Connecticut Supreme Court Says Cops Need Warrants To Run Drug Dogs Around Motel Room Doors

from the probable-cause-needed-to-deploy-probable-cause-on-four-legs dept

Drug dogs are man's best friend, if that man happens to be The Man. "Probable cause on four legs" is the unofficial nickname of these clever non-pets, which give signals only their handlers can detect which give cops permission to perform searches that otherwise would require a warrant.

They're normally seen at traffic stops and border checkpoints, but they're also used to sniff other places cops want to search but don't want to get a warrant to do so. This has led to a few legal issues for law enforcement, with courts occasionally reminding them that a dog sniff is a search and, if the wrong place is sniffed, it's a constitutional violation.

The top court in Connecticut has curtailed the use of drug dogs in certain areas, finding that sniffs are still searches and these searches are unreasonable under the state constitution if performed in certain areas -- namely outside the doors of motel rooms. (via FourthAmendment.com)

In this case, police officers allowed their dog to sniff at doors of motel rooms until it alerted on a door. Using this quasi-permission, officers entered the room and found contraband. The government argued that even if it was a search, it was performed in a place (a hotel or motel) where citizens would have a lowered expectation of privacy, considering the fact the rooms are only rented, utilized for only a short time, and accessible by hotel staff.

In a really well-written opinion [PDF], the court reminds the government that a lowered expectation of privacy is not the same as a nonexistent expectation of privacy. And, more importantly, it reminds them that, while motel rooms may not have the sanctity of people's permanent homes, it is a home away from home and afforded more protection than, say, a car parked on the curb of a public road.

The court addresses all of the government's arguments and finds none of them persuasive.

First, the state asserts that, in contrast to an apartment, a motel room most often serves merely as transitory quarters rather than a private, permanent residence. Although we agree generally with this observation, it is well settled that motel guests, like home dwellers, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their rooms. The fact that a motel is not a home when, as is ordinarily the case, a stay there is temporary, does not, ipso facto, establish the scope of the privacy that transient motel guests reasonably may expect.

Holding otherwise would allow cops to engage in all sorts of searches simply by claiming one thing is not as private as another thing.

Indeed, this court previously has recognized that those aspects of a hotel or motel that reduce a guest’s expectations of privacy but do not increase the vulnerability of guests to the particular type of intrusion at issue are irrelevant in assessing the legality of that intrusion. If it were otherwise, the only guidance that courts would have in determining whether certain conduct by the police constituted an unlawful search of a motel room would be the vague and conclusory statement that motel guests have a diminished expectation of privacy as compared to residents of private homes.

That reference to the "particular type of intrusion" is also fatal to the government's third argument, which said that because conversations can be overheard due to close proximity to other rooms and that hotel staff can enter rooms and find contraband, the shared hallways are places cops can let drug dogs legally roam. But a drug dog's sniff is not either of the state's examples, so the analogy is not only bogus, but an unlawful presumption.

We do not agree, however, that a room occupied by a motel guest is more vulnerable to a warrantless canine sniff than an apartment, condominium or house simply because other guests occupy nearby rooms or because the rooms may be entered by motel staff to perform certain functions unless guests place a ‘‘Do Not Disturb’’ sign on the door.

And, while motel rooms necessarily won't contain the long list of personal effects and papers people store in their homes, they're far from devoid of personal effects.

Again, such guests ordinarily do not keep all of their personal effects in their rooms because a motel room frequently is a temporary accommodation or lodging and not the guest’s permanent residence. That fact, however, does not mandate the conclusion that the personal effects that guests often do keep there—no matter how private or personal they may be—should be subject to appreciably less protection under the law. On the contrary, we see no reason why a motel guest reasonably cannot expect a degree of privacy in his or her room sufficient to preclude random or arbitrary intrusions by the police.

The court affirms the sniff was a search and it was not permissible just because officers could access the hallways and walkways outside of the motel rooms without a warrant.

We see no reason why the fact that the police in the present case were lawfully present in an open-air walkway abutting the defendant’s motel room makes any appreciable difference with respect to this analysis. The relevant question is not how easy it may be to gain lawful access to the door of a particular dwelling or lodging, but what conduct those occupying that space reasonably may expect from persons who actually have such access.

Finally, the court points out that even the government doesn't believe its own arguments. If it did, it would not have implied that it would find this sort of behavior by law enforcement objectionable on some level.

We note, in addition, that, if the state were correct that a canine sniff of the exterior door of a motel room is an event altogether lacking in constitutional significance, the police would be entitled to roam through the corridors of a motel conducting canine sniffs of some or all of the doors to those rooms despite having no particularized cause to believe that any of them contained drugs. In tacit acknowledgment that our citizenry would find this conduct unacceptable, the state asserts that there is no reason to believe that the police in Connecticut would engage in such a trawling exercise, even though they could do so lawfully.

If the state finds its own arguments conducive to objectionable behavior by law enforcement officers, the court can't be expected to sign off on it.

Even if we shared the state’s confidence in that regard, however, the fact that it would be legally permissible for the police to go from door to door conducting suspicionless canine sniffs throughout the motel is itself reason to doubt the soundness of the state’s constitutional argument.

The end result for Connecticut cops? Warrants are needed for drug dog sniffs in situations like these. Reasonable suspicion is not enough.

[W]e are not persuaded that an exemption from the warrant requirement should be extended to a canine sniff of the exterior door to a motel room, as the state advocates. We believe, rather, that, in the present context, the ‘‘balance between law enforcement interests and [an individual’s] privacy interests . . . tips in favor’’ of the latter, given that ‘‘our state constitutional preference for warrants [occupies the] dominant place in that balance . . . .’’ Accordingly, we reject the state’s claim that a canine sniff of the exterior door to a motel room is lawful if supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion and conclude, instead, that such a search satisfies state constitutional requirements only if it follows the issuance of a warrant founded on probable cause.

That's the standard in the state now. Law enforcement officers need to seek a warrant to run a drug dog around near hotel/motel room doors. The expectation of privacy isn't as elevated as when a person is in their own home, but there's still enough of an expectation that officers can no longer assume rooms used temporarily and accessible by employees are also accessible to them without any additional paperwork or probable cause.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, connecticut, drug dogs, drugs, law enforcement, motels, police, warrant

Connecticut Court Orders Blogger To Turn Over Electronic Devices To Cop Suing Over Alleged Defamation By Blog's Commenters

from the all-the-wrong-that's-fit-to-issue-as-an-order dept

Things are getting dumber and way less constitutional in a defamation lawsuit filed by a Connecticut law enforcement officer. Lt. Vincent Benvenuto -- despite being the beneficiary of all the official and codified protection and forgiveness government workers only seem willing to give to other government employees -- sued a blogger, demanding the blogger hand over identifying information on commenters who offended the Lieutenant.

Commenters at the We the People Hartford blog -- run by Hartford resident Kevin Brookman -- made allegations that Benvenuto was a bad cop. The cop sued, and targeted the site's owner as if he was personally responsible for users' comments. The comments Benvenuto sued over said -- basically -- that Benvenuto was a cop.

While an officer with the New York Police Department, the comment read, Benvenuto “was racist so they kept him out of queens and Bronx.” Other comments accused the 12-year Hartford police veteran of sleeping on the job, leaking information and making racist and threatening comments.

Any cop accused of racism who decides to take litigious offense to that sort of heated rhetoric hasn't been paying attention. Or if they have been paying attention, they're too thin-skinned to be entrusted with the powers they've been granted. To be a cop is to hold an occupation long associated with bigotry and racism. Most law enforcement agencies can trace their origins back to being tasked with ensuring slave owners maintained control of their slaves. The years have passed, but most police activity still disproportionately targets minorities and provides support for the white status quo. So, to be accused of racism is pretty much inseparable from being accused of being a cop.

That summary of accusations by the Hartford Courant is the short version. The long version can be read in Benvenuto's lawsuit, which lists a whole bunch of presumed causes of action, but none that directly implicate the blog owner. All he did was run a blog. If commenters defamed Benvenuto, the cop is free to sue them directly. But he hasn't done that. He has brought the blog owner to court in hopes of forcing him to turn over information on commenters.

That lawsuit is a mess. Some of its runtime involves accusing commenters of violating Hartford PD policies, suggesting Benvenuto thinks coworkers who don't like him are complaining about him in the comment section of the blog. If so, this is something to be handled by the PD, not by litigation. And, also if so, this suggests Benvenuto is the racist jerkwad commenters allege him to be, because who would know better than the people who work with him?

Some really good questions have been raised by this litigation, but only by people who have covered the lawsuit, rather than the plaintiff or the judge. Unfuckingfortunately, the judge handling the case is apparently easily swayed by the pleadings of an unhappy cop who can't be bothered to direct his energy at the people who allegedly defamed him.

A Connecticut judge has ordered blogger Kevin Brookman — a frequent critic of the Hartford Police Department — to turn over his laptop and cellphone as part of a police lieutenant’s quest to identify and sue anonymous commenters who disparaged him on Brookman’s site.

No doubt this ridiculous and harmful order will be challenged. Almost undoubtedly, the next level in the state court system will return a What The Actual Fuck ruling that forbids the officer from taking possession of the blogger's electronic devices. But, for the time being, the order stands. And it stands as a blatant assault on First Amendment rights, as well as a complete rejection of longstanding Section 230 case law.

No shelter says the judge… because reasons.

“The accusation of racism is particularly offensive in the context of the Hartford Police department which must not only remain free from bias against its own members but also the public at large,” Superior Court Judge Cesar Noble wrote in his decision.

The accusation may be offensive but it's up to the PD to dissuade people that it's racist. Allowing an easily offended cop to commandeer the electronics of a person who did not actually make accusations of racism is a complete perversion of the judicial process. The court is not there to shield the police department for accusations of racism. It is there to determine whether there's any truth to these accusations -- and only when it actually has the accusers in court. All it has right now is the plaintiff and someone the plaintiff has decided to take legal action against, even though this person did not make these claims.

This is nothing more than the court giving someone with an immense amount of power even more power. And for what? To shield the officer and the department he works for from accusations from still-anonymous commenters that racism exists within the PD. This is a terrible ruling and it will only encourage other offended cops in the region to file baseless lawsuits targeting people who should be non-parties. And that's why it's unlikely to survive even the most cursory challenge.

Undoubtedly, it will be difficult for the officer to identify the people behind the supposedly defamatory contents. But that is the way it should be. Anonymous commenting should be protected and, indeed it is, especially in the context of criticizing government employees. Section 230 should make the blog owner immune from bullshit like this, but this has been all too conveniently ignored by the presiding judge -- one who apparently believes the only immunity worth awarding here is one shielding a cop shop from its critics.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anonymity, anonymous comments, cesar noble, comments, connecticut, defamation, hartford, hartford pd, hartford police department, kevin brookman, section 230, vincent benvenuto

High School Responds To Student's Prank By Asking Local Law Enforcement To Step In And Investigate

from the now-who's-acting-like-a-child? dept

I see we're still handling things stupidly when it comes to school disciplinary problems. For years now, many schools have been steadily abdicating their responsibilities, allowing in-school law enforcement (commonly called "School Resource Officers") to hand out discipline that school administrators used to handle themselves.

This hasn't worked out well for students. It has turned standard discipline problems into police matters and given students a head start on having their futures ruined for juvenile (in all senses of the word) mistakes.

Recently, a high school in Glastonbury, Connecticut was horrified to find it had been pranked. The Hartford Courant's first pass at the breaking news opened with this:

An inappropriate quote has halted distribution of Glastonbury High School’s 2021 yearbooks and police have been called to investigate, the principal confirmed Monday.

How does an "inappropriate quote" become the subject of a police investigation? The rest of the reporting didn't explain. Neither did school administrators. But they did hint it had something to do with bullying.

A student using a false name submitted the quote printed in the yearbook, which was being distributed, Principal Nancy Bean wrote to students and parents on Friday.

Bean would not describe the quote, but she wrote, “We are saddened and distressed by what happened. Acts of bias, bullying and cruelty are not acceptable at our school. We are committed to ensuring all Glastonbury High School students feel safe and supported.”

While it may have been possible some sort of stalking or harassment was taking place that might have merited a law enforcement response, the principal's explanation that the quote had been "submitted" by a student using a fake name suggested nothing more than a bored student taking the high school for a ride.

Later reporting filled in more details. But it still didn't explain why the school felt compelled to involve the police. Nor did it explain why the police felt compelled to remain involved.

A quote by Adolf Hitler inserted into Glastonbury High School’s 2021 yearbooks has halted distribution of the yearbook and police have been called to investigate.

A student using a false name submitted the quote printed in the yearbook, which was being distributed, Principal Nancy Bean wrote to students and parents on Friday. The quote under a student’s photo was attributed to George Floyd, the Black man killed by police one year ago in Minnesota, a photo of the yearbook entry sent to The Courant Monday afternoon showed.

That it involved George Floyd's name and Adolph Hitler's words still doesn't make it a crime. And, again, the principal said a student "submitted" the quote. Those vetting the yearbook before publication failed to catch it. A prank isn't a crime, no matter how terrible it made administrators feel once they realized they'd been tricked into publishing (and distributing) a Hitler quote.

Since the original reporting, a few more details have come to light. And there's still nothing that suggests a criminal act has occurred. It only suggests the school needs better editors and/or a more tightly-controlled submission system.

In an email to the school community, Glastonbury High School’s principal and the district’s superintendent said the quote — which appeared under a student’s photo — was submitted by a different student using a false name. They said they also uncovered an offensive quote glorifying war and an entry, which referenced the “Boston Bomber.” The district’s priority is supporting the students, who were victimized by this act.

Fast forward to a couple of days past the point of the original reporting and a new narrative is being developed, possibly to justify the involvement of law enforcement.

A letter released by the Glastonbury school superintendent said the student gained access to a computer system and submitted a quote from Adolf Hitler, but falsely attributed the message to George Floyd.

"Gained access." That's incredibly vague. If a student had hacked a secure system or accessed administrative systems they had no authority to access, it might be a crime. But only "might." And only if prosecutors are willing to abuse badly-written laws to convert a prank into criminal charges.

The Glastonbury Police were a little more direct in the statement given to Newsweek:

"Although we find the quote to be disturbing, our criminal investigation is not focused on the content of the quote itself, but instead we are focused on investigating the unauthorized access of a computer system through which students submitted their quotes to be published in the yearbook."

This still doesn't explain anything. The official statement from the school superintendent makes no mention of unauthorized access. It also notes the student has already been punished by the school for this prank. All the letter says is the student used a fake name to submit fake quotes. That's not illegal, no matter how embarrassed school officials feel. And this never would have been the end result if schools hadn't become increasingly comfortable outsourcing their disciplinary problems.

Filed Under: cfaa, connecticut, glastonbury, hacking, kids, police, pranks, school resource officers, schools, students, unauthorized access

Connecticut Legislature Offers Up Bill That Would Make Prison Phone Calls Free

from the let's-get-this-trending! dept

A lot of rights just vanish into the ether once you're incarcerated. Some of this makes sense. You have almost no privacy rights when being housed by the state. Your cell can be searched and your First Amendment right to freedom of association can be curtailed in order to prevent criminal conspiracies from being implemented behind bars.

But rights don't disappear completely. The government has an obligation to make sure you're cared for and fed properly -- something that rarely seems to matter to jailers.

Treating people as property has negative outcomes. Not only are "good" prisoners expected to work for pennies a day, but their families are expected to absorb outlandish expenses just to remain in contact with their incarcerated loved ones. The government loves its paywalls and it starts with prison phone services.

Cellphone adoption changed the math for service providers. After a certain point, customers were unwilling to pay per text message. And long distance providers realized they could do almost nothing to continue to screw over phone users who called people outside of their area codes. Some equity was achieved once providers realized "long distance" was only a figure of profitable speech and text messages were something people expected to be free, rather than a service that paid phone companies per character typed.

But if you're in prison, it's still 1997. The real world is completely different but your world is controlled by companies that know how to leverage communications into a profitable commodity. As much as we, the people, apparently hate the accused and incarcerated, they're super useful when it comes to funding local spending. Caged people are still considered "taxpayers," even when they can't generate income or vote in elections.

So, for years, we've chosen to additionally punish inmates by turning basic communication options into high priced commodities. And we've decided they don't have any right to complain, even when the fees are astronomical or prison contractors are either helping law enforcement listen in to conversations with their legal reps or making it so prohibitively expensive only the richest of us can support an incarcerated person's desire to remain connected to their loved ones.

Connecticut legislators have had enough. Whether it will be enough to flip the status quo table remains to be seen. But, for now, a bill proposed by the Connecticut House aims to strip the profit from for-profit service providers, as well as the for-profit prisons that pad their budgets with kickbacks from prison phone service providers. (h/t Kathy Morse)

Connecticut holds the dismal distinction of being the state with the most expensive prison phone calls in the country. But a new bill in the state legislature may soon make Connecticut the first state to make prison phone calls free.

Senate Bill 520 would require Connecticut state prisons to offer telephone or other communication to incarcerated people free of charge, at a minimum of 90 minutes per day. The state could not collect any revenue from operating these services.

Seems like a reasonable response. 90 minutes per day should make most calls from prisons free for all but the most talkative. And I hope those profiting from these services socked some money away for a legislative rainy day. They've certainly had the opportunity. As this report notes, prison call services raked in over $13 million in fees in 2018 alone. There's no reason to believe this amount declined in 2019 or 2020, especially when 2020 gave people millions of reasons to avoid in-person visits with anyone.

The bill [PDF] is short and sweet -- somewhat of a surprise considering it was crafted by public servants who often seem to believe they're being paid by the word. Here it is in its entirety:

AN ACT CONCERNING THE COST OF TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That title 18 of the general statutes be amended to require the Department of Correction to provide voice or other telecommunication services to incarcerated persons free of cost for a minimum of ninety minutes per day.

Statement of Purpose: To provide certain cost-free telecommunication services for incarcerated persons.

As it says on the tin, the purpose of the legislation is to provide prisoners with free phone calls, rather than allow them to be subjected to per-minute fees last viewed as "reasonable" sometime in the early 1990s. (And only viewed as "reasonable" by long distance providers, not the captive market they provided service to. [And "captive" means people who have few options in terms of service providers, not just those locked behind physical bars.])

Expect significant pushback. And it won't just be coming from prison phone service providers like Securus. It will also come from local law enforcement agencies which receive a percentage of these fees -- something most people would call a kickback, even if law enforcement continues to argue that it isn't.

If this passes, this will be the first successful effort that covers a whole state. Pockets of prison phone fee resistance have been found elsewhere prior to this (New York City, San Francisco) but it has yet to be implemented at state level. This bill would be the first to make it illegal to charge for prison phone calls across an entire state.

This is the sort of legislation that should be adopted across the nation. Prisons -- for better or worse -- are a public service. They shouldn't be subject to the predatory behavior of private companies. Making it prohibitively expensive to talk to loved ones should be considered "cruel," if not "unusual." It serves no deterrent effect. All it does is enforce the unspoken fact that people in prisons are no longer considered "people." That's not how our justice system is supposed to work.

Filed Under: connecticut, prison, prison phone calls

Police Department Shells Out $50,000 To Man After His Camera Catches Cops Fabricating Criminal Charges Against Him

from the talking-themselves-into-a-lawsuit dept

The Connecticut State Police have agreed to pay $50,000 to a man its officers subjected to a bunch of Constitutional violations on their way to issuing tickets to him for violations he never committed.

Here's a brief description of how this whole thing started:

On September 11, 2015, Picard was protesting near a police DUI checkpoint in West Hartford. One of the defendants, John Barone, approached him under the pretext of public complaints and confiscated Picard’s camera and lawfully carried pistol. Unbeknownst to the troopers, the camera was recording when Barone brought it to where co-defendants Patrick Torneo and John Jacobi were talking.

That's just part of what happened before the recording the officers weren't aware of captured them colluding to make up crimes to charge Michael Picard with.

There's more detail in the opinion [PDF] the court handed down last fall, which gave the State Police notice its officers were unlikely to escape Picard's lawsuit. One officer knocked Picard's video camera to the ground. When he picked it up to continue recording the officers, one of them did something really stupid.

While defendants discussed plaintiff, plaintiff picked up his video camera off the ground and aimed it at the three defendants.

Barone then walked back to plaintiff. He grabbed plaintiff’s video camera and told him, “It’s illegal to take my picture.” Defendants have admitted that Barone “told plaintiff that it was illegal to take his picture without permission to do so;” and that Barone “secured” plaintiff’s camera.

Once they had it in their possession, the cops ignored the camera. This is important because they later argued they seized it because they thought it might be a gun. If they really thought the camera posed a threat to them, you'd think they would have examined the camera. But they didn't.

If they had examined the camera, they might have noticed it was still recording. This is what the camera caught as it laid on top of the officers' vehicle.

Torneo spoke by phone to Lieutenant Allan to determine whether plaintiff had any “grudges;” asked why plaintiff was challenging them at the DUI spot checks; and discussed plaintiff’s past demonstrations.

Defendants Torneo and Barone verified that plaintiff’s pistol permit was valid, that his gun was not stolen, and that there were no warrants for his arrest.

On the video camera recording, Barone can be heard stating, “punch a number on this or do what? Gotta cover our ass.” Torneo can be heard saying, “Let’s give him something,” and “then we claim in backup that we had multiple people stop and complain … but they didn’t want to stay and give a statement.”

Here's the recording Picard's camera made -- one that captures officers colluding to create bogus criminal charges against a citizen.

Picard was charged with two criminal infractions. Both were dropped by the prosecutor. More importantly, the court refused to extend qualified immunity to these officers on Picard's Fourth Amendment violation allegations. It also refused QI on Picard's First Amendment retaliation claim. With three officers facing a jury trial, the State Police has decided to buy its way out of this using taxpayer money.

This incident shows why recording police officers isn't just important, it's necessary. While it may be difficult to record officers' discussions once they're back in their vehicle, having a recording device visible and present may deter cops from fabricating charges just because they don't like the legal activity you're engaged in. Officers are usually pretty careful to ensure their own illegal activity goes unrecorded, but it's tough for them to control devices operated by citizens.

Filed Under: cameras, civil liberties, connecticut, free speech, police, protests, west hartford

Group Promoting 'Religious Freedom' Around Vaccines Appears To Want To Stifle Free Expression Of Critics

from the not-a-good-look dept

As should be evident by the fact that our post from last fall about content moderation dealing with ignorant anti-vaxxers has amassed over 1700 comments (and more keep coming in), the anti-vax community seems to really like to flood the zone with bullshit, and keep talking until people debunking their nonsense are just completely worn out (and, yes, all of their nonsense has been debunked countless times). However, it appears that for all their talk of individual "freedom" sometimes they seek to silence others.

The latest example comes via a letter sent by lawyer Jay Wolman, in response to a cease-and-desist letter sent by the group CT Freedom Alliance LLC, which is a Connecticut-based group that has been actively fighting against a plan in Connecticut to remove broad religious exemptions for vaccinations. Brian Festa, the lawyer for the group (who is quoted extensively in the linked article) sent a cease-and-desist to someone, accusing them of defamation regarding CT Freedom Alliance and one of its co-founders, Dawn Jolly.

The letter from Wolman is worth reading in full. It starts out by noting that the lawyer, Brian Festa, appears not to be too familiar with defamation/1st Amendment law:

As we see your primary occupation is with the CT CHRO, our presumption is that defamation law is outside your usual practice. Allow us, then, to explain why your letter is deficient and what the most likely judicial outcome would be.

And while I would normally go through the letter in order, for this one, I think it's worth first jumping to the conclusion of the letter, labeled as "Section 3":

3.0 Stop This Nonsense

Your client states, on its website "[w]e pledge to never engage in censorship, groupthink or controlled messaging." ... Similarly, on November 22, 2019, your client stated on Facebook that it is "the arch nemesis of censorship and deception." And on November 8, 2019, your client stated that it is an organization "where every voice is heard, and not one is louder than the others." Your threat directly contradicts these statements. It is an attempt, through bullying, to censor our clients. It is an attempt to control messaging, to thwart the ability of anyone who disagrees with your client to be heard. It promotes but a single ideology, which necessitates groupthink.

In the immortal words of Master Yoda, "Stop it Now". Bad Lip Reading, "SEAGULLS! (Stop It Now)" (Nov. 25, 2016) available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9t-slLl30E

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

More to the point, Wolman points out that Festa's clients have no valid claim of defamation. Jolly and her organization are upset that Wolman's (unnamed) client allegedly "disseminated false information." But as Wolman points out, that claim is substantially true -- and also suggests in the process that Jolly has since deleted the evidence:

Our clients' statements are substantially true. For example, Ms. Jolly shared on Facebook (and has since apparently spoliated) the article [URL Removed], claiming "More effective than your damn flu shot". We have a copy, even though it does not appear currently visible on her public Facebook page. The linked article makes no such claim. Instead it links to an article [URL Removed], where the author of the study at issue actually "insists that those at risk continue to take their flu jabs." Thus, Ms. Jolly has disseminated inaccurate information.

Similarly, in what appears to be another spoliated post, Ms. Jolly shared on Facebook a post purporting to assert that autism is not genetic due to an absence of autistic parents and grandparents. The purported connection between vaccines and autism arise from Andrew Wakefield's discredited 1998 publication in The Lancet, which has been retracted.... Thus, Ms. Jolly uses retracted studies to support her claims.

It goes on from there, calling out that the cease and desist letter did not make clear what statements were defamatory -- which, as Ken "Popehat" White frequently says, is "the hallmark of meritless thuggery."

We have been guessing as to what it is, exactly, that you are claiming is libelous, i.e. the supposedly false information you claim our clients disseminated. You cannot merely present lengthy statements and expect us to determine what it is that you are claiming is false.

And then, in explaining the basics of free speech and the 1st Amendment, Wolman gets to insert a Marc Randazza (whom he works with) favorite from The Big Lebowski.

In brief, there is no reasonable expectation that your claims will be met with any success. There will be no damages awarded. There will be no injunctive relief. And, your threat of a temporary restraining order plainly shows you are unfamiliar with the well-established rule that “THE SUPREME COURT HAS ROUNDLY REJECTED PRIOR RESTRAINT!”. Kinney v. Barnes, 57 Tex. Sup. J. 1428 at n.7, (Tex. 2014) (citing SOBCHAK, W., THE BIG LEBOWSKI, 1998)).

Separately, just a few years ago, Connecticut joined many other states in adopting an anti-SLAPP law that means that Jolly and the CT Freedom Alliance would likely end up paying the other side's legal fees should it go to court:

Second, your clients will be liable to ours under the Connecticut Anti-SLAPP statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-196a. Dismissal will be swift. Our clients’ statements were all communications in public fora on public health, a matter of public concern. And, you lack probable cause under law, as set forth above, to bring your threatened libel claim. With those elements met, the statute mandates that our clients will be awarded their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. We would be happy to provide you with a list of cases in which we have recovered large fee awards in SLAPP suits so that you may properly advise your clients as to your proposed ill-fated adventure in litigation.

And, hey, even I get a shout out in the letter:

Should you proceed down the path of litigation and actually file suit, you should also advise your clients of their liability. First, they will have the misfortune of incurring the Streisand Effect. See Guttenberg v. Emery, 26 F. Supp. 3d 88, 95 (D.D.C. 2014) (describing “the dilemma faced by plaintiffs in defamation cases, who often end up publicizing defamatory statements much more than if they had not filed a lawsuit.”); see also, Masnick, Michael, “Since When is it Illegal to Just Mention a Trademark Online?” Techdirt (Jan. 5, 2005) available at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050105/0132239.shtml (coining the term). It is unlikely your clients have suffered any injury to their reputation on account of our clients’ statements. Your clients are apt to suffer far greater injury to their reputation, to the extent they might not already be libel proof, on account of their own statements and tactics should they turn to litigation and bring the frivolous suit you propose.

It's not often that I get mentioned in a letter alongside Master Yoda and Walter Sobchak. But, it all seems to be for a good purpose -- protecting the right to free speech.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, anti-vax, brian festa, connecticut, dawn jolly, defamation, free speech, jay wolman, streisand effect, threats, vaccines
Companies: ct freedom alliance

NYPD's Failure To Remove A Vehicle From Its Stolen Car Database Results In Another Citizen Staring Down The Barrel Of Several Guns

from the thanks-for-all-the-help,-professionals! dept

The only person singing the praises of the Darien (CT) Police Department is the person who was ordered out of his own vehicle at gunpoint. New York Yankees GM Brian Cashman's onset of Stockholm Syndrome is one of the earliest in recorded history. (via Deadspin)

To sum up, the cops here didn't do anything particularly wrong… except for one major aspect of the equation which would have prevented it from arriving at the point where Cashman needed to be walked backwards at gunpoint from his own vehicle to waiting officers.

Brian Cashman was swarmed by a group of Connecticut police officers who drew their firearms on the Yankee general manager Friday when he was apparently mistaken for an armed car thief, The Post has learned.

The 52-year-old GM of the Bronx Bombers was driving his white Jeep Wrangler from Yankee Stadium to Connecticut after it was reported stolen last Saturday, according to team sources.

So far, it seems Cashman's effusive praise for the officers who drew down on him isn't misplaced. (We'll get to his praise in a moment.) But if this was all that had actually happened, the cops would be completely in the right. A stolen vehicle being driven by someone is generally a guns-out sort of operation. That's why ALPRs suck so much when they're wrong. And they're wrong more often than law enforcement would like to admit.

But that's not the whole story. Cashman was actually on his way to the Norwalk police department to have his car examined for evidence. The NYPD had already recovered Cashman's car and returned it to him. However, the NYPD failed to take his vehicle off the stolen vehicle hotlist. Cashman received a call from Westchester police en route saying his plate had apparently been snagged by an ALPR operated by them and officers wanted to know if he was driving his vehicle.

Somehow, this information never made it to the Darien PD, which was already searching for a Jeep like Cashman's due to a report of a man driving a similar vehicle brandishing a weapon at a local doctor's office. That increased the itchiness of the trigger fingers, which became even itchier when his plate was run and the NYPD database still showed the vehicle as "stolen."

Somewhere between five and ten officers handled the dangerous Cashman who was just trying to bring his car to the local PD to be processed for evidence. Cashman had nothing but praise for the officers spurred into action by the NYPD's inexplicable inaction.

“They executed a very tactful interception,” Cashman said.

“They’re clearly very professional and trained and they asked me to turn my car off, exit the vehicle, walk backwards towards them…they were executing their duty.”

[...]

“I have high respect for all law enforcement. They do an amazing job whether you’re in Connecticut and New York City — and sometimes unique circumstances can occur.”

Yeah… maybe. I mean, the Connecticut police officers involved may have been victims of circumstance. But the NYPD really shouldn't be excused for putting a vehicle's rightful owner in such a dangerous situation. Its failure to do so meant that a citizen willing to help the police continue an investigation was driving around tripping plate readers and setting himself up for an armed ambush. Cashman escaped uninjured and with everything (finally) straightened out.

Various news orgs (very swiftly) obtained body camera footage from the stop. Cashman's experience differs greatly from the average (innocent) driver's. Once he's recognized as the GM of the New York Yankees by one of the cops, the entire thing comes to a sudden halt, with orders for lights on cruisers to be shut off in order to not draw more attention to the stop.

Others -- the nobodies no cop will recognize -- won't be as lucky. The assumption in most stops like these is that the average person protesting their innocence is actually a guilty person trying to talk themselves out of an arrest.

When you have the capability to track cars as they travel from place to place and the tech to run thousands of plate photographs a day against hotlists, you have an obligation to use this power responsibly. The NYPD was grossly irresponsible here, and if the driver wasn't a 52-year-old white man, this very likely would not have ended quite as well.

Filed Under: brian cashman, connecticut, darien police department, nypd, stolen car database, stolen cars