathering effort by the NSA of Americans’ information. Read on to learn more about what exactly the Patriot Act is, where it originated from, and the future outlook of its laws.

The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is one of most divisive laws passed in recent history; however, like many other boogeymen, the actual details of what it entails are unclear to much of the American public. So what exactly is the Patriot Act?

What is the Patriot Act?

The USA Patriot Act or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, was passed in October 2001. The act dramatically expanded the ability of the United States government to conduct surveillance and investigate citizens without their knowledge.

Unlike similar preceding pieces of legislation, this act lacked the familiar protections that preserve rights in the face of legislation; its statutes were also hard to define and limit. This was due to the speed at which the law passed through congress and was signed by President George W. Bush. The bill was passed quickly due to widespread fear mongering immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attack on U.S. soil, including on the part of Attorney General John Ashcroft who warned any delay could result in another devastating attack.  Watch the video below for more details on the Patriot Act.

Illegality

In the first legal challenge to the act, despite it being in place since 2001, a three-judge panel ruled the law illegal. The panel, however, did not say the law was unconstitutional; instead that the federal government’s mass-data collections had gone beyond what the original creators of the act envisioned when they signed it into law. This is an important distinction in that it effectively says that lawmakers have power to create such an all-encompassing law, but that the Patriot Act was no such law.

Expired Provisions

While the recent ruling may have impacted the decision to let parts of the law expire, the Patriot Act was actually created with built in sunset provisions that were designed to expire unless extended by congress. Thus, after much deliberation, key components of the act were allowed to expire. One such aspect was the so-called Lone Wolf provision, which basically allowed the U.S. intelligence system to monitor individual people even if they had no known terrorist affiliation. This clause was supposedly never used and it was only allowable against non-citizens.

Another major aspect allowed to expire was the roving wiretap. As the name implied, it allowed the surveillance network to maintain taps on any one of a person’s devices, not just a single phone.

Probably the most well-known provision of the law allowed to expire was section 215. This section was the grounds the NSA used to collect data on a large number of Americans without their express permission, even if they were not suspected of terrorism or of any other crime. This section had also been used by agencies such as the CIA and FBI to track financial records of suspected terrorists and criminals.  The video below highlights what provisions of the Patriot Act will expire and what that means, specifically in relation to section 215.

Its Future and Its Successors

While these unpopular parts of the Patriot Act were allowed to expire, a similar successor was quickly passed. Known as the Freedom Act, this new law allows for greater transparency and puts the onus for compiling phone records on companies. Additionally, the Freedom Act also requires the disclosure of how often data collection is requested and allows for more opinions from judges from the mysterious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In the aftermath of the expiration of parts of the Patriot Act and following the passage of the Freedom Act, opinions quickly poured in. While those who supported the Patriot Act claim that this has led to a degradation in U.S. security, many others actually view the two bills as essentially the same. In fact, for this latter group, the new Freedom Act does little more than privatize the collection of people’s data while offering the vaguest efforts at greater transparency. Under the Patriot Act, the NSA was compiling the data, but now the onus will fall on the telecom companies themselves. Now the companies will store the data and whenever the NSA or FBI wants to use it they will need to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Aside from changing who collects the data, the new law really does not do much. This new collection method may actually cost more due to private inefficiencies and also the money the government will pay the companies for their efforts. It also protects these same companies, such as AT&T, from lawsuits. Meaning, regardless of opinion, Americans may now be paying more money to spy on themselves. The video below explains the specifics of the new Freedom Act, even suggesting that it might lead to more widespread surveillance.

When the Freedom Act successfully passed through congress, despite repeated efforts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, President Barack Obama immediately signed the legislation. While he and others in the government and business community lauded the new act and its potential for greater oversight and transparency, the reality remains to be seen.

The Origins of the Act

Most people associate the Patriot Act with the events of 9/11. In actuality, many of the ideas contained in the act had been debated for years but had not won the necessary support. The Patriot Act was actually the result of a compromise over another proposed bill known as the Anti-terrorism Act. Nevertheless, while the events of 9/11 did not necessarily spawn the ideas for the Patriot Act, they did serve as the catalyst to convince lawmakers that a law of that type was at last needed to prevent any further attacks.

However, how they came to this decision and how it was passed has only added fuel to the fire of those who find it controversial and even illegal. The law was originally introduced to congress by Ashcroft, who gave congress a week to pass the bill or risk the consequences of another attack. Members in both houses attempted to make changes to the law, but most were scrapped in order to meet the deadline. Certainly no one wanted to be responsible for another terrorist attack against the United States due to idleness.

While the law itself has generated controversy, extending its provision has also led to extended debates. In 2009 when it was first up for review, certain provisions were set to expire, which led to a lengthy debate and even a delayed vote. In the end, though, President Obama reauthorized the act in 2010 for one more year.

The president had another opportunity the following year, in 2011, to refuse to authorize the act or at least to add amendments. One such amendment, suggested by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), called for government oversight and transparency for how the act was used by the FBI. Leahy had actually been the one leading the charge for more oversight measures for the original act, too. Despite these attempts, the amendment was ignored once more and President Obama confirmed the act yet again.

Public Sentiment

An act this controversial and requiring so much support would seem to be a likely candidate for the legislative trash heap; however, even following the disclosure made by Edward Snowden about the NSA monitoring civilians’ phones, this law is still far from unpopular. In fact, the opposite is true. In light of the act expiring, CNN polled people across party lines to gather their opinions. According to that poll, 61 percent of people felt the law should have been renewed.

Additionally, while lawmakers in Washington did not agree that the Patriot Act as it was originally constructed should be renewed, they did agree that something similar was still needed to support America’s anti-terrorism efforts. In an odd coupling, Democrats and Tea-Party Republicans united to defeat the expiring Patriot Act and then pass its successor, the Freedom Act. While the Freedom Act was overwhelmingly passed, small groups on both sides held out. On one side were those in the old-guard of Republicans, such as McConnell and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who felt the Patriot Act should have been renewed as it was. Conversely, some legislators such as Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) wanted it scrapped altogether. Paul and his like-minded supporters viewed the whole program as an example of government overreach.

The public and congress therefore still view the Patriot Act and its successor as necessary and vital to national security, even after the Snowden revelations revealed that security is coming at a cost to everyone’s privacy.

Conclusion

The Patriot Act is an extremely controversial law, passed during a time of public terror in the wake of the greatest attack on the United States in the nation’s history. The law itself gave the American intelligence community widespread powers to spy on and investigate its own citizens, without discretion and often without reason.

After much public outcry, the most contested parts of the law were allowed to die off; however, its  successor the Freedom Act guarantees nearly the same all-encompassing powers for the intelligence community, while merely shifting the effort to compile data onto communications companies. All this, even in the face of revelations, that data compiled through the Patriot Act did not aid in any major terror investigation.

Sources

Primary

Electronic Privacy Information Center: USA Patriot Act

Additional

USA Today: Here’s what happens now that the Patriot Act provisions expired

Reuters: USA Freedom Act vs. expired Patriot Act Provisions: How Do the Spy Laws Differ?

Daily Tech: Despite Support From Senator Sanders, Senator Paul Loses USA Freedom Act Fight

Politifact: Revise the Patriot Act to Increase Oversight on Government Surveillance

CNN: Six in Ten Back Renewal of NSA Data Collection

Law Street Media: NSA’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal

NPR: NSA’s Bulk Collection of American’s Phone Data is illegal, appeals court rules

Business Insider: Obama’s Signature on the Freedom Act Reverses Security Policy That Has Been in Place Since 9/11

CNN: NSA Surveillance Bill Passes After Weeks-Long Showdown

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Expiration of Patriot Act Reignites Security v. Privacy Debate in America appeared first on Law Street.

In a groundbreaking article released on Sunday, the Washington Post reported the findings of a five-month study showing that from January through May 2015, at least 385 people were shot and killed by on-duty police officers in the U.S. The rate of killings, more than two per day, is also more than twice the rate reported by the FBI in the last decade. In addition to the possibility of a spike in police killings, the Post points to the lack of accuracy in past reporting for the disparity. The article also mentions that the FBI itself is aware that its numbers are incomplete, particularly because these statistics are voluntarily submitted by police departments.

Other studies, including a project by the Guardian called The Counted, also reveal the incredible rate of uncounted police shootings. In a period of public outcry over police brutality, it is no coincidence that this issue is finally being addressed. By not requiring accurate statistics to be maintained, the government is only reinforcing public fears of a lack of police accountability. Understanding the extent of this problem is the first step toward being able to properly discuss and analyze it.

The Post study also found some troubling patterns in these shootings. Nearly a quarter of the victims were identified by police or family members as mentally ill. Among the cases identified by the Post, 16 percent of the victims were either unarmed or were carrying toy weapons. Both the the Post and the Guardian investigations highlight the disproportionate killings of blacks and Hispanics, particularly in shootings with unarmed victims. Police treatment of mentally ill suspects and minorities have become a widespread issue on which these studies begin to provide insight.

Although these reports sparked some public outrage, it is important to remember the big picture. More than 80 percent of those killed by police were armed with potentially lethal objects, which likely makes police action justified in many situations.

Police shootings are a complex and nuanced issue. Comparisons between the United States and other nations are not incredibly informative given the vast differences in weapon ownership, crime, and various other characteristics. Furthermore, the demonization of police officers to which some citizens resort, is neither reasonable nor helpful in dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, limiting police shootings is certainly a laudable goal, and gathering accurate data is the best place to start.

Let us not forget the harmful consequences that officer-involved shootings can have on police departments and individual officers. Police officers face the damage–particularly emotional damage–that can be inflicted when they are compelled to use deadly force. Moreover, the divide that such events creates between law enforcement and their communities can be detrimental to their ability to function. Unnecessary police shootings are a losing situation for all sides and must be addressed by law enforcement.

One issue that relates directly to these shootings is police officer training. This issue was addressed from a unique perspective in an article on Police One by Roy Bedard, a close quarters and field tactics specialist who trains police, corrections officers, and military professionals. He cites his own rookie officer training and the training that most new officers receive on handgun use. Officers are trained to fire for the center of mass in order to “shoot to stop,” yet Bedard comments on how “shoot to stop” and “shoot to kill” become synonymous in practice.  With this training, it is no surprise that rough encounters with police have resulted in so many deaths.

It would be foolish to blame police shootings solely on training and decisions made by police officers. In high-intensity situations with civilian lives on the line, as well as their own, police officers must quickly determine the best course of action for all involved. Sometimes this means shooting suspects. Sometimes these shootings save lives and that must not be forgotten. Nevertheless, it is important for police departments to train their officers to use deadly force as sparingly as possible. Many of the cases cited by the Washington Post, as well as several recent high-profile police shootings, point to officers using unnecessary force, which is troubling.

On Tuesday, following growing publicity of these reports, two senators announced their plan to introduce legislation that would require states to report all police-related deaths to the Justice Department. This bill, proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) would require all details of these cases to be reported, including age, race, sex, and the situation surrounding the shooting. With more accurate information, law enforcement will be able to understand the true scope of police shootings and take any necessary steps to reduce them.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Number of Americans Killed By Police is Much Higher Than You Think appeared first on Law Street.

A man who was under terror surveillance in Boston was shot and killed by a police officer and an FBI agent earlier this afternoon. This man was a part of a broader terrorism investigation involving suspected Islamist extremists. This man was identified as Usaama Rahim by a spokesperson for the Council of American-Islamic Relations.

The justification for the officials’ actions resulting in this man’s death focuses on their perceptions that Rahim was a threat to public safety, since he allegedly wielded a large, black knife at the time of the incident. According to CNN, Rahim was asked numerous times to drop his weapon but because he refused to do so both the police officer and FBI agent opened fire.

Police Commissioner William Evans claimed that “he came at the officers and, you know, they do what they were trained to do and, unfortunately, they had to take a life.”

This statement begs the question, both to Evans and to police departments everywhere, what type of situation justifies any police officers actions’ that result in the death of a man who hasn’t been proven guilty? This man was under terror surveillance, but considering the United States’ disputable track record on finding evidence regarding terrorist efforts, these actions could still be unconstitutional.

The Model Penal Code is normally used to guide the actions of police officers in assessing whether or not resorting to deadly force is the appropriate response in dangerous circumstances. According to the code, officers should only use force when the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in the arrest may harm other people. Deadly force is considered acceptable when it is believed to be the only solution to resolving a dangerous situation that could harm innocent bystanders.

In this particular shooting, killing Rahim could be justified by the police because he was wielding a large, black knife, forcing the officers to open fire. But is waving a knife, with no hostages and no bystanders in the immediate vicinity, a valid enough rationale to take someone’s life? Commissioner Evans claimed that Rahim came “within the proximity” for the officers to use deadly force. But what distance is considered within the proximity to kill? These are all questions that demand answers.

In addition to these questionable circumstances, Rahim was a suspected Islamic extremist under terror surveillance. The FBI agent who participated in the shooting was surely aware of this fact, but the same cannot be said for the Boston police officer. Rahim’s identity as a Muslim cannot be ignored when evaluating the police officer and FBI agent’s justifications for their actions. The lethal combination of Rahim’s Muslim faith and questionable terrorist ties could easily work in the police department’s favor. At the time of his death, Rahim had not been convicted of any terrorist actions, so his death at the hands of Boston and federal officials should not be considered constitutional.

Racial or ethnic profiling may have been a factor in this shooting as well. It is also noteworthy that this case occurred just over two years after the Boston Bombing, which has had a lasting (and justified) impact on perceptions of terrorist attacks throughout the U.S. Although news sources have not yet revealed why Rahim was under surveillance, a mere suspicion that he was involved with terrorist activity does not legitimize his death.

One of the most prevalent issues in holding the police officer and FBI agent accountable in this situation is the complex relationship between the police department and judicial court system. In the 1930 Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, a sheriff faced a lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. His defense was that he had used deadly force “to defend himself.” The court ruled in his favor. This case set precedent for lax rulings in favor of police officers, despite the officer’s controversial actions.

This storyline coincides with other court cases of police officers claiming self defense after having killed a subject of an arrest, such as Tamir Rice and Michael Brown. All of these incidents speak to the larger problem of police officers abusing their position of authority and power at the expense of civilians.

Police departments need to undergo reformation, especially regarding their veracious use of deadly force. Regardless of whether or not Rahim was guilty of the things he was suspected of doing, there were presumably ways to detain him without taking his life. Whether it be using a gun, rough rides, or chokeholds, police departments must develop new tactics that put deadly force at the bottom of the totem pole, thereby protecting citizens instead of victimizing them.

Emily Dalgo also contributed to this story.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Boston Police Shooting of Usaama Rahim: Protection or Victimization? appeared first on Law Street.

A mysterious “past misconduct” forces one powerful politician down a dark road to keep his secret hidden with an illegal cover up costing millions. It sounds like the kind of synopsis you’d find on the back of a thrilling conspiracy novel, but it actually summarizes the contents of a federal grand jury’s seven page indictment served to former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert on Thursday .

According to the Washington Post, Hastert, 73, is charged with scheming to conceal $950,000 in withdrawals from various accounts, which violates federal banking laws requiring the disclosure of any large cash transactions. These withdrawals were part of the reported $1.7 million in cash paid by Hastert over five years to an undisclosed person referred to only as “Individual A,” whom he’d wronged in the past. Sources are now claiming that he’d committed sexual misconduct against the individual.

In 2010, Hastert met with Individual A and was confronted with his “past misconduct,” which he allegedly agreed to pay $3.5 million in order to conceal. At one point he was reportedly paying $100,000 every three months to this person, according to the indictment.

The indictment did made a point to mention Hastert’s 26 year stint as a high school teacher and coach in Yorkville, Illinois, that this individual has been a resident of Yorkville, and has known Hastert for most of their life.

Hastert was a well regarded politician and tobacco and energy lobbyist who is best known for being the longest running Republican speaker in the history of the U.S. House, but in 2013 the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service began investigating him for “possible structuring of currency transactions to avoid the reporting requirements.”

According to the Post,

In addition to the banking charges, Hastert faces a count for making ‘false, fictitious and fraudulent statements’ to federal investigators during an interview last December in which he was questioned about the many cash withdrawals for less than $10,000, just under the amounts that would have triggered disclosure requirements.

When asked about these withdrawals Hastert told investigators he made them “because he did not feel safe with the banking system,” saying,

Yeah…I kept the cash. That’s what I’m doing.

We’ll have to wait for the arraignment to see how he will plea, but the U.S. Attorney Office in Chicago said that if convicted  on both counts he could face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

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 Former Speaker Dennis Hastert Indicted Over These Mysterious Payments appeared first on Law Street.

For people choosing to travel via air, security on the plane is of the utmost importance. That is why news of a security researcher claiming he was able hack into the computer systems of several airplanes while aboard is really scaring some air travelers, and setting law enforcement on edge.

#CyberSecurity Researcher Hacks and Controls Plane – Hero or Villain? http://t.co/4eKMmkJAdb pic.twitter.com/K32kB5g0I4

— vpnforus (@vpnforus) May 18, 2015

Wired magazine reported that Chris Roberts, a security researcher with One World Labs, first told the FBI in February that he was able to hack the in-flight entertainment system (IFE) and control parts of the plane while aboard various airlines. Roberts claims that he conducted the research in order to expose the potential vulnerabilities in in-flight software. In an FBI search warrant application for Robert’s digital devices and data FBI Special Agent Mark Hurley details Roberts’ previous hacking attempts, writing:

He [Roberts] stated that he thereby caused one of the airplane engines to climb resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during one of these flights. He also stated that he used Vortex software after comprising/exploiting or ‘hacking’ the airplane’s networks. He used the software to monitor traffic from the cockpit system.

The search warrant was filed after Roberts was removed from a United Airlines flight from Denver  after sending out a tweet while aboard, joking about hacking the plane and setting off the emergency oxygen masks.

According to CNN, FBI agents tracked down his plane after being informed of the tweet and “found signs of tampering and damage to electronic control boxes that connect to in-flight entertainment systems.” The boxes tampered with just so happened to be under where Roberts was sitting and the seat in front of him. Despite this, Roberts insists he did not hack that particular flight.

At the time FBI agents also seized two laptop computers and several hard drives and USB sticks from Roberts without a search warrant, telling Roberts that a warrant was pending. It’s the information in that newly obtained warrant that is cause for concern.

In the warrant, Roberts is quoted as telling the FBI that he accessed the in-flight networks more than a dozen times between 2011 and 2014 and had briefly commandeered a plane during one of those flights. This contradicts an interview he had previously given to Wired, where he claimed he had only explored the networks and observed data traffic.

However, some aircraft experts seriously doubt Roberts was able to hack IFEs in order to commandeer a plane. Business Insider reports that industry expert Peter Lemme told “Runway Girl Network” blogger Mary Kirby that  “the IFE ARINC 429 interfaces are not capable of changing automatic flight control modes” and “the claim that the Thrust Management System mode was changed without a command from the pilot through the mode control panel, or while coupled to the Flight Management System is inconceivable.” Boeing has issued statements saying that its entertainment systems are isolated from flight and navigation systems. CNN writes,

It is worth noting that Boeing airplanes have more than one navigational system available to pilots. No changes to the flight plans loaded into the airplane systems can take place without pilot review and approval. In addition, other systems, multiple security measures, and flight deck operating procedures help ensure safe and secure airplane operations.

If Roberts is not exaggerating his hacking claims, these IFEs do pose a very plausible threat to aircraft security that needs to be addressed. So far no charges have been filed against Roberts, but he could end up in some serious trouble for conducting these unauthorized tests. If he did hack those planes with passengers aboard, and in one instance even tilt the plane, he was irresponsibly putting numerous lives at stake.

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 Security Researcher Sparks Fear With This Plane Security Hack appeared first on Law Street.

When our country’s highest regarded forensic technicians testify that they’ve found incriminating forensic DNA matches, that testimony is usually considered courtroom gold. However, a new investigation into a history of potentially flawed testimony given by the FBI has revealed incredibly damning evidence that could cripple the agency’s reputation for years to come.

The Justice Department and the FBI have officially acknowledged that an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials where it offered evidence against a criminal defendant. The evidence dates back to before 2000, and is being called one of the country’s largest forensic scandals to date.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project teamed up to assist the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence. Their findings were startling. According to the Washington Post, the FBI has admitted that 26 out of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.

Overall, the FBI identified for review approximately 2,500 cases in which the FBI Lab reported a hair match. Current findings found flawed testimony was given in 257 of 268 trials. Of those, 342 defendants’ cases have been completed, and include 32 defendants sentenced to death. Fourteen defendants have been executed or died in prison. There are now about 1,200 cases awaiting review.

According to the Washington Post, defendants and federal and state prosecutors in 46 states and the District are being notified to determine whether this new information offers opportunities for appeal. But the defendants shouldn’t necessarily expect to be exonerated. The FBI’s erroneous testimony may not have been the only evidentiary factor contributing to their guilty verdicts.

Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, commented on the investigation into the FBI to the Post saying,

The FBI’s three-decade use of microscopic hair analysis to incriminate defendants was a complete disaster…We need an exhaustive investigation that looks at how the FBI, state governments that relied on examiners trained by the FBI and the courts allowed this to happen and why it wasn’t stopped much sooner.

Part of the problem plaguing the FBI’s forensic unit is the ability for a hair sample to appear to be a “near certain” match, when in actuality its authenticity cannot be confirmed. The Washington Post writes,

The review confirmed that FBI experts systematically testified to the near-certainty of ‘matches’ of crime-scene hairs to defendants, backing their claims by citing incomplete or misleading statistics drawn from their case work.

In reality, there is no accepted research on how often hair from different people may appear the same. Since 2000, the lab has used visual hair comparison to rule out someone as a possible source of hair or in combination with more accurate DNA testing

This sheer percentage of these cases linked to flawed testimony is frightening and calls into question the actual level of “justice” our justice system has provided for these defendants. The government taking responsibility for over three decades of mistakes was a good first step, but we’re still waiting to see how the state authorities and the courts respond to these findings.

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 FBI Scandal: Agency Admits to Flawed Forensic Testimony appeared first on Law Street.