Philadelphia Safe Injection Site Opening Delayed

A nation-first site for users to safely inject drugs will not be opening in Philadelphia this week after all.

A U.S. attorney from the Justice Department is taking the project to court to stop them, but that’s not what caused the delay. The roadblock is an angry response from people in the neighborhood.

Officials and activists with the non-profit Safehouse have been working on plans to open a privately operated, donor-funded safe injection facility (SIF). The place would give drug addicts a place off the street where they can inject under the watch of trained medical professionals who could respond to overdoses.

They’ve been fighting the U.S. Department of Justice, which thinks this harm reduction tool is against federal law and encourages drug use. The feds lost the first round of the fight when a federal judge ruled against them last October.

But last week, when Safehouse announced its first site to open, it was not in the Kensington neighborhood, as everybody thought it would be, but in South Philadelphia, a few miles away. Some residents felt blindsided.

Kensington is infamous for open use in homeless encampments—and for high rates of overdoses and deaths. South Philadelphia has its share of drug deaths, too. But the announcement nevertheless sparked outrage, prompting organizers to pull back and “regroup” to decide the best course of action. The lease they had arranged in South Philadelphia has been cancelled.

Christopher Moraff, who has been doing street-level coverage of Philadelphia’s drug abuse crisis for years, reports in Filter that while Kensington was planned for an initial SIF, Safehouse worried that it would not be able to immediately meet demand; meanwhile, the owner of the building they were intending to lease got cold feet and pulled out. Safehouse Vice President Ronda Goldfein told Moraff that they picked South Philadelphia as another location because that part of the city has the second-highest number of drug fatalities.

A big difference in drug use patterns made people more comfortable with having a facility in Kensington than in South Philadelphia. Despite the overdose statistics, Moraff explains, most of the drug abuse in South Philadelphia takes place behind closed doors:

In contrast to Kensington, which is known for its open-air drug markets, drugs and drug paraphernalia are not visible on the streets of South Philly. Most dealers conduct their business by phone and sometimes make house calls. The population is predominantly Italian American, with a tradition of children continuing to live in their parents’ homes into adulthood.

The majority of fatal overdoses here happen inside the home, with no one present to intervene. Compare that to Kensington, where injection drug use is often conducted in the open, and frequently in groups. Kensington’s proximity to Prevention Point Philadelphia also provides ready access to naloxone and sterile syringes.

No comparable program serves people who use drugs in lower South Philly. Few of the injecting drug users I’ve spoken with here carry naloxone, and for most, the only way to obtain sterile syringes is to purchase them from a pharmacy, making access less likely.

Many South Philly residents fear that opening the facility there will draw in Kensington users or even cause a surge in open outdoor use even though the point of a SIF is to serve as an alternative to this behavior.

It’s an unfortunate setback for Safehouse. But with luck they’ll find a path forward and we can start seeing whether SIFs can help reduce overdose deaths, help reduce the spread of diseases, and help connect addicts to resources to assist them.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Tiu0Kp
via IFTTT

Philadelphia Safe Injection Site Opening Delayed

A nation-first site for users to safely inject drugs will not be opening in Philadelphia this week after all.

A U.S. attorney from the Justice Department is taking the project to court to stop them, but that’s not what caused the delay. The roadblock is an angry response from people in the neighborhood.

Officials and activists with the non-profit Safehouse have been working on plans to open a privately operated, donor-funded safe injection facility (SIF). The place would give drug addicts a place off the street where they can inject under the watch of trained medical professionals who could respond to overdoses.

They’ve been fighting the U.S. Department of Justice, which thinks this harm reduction tool is against federal law and encourages drug use. The feds lost the first round of the fight when a federal judge ruled against them last October.

But last week, when Safehouse announced its first site to open, it was not in the Kensington neighborhood, as everybody thought it would be, but in South Philadelphia, a few miles away. Some residents felt blindsided.

Kensington is infamous for open use in homeless encampments—and for high rates of overdoses and deaths. South Philadelphia has its share of drug deaths, too. But the announcement nevertheless sparked outrage, prompting organizers to pull back and “regroup” to decide the best course of action. The lease they had arranged in South Philadelphia has been cancelled.

Christopher Moraff, who has been doing street-level coverage of Philadelphia’s drug abuse crisis for years, reports in Filter that while Kensington was planned for an initial SIF, Safehouse worried that it would not be able to immediately meet demand; meanwhile, the owner of the building they were intending to lease got cold feet and pulled out. Safehouse Vice President Ronda Goldfein told Moraff that they picked South Philadelphia as another location because that part of the city has the second-highest number of drug fatalities.

A big difference in drug use patterns made people more comfortable with having a facility in Kensington than in South Philadelphia. Despite the overdose statistics, Moraff explains, most of the drug abuse in South Philadelphia takes place behind closed doors:

In contrast to Kensington, which is known for its open-air drug markets, drugs and drug paraphernalia are not visible on the streets of South Philly. Most dealers conduct their business by phone and sometimes make house calls. The population is predominantly Italian American, with a tradition of children continuing to live in their parents’ homes into adulthood.

The majority of fatal overdoses here happen inside the home, with no one present to intervene. Compare that to Kensington, where injection drug use is often conducted in the open, and frequently in groups. Kensington’s proximity to Prevention Point Philadelphia also provides ready access to naloxone and sterile syringes.

No comparable program serves people who use drugs in lower South Philly. Few of the injecting drug users I’ve spoken with here carry naloxone, and for most, the only way to obtain sterile syringes is to purchase them from a pharmacy, making access less likely.

Many South Philly residents fear that opening the facility there will draw in Kensington users or even cause a surge in open outdoor use even though the point of a SIF is to serve as an alternative to this behavior.

It’s an unfortunate setback for Safehouse. But with luck they’ll find a path forward and we can start seeing whether SIFs can help reduce overdose deaths, help reduce the spread of diseases, and help connect addicts to resources to assist them.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Tiu0Kp
via IFTTT

The Fight Over Colorado’s Death Penalty Was Shaped by the Families of Murder Victims

The Colorado House of Representatives passed a bill last week that would end the death penalty in the state. The legislation is now headed to Gov. Jared Polis’ desk, where he is expected to sign it. The bill will not directly affect the cases of the three men currently on death row in Colorado, but the governor has indicated that if the bill becomes law he would seriously consider commuting their sentences to life in prison.

Two of the men on death row, Robert Ray and Sir Mario Owens, were convicted and sentenced for murdering Javad Marshall-Fields and his fiancée, Vivian Wolfe. State Sen. Rhonda Fields (D–Aurora) is Marshall-Fields’ mother, and she is one of the few Democrats in the Senate who has remained opposed to a repeal. Indeed, her strong opposition sank a previous repeal effort and has encouraged other politicians to oppose repeal.

State Rep. Tom Sullivan (D–Aurora) has led a similar opposition effort in the House. Sullivan’s son was killed in the 2012 Aurora Theater shooting. Though shooter James Holmes was eventually sentenced to life in prison, Sullivan maintained that he would continue fighting for the death penalty in the state.

But the families of murder victims have not all come down on the same side of the issue. Some have spoken up in favor of the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union released a video earlier this year featuring Coloradans who opposed the death penalty despite losing a loved one to murder. Some of these testimonies were taken to the state Capitol: Sharletta Evans, whose 3-year-old son was murdered, and Victoria Baker-Willford, whose mother was murdered, told lawmakers why they were opposed to the death penalty despite these tragedies. Some have religious objections, while others said the death penalty would just bring further trauma.

Now that the repeal bill has passed, advocates have had a chance to reflect on the fight.

“While Republicans are not in the majority in the Colorado Legislature, they are among the prime sponsors of the bill, and their support has made it possible to repeal the death penalty,” says Hannah Cox, national manager of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. “They are backed by a wide coalition of faith leaders, murder victims’ family members, former members of corrections, and yes, grassroots conservatives, all who feel it is far past time for this antiquated system to be left in the history books.”

“167 innocent people have been officially exonerated from death row since 1973,” adds Cassandra Stubbs, director of the Capital Punishment Project at the ACLU. “There is no excuse for any government that respects justice, fairness, and human dignity to continue to execute its people.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VK0DT3
via IFTTT

The Fight Over Colorado’s Death Penalty Was Shaped by the Families of Murder Victims

The Colorado House of Representatives passed a bill last week that would end the death penalty in the state. The legislation is now headed to Gov. Jared Polis’ desk, where he is expected to sign it. The bill will not directly affect the cases of the three men currently on death row in Colorado, but the governor has indicated that if the bill becomes law he would seriously consider commuting their sentences to life in prison.

Two of the men on death row, Robert Ray and Sir Mario Owens, were convicted and sentenced for murdering Javad Marshall-Fields and his fiancée, Vivian Wolfe. State Sen. Rhonda Fields (D–Aurora) is Marshall-Fields’ mother, and she is one of the few Democrats in the Senate who has remained opposed to a repeal. Indeed, her strong opposition sank a previous repeal effort and has encouraged other politicians to oppose repeal.

State Rep. Tom Sullivan (D–Aurora) has led a similar opposition effort in the House. Sullivan’s son was killed in the 2012 Aurora Theater shooting. Though shooter James Holmes was eventually sentenced to life in prison, Sullivan maintained that he would continue fighting for the death penalty in the state.

But the families of murder victims have not all come down on the same side of the issue. Some have spoken up in favor of the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union released a video earlier this year featuring Coloradans who opposed the death penalty despite losing a loved one to murder. Some of these testimonies were taken to the state Capitol: Sharletta Evans, whose 3-year-old son was murdered, and Victoria Baker-Willford, whose mother was murdered, told lawmakers why they were opposed to the death penalty despite these tragedies. Some have religious objections, while others said the death penalty would just bring further trauma.

Now that the repeal bill has passed, advocates have had a chance to reflect on the fight.

“While Republicans are not in the majority in the Colorado Legislature, they are among the prime sponsors of the bill, and their support has made it possible to repeal the death penalty,” says Hannah Cox, national manager of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. “They are backed by a wide coalition of faith leaders, murder victims’ family members, former members of corrections, and yes, grassroots conservatives, all who feel it is far past time for this antiquated system to be left in the history books.”

“167 innocent people have been officially exonerated from death row since 1973,” adds Cassandra Stubbs, director of the Capital Punishment Project at the ACLU. “There is no excuse for any government that respects justice, fairness, and human dignity to continue to execute its people.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VK0DT3
via IFTTT

The Fruitless Narco Wars

Bogota, Colombia—Colombia is about to dust off a controversial weapon from the bloodiest period of the nation’s decades-long battle against cocaine production. The aerial fumigation program was halted in 2014 after the World Health Organization said the main herbicide used in fumigation, glyphosate, probably causes cancer in humans. Experts also pointed to the program’s decreasing effectiveness.

Colombia is currently confronting a massive spike in cocaine production. In 2019, police and army units destroyed a record amount of coca fields—the raw ingredient used to make cocaine—using dangerous manual search and eradicate methods.

Yet during this same period, Colombia produced more cocaine than at any other time in its troubled history, according to the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC). The United States has attributed this recent rise to the halting of Colombia’s aerial fumigation program in 2014.

Local counter-narcotics experts, human rights groups, environmental experts, and the UNODC, by contrast, have criticized aerial fumigation as ineffective, as a health and environmental hazard, and as a waste of money.

WOLA, an advocacy group for human rights in Latin America, has presented evidence suggesting that aerial fumigation actually worsens the social damage caused by coca cultivation.

The Colombian Ministry of Justice announced the decision to resume aerial fumigation in December as part of an approach to “utilize every tool at the disposal of the National government to combat narco-trafficking.”

The decision comes on the heels of threats last year by President Donald Trump to revoke aid to the South American nation over U.S. frustration with spiraling cocaine production. Colombia has “done nothing for us,” as Trump put it. He even threatened to de-certify Colombia as a partner in the drug war, a decision that would leave America’s closest ally in South America in the same category as Venezuela.

A U.S. Embassy Bogota spokesperson told Reason, “An integrated coca eradication program that uses all tools, including manual eradication, crop substitution, alternative development, and aerial eradication, offers the best chance to reduce the high cocaine production that threatens the people of both countries.

In 1998, Colombia produced 90 percent of the world’s cocaine, or just over 600 metric tons. In 2017, Colombia produced more than double that amount: 1,379 metric tons, according to UNODC, and the figure continues to rise.

Global cocaine sales have grown since the late 1990s (after tapering off in the early 2000s) and currently account for more than $150 billion annually, according to the Organization of American States (OAS). Those gains, which dwarf the profits of any legal corporation in the world, fund armed groups, destabilize governments, and empower criminals across all of Latin America. During that same period, domestic consumption of cocaine in Colombia has quadrupled.

Civil War, Narco-Wars, and Plan Colombia

Colombia first began fumigation in 1994 at the insistence of the United States. Colombian drug cartels had recently begun domestically cultivating coca, which they had previously imported from Peru and Bolivia, and Colombian production was skyrocketing. The U.S. decision would prove to be a fateful one. It inspired a period of heavy U.S investment and military involvement as part of an anti-drug initiative called “Plan Colombia.”

Plan Colombia would balloon over the next decade to involve direct military support and training for a Colombian government that found itself besieged not only by the after-effects of the narco-wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s, but by an ongoing civil war as well. As the issues became increasingly intertwined, the United States would find itself increasingly mired in the bloody conflict.

The U.S. transferred $10 billion in bilateral foreign assistance to the Colombian government between 2000 and 2016 to fund Plan Colombia, according to Jorge Mantilla, criminology researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The U.S. also provided helicopters, planes, training, and intelligence.

After the death of Pablo Escobar, the fall of the Medellin cartel, and the subsequent collapse of the Cali cartel in the late 1990s, the cocaine industry became increasingly fractured, and the main armed actors in Colombia’s ongoing civil war, right-wing paramilitary “self-defense forces” and left-wing rebel group the FARC, became major players..

According to Luis Moreno, a former U.S. narcotics affairs section director and coordinator for Plan Colombia, “The FARC were strangling [Colombia]. Our goals were threefold; deprive the rebels of their funding, drive up the price of cocaine in the U.S. while reducing its purity, and make it less available in the United States.”

Data from the early 2000s seems to suggest that the coordinated efforts were initially successful, and led to a temporary plateau in Colombian cocaine production. Today, the U.S. government calls the program a success and claims that Plan Colombia set the stage for Colombia’s historic 2016 Peace Accord as a weakened FARC agreed to lay down arms and join the government. Critics offer a less rosy view.

‘A Horrible Human Price’

“Fumigation dispersed coca crops across all of Colombia,” says Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Andes director for human rights group WOLA. “As fields were destroyed, armed groups simply pushed into new territories and planted smaller farms among food crops, displacing vulnerable communities or forcing them into their employ.”

Critics call this phenomenon, which displaced millions of Colombians and led to the spread of armed groups across the country, the “Balloon Effect.”

“The rate of re-plantation from forced eradication is [around] 60 percent, meaning that regarding coca production the impact of Plan Colombia couldn’t be called a full success,” says University of Illinois at Chicago criminology researcher Jorge Mantilla.

“The Colombian government cites the hectares of coca fields that have been destroyed, but the narcos simply pushed into new areas, and the price of cocaine has not been impacted,” observes Sanchez.

She believes that while it is arguable that Plan Colombia helped foster an environment for the peace accord, “the efforts came at a horrible human price.” Farmers often planted coca alongside sustenance crops, she points out, and fumigation destroyed indiscriminately, directly harming the food security of vulnerable communities who often had no choice for survival but growing coca. A critical lack of infrastructure made transporting legal crops to market next to impossible, and farmers viewed the aerial attack on coca as an attack on their communities.

Thousands of civilians were also killed during the anti-narcotics program, often at the hands of government forces. Over 3,000 farmers were slaughtered by Colombian soldiers during the conflict and later dressed up as rebels, a ploy to inflate casualty numbers.

Moreno, who headed up U.S. efforts in Colombia between 1997 and 2001, says that “we made extreme efforts to be responsible, we never followed when rebel groups fled to areas [such as] National Parkland and the protected areas of the Amazon jungle. Critics don’t realize how dangerous this work was and how careful we were.”

“Aerial fumigation by itself is neither efficient nor cost-effective,” counters Sanchez. She believes a resumption of the program will endanger an already precarious peace.

“The people took a great risk and made heroic efforts to implement this peace,” Sanchez points out, “and now they risk having their crops burned down by a government that hasn’t lived up to its promises to invest in their communities.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2PGHugI
via IFTTT

The Fruitless Narco Wars

Bogota, Colombia—Colombia is about to dust off a controversial weapon from the bloodiest period of the nation’s decades-long battle against cocaine production. The aerial fumigation program was halted in 2014 after the World Health Organization said the main herbicide used in fumigation, glyphosate, probably causes cancer in humans. Experts also pointed to the program’s decreasing effectiveness.

Colombia is currently confronting a massive spike in cocaine production. In 2019, police and army units destroyed a record amount of coca fields—the raw ingredient used to make cocaine—using dangerous manual search and eradicate methods.

Yet during this same period, Colombia produced more cocaine than at any other time in its troubled history, according to the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC). The United States has attributed this recent rise to the halting of Colombia’s aerial fumigation program in 2014.

Local counter-narcotics experts, human rights groups, environmental experts, and the UNODC, by contrast, have criticized aerial fumigation as ineffective, as a health and environmental hazard, and as a waste of money.

WOLA, an advocacy group for human rights in Latin America, has presented evidence suggesting that aerial fumigation actually worsens the social damage caused by coca cultivation.

The Colombian Ministry of Justice announced the decision to resume aerial fumigation in December as part of an approach to “utilize every tool at the disposal of the National government to combat narco-trafficking.”

The decision comes on the heels of threats last year by President Donald Trump to revoke aid to the South American nation over U.S. frustration with spiraling cocaine production. Colombia has “done nothing for us,” as Trump put it. He even threatened to de-certify Colombia as a partner in the drug war, a decision that would leave America’s closest ally in South America in the same category as Venezuela.

A U.S. Embassy Bogota spokesperson told Reason, “An integrated coca eradication program that uses all tools, including manual eradication, crop substitution, alternative development, and aerial eradication, offers the best chance to reduce the high cocaine production that threatens the people of both countries.

In 1998, Colombia produced 90 percent of the world’s cocaine, or just over 600 metric tons. In 2017, Colombia produced more than double that amount: 1,379 metric tons, according to UNODC, and the figure continues to rise.

Global cocaine sales have grown since the late 1990s (after tapering off in the early 2000s) and currently account for more than $150 billion annually, according to the Organization of American States (OAS). Those gains, which dwarf the profits of any legal corporation in the world, fund armed groups, destabilize governments, and empower criminals across all of Latin America. During that same period, domestic consumption of cocaine in Colombia has quadrupled.

Civil War, Narco-Wars, and Plan Colombia

Colombia first began fumigation in 1994 at the insistence of the United States. Colombian drug cartels had recently begun domestically cultivating coca, which they had previously imported from Peru and Bolivia, and Colombian production was skyrocketing. The U.S. decision would prove to be a fateful one. It inspired a period of heavy U.S investment and military involvement as part of an anti-drug initiative called “Plan Colombia.”

Plan Colombia would balloon over the next decade to involve direct military support and training for a Colombian government that found itself besieged not only by the after-effects of the narco-wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s, but by an ongoing civil war as well. As the issues became increasingly intertwined, the United States would find itself increasingly mired in the bloody conflict.

The U.S. transferred $10 billion in bilateral foreign assistance to the Colombian government between 2000 and 2016 to fund Plan Colombia, according to Jorge Mantilla, criminology researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The U.S. also provided helicopters, planes, training, and intelligence.

After the death of Pablo Escobar, the fall of the Medellin cartel, and the subsequent collapse of the Cali cartel in the late 1990s, the cocaine industry became increasingly fractured, and the main armed actors in Colombia’s ongoing civil war, right-wing paramilitary “self-defense forces” and left-wing rebel group the FARC, became major players..

According to Luis Moreno, a former U.S. narcotics affairs section director and coordinator for Plan Colombia, “The FARC were strangling [Colombia]. Our goals were threefold; deprive the rebels of their funding, drive up the price of cocaine in the U.S. while reducing its purity, and make it less available in the United States.”

Data from the early 2000s seems to suggest that the coordinated efforts were initially successful, and led to a temporary plateau in Colombian cocaine production. Today, the U.S. government calls the program a success and claims that Plan Colombia set the stage for Colombia’s historic 2016 Peace Accord as a weakened FARC agreed to lay down arms and join the government. Critics offer a less rosy view.

‘A Horrible Human Price’

“Fumigation dispersed coca crops across all of Colombia,” says Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Andes director for human rights group WOLA. “As fields were destroyed, armed groups simply pushed into new territories and planted smaller farms among food crops, displacing vulnerable communities or forcing them into their employ.”

Critics call this phenomenon, which displaced millions of Colombians and led to the spread of armed groups across the country, the “Balloon Effect.”

“The rate of re-plantation from forced eradication is [around] 60 percent, meaning that regarding coca production the impact of Plan Colombia couldn’t be called a full success,” says University of Illinois at Chicago criminology researcher Jorge Mantilla.

“The Colombian government cites the hectares of coca fields that have been destroyed, but the narcos simply pushed into new areas, and the price of cocaine has not been impacted,” observes Sanchez.

She believes that while it is arguable that Plan Colombia helped foster an environment for the peace accord, “the efforts came at a horrible human price.” Farmers often planted coca alongside sustenance crops, she points out, and fumigation destroyed indiscriminately, directly harming the food security of vulnerable communities who often had no choice for survival but growing coca. A critical lack of infrastructure made transporting legal crops to market next to impossible, and farmers viewed the aerial attack on coca as an attack on their communities.

Thousands of civilians were also killed during the anti-narcotics program, often at the hands of government forces. Over 3,000 farmers were slaughtered by Colombian soldiers during the conflict and later dressed up as rebels, a ploy to inflate casualty numbers.

Moreno, who headed up U.S. efforts in Colombia between 1997 and 2001, says that “we made extreme efforts to be responsible, we never followed when rebel groups fled to areas [such as] National Parkland and the protected areas of the Amazon jungle. Critics don’t realize how dangerous this work was and how careful we were.”

“Aerial fumigation by itself is neither efficient nor cost-effective,” counters Sanchez. She believes a resumption of the program will endanger an already precarious peace.

“The people took a great risk and made heroic efforts to implement this peace,” Sanchez points out, “and now they risk having their crops burned down by a government that hasn’t lived up to its promises to invest in their communities.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2PGHugI
via IFTTT

Chicago Police Shooting Captured on Video Leads to Outrage, Dropped Charges

Two Chicago cops tackled and then shot a man under very suspicious circumstances. Fortunately, the incident was captured on video, leading to public outrage, an investigation, and dropped charges.

The video, recorded on Friday at the Grand Avenue Red Line Station, shows the tackled man struggling and refusing to let the officers arrest him. (Nothing in the video shows him trying to hurt the officers—just to get away from them.) After they failed to get him under control, a loud gunshot rings out.

The witness posted the video on Twitter:

The video prompted outrage. Once the context became more clear, it looked even worse for the two officers. The man, later identified as Ariel Roman, was being arrested because he violated a city ordinance against moving between two train cars.

That’s it. The two officers, assigned to Chicago’s mass transit unit, chased him and tackled him on the train platform. The shots were fired not as Roman was attempting to attack the officers but as he was getting away. He was shot twice, once in the abdomen, and once in the buttocks, according to his lawyer. He was in critical condition but is now recuperating.

Roman was charged with resisting arrest and narcotics possession. But once the video got out, Interim Police Superintendent Charlie Beck asked prosecutors to drop the case. On Sunday, prosecutors agreed. The two officers are on administrative duty, and the FBI has gotten involved in investigating the incident.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has called the video footage “extremely disturbing,” but USA Today notes that the shooting took place just hours after Lightfoot, the Chicago Police, and the Chicago Transit Authority announced plans to tackle crimes on public transit. Maybe they should have been a bit more specific about which crimes.

This encounter is exactly what troubles people when police announce enforcement actions on mass transit. We’d like to assume that police are tackling muggers and other people with violent or larcenous intentions. And perhaps the two cops suspected that Roman was bouncing from car to car because he was planning something bad. But they had no evidence Roman had actually done anything to victimize anybody else.

It’s a familiar pattern. Politicians use fears of serious crimes to push through ordinances that criminalize all sorts of non-threatening behavior, and those are then used to justify police interventions. Whether or not serious crimes get prevented, we get a crackdown on petty offenses. Many people get harassed. And in this case, one gets shot.

Chicago Lodge 7 of the Fraternal Order of the Police has predictably slammed city leaders for being horrified by the shooting. Union president Kevin Graham asked on Facebook: “Why has the superintendent and the mayor not commented on the fact that not one individual assisted these officers during the struggle to place the offender clearly engaged in felony resisting into custody, an offender who once again failed to comply with police orders?”

Because they were afraid they’d get shot?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2x3MhT7
via IFTTT

Chicago Police Shooting Captured on Video Leads to Outrage, Dropped Charges

Two Chicago cops tackled and then shot a man under very suspicious circumstances. Fortunately, the incident was captured on video, leading to public outrage, an investigation, and dropped charges.

The video, recorded on Friday at the Grand Avenue Red Line Station, shows the tackled man struggling and refusing to let the officers arrest him. (Nothing in the video shows him trying to hurt the officers—just to get away from them.) After they failed to get him under control, a loud gunshot rings out.

The witness posted the video on Twitter:

The video prompted outrage. Once the context became more clear, it looked even worse for the two officers. The man, later identified as Ariel Roman, was being arrested because he violated a city ordinance against moving between two train cars.

That’s it. The two officers, assigned to Chicago’s mass transit unit, chased him and tackled him on the train platform. The shots were fired not as Roman was attempting to attack the officers but as he was getting away. He was shot twice, once in the abdomen, and once in the buttocks, according to his lawyer. He was in critical condition but is now recuperating.

Roman was charged with resisting arrest and narcotics possession. But once the video got out, Interim Police Superintendent Charlie Beck asked prosecutors to drop the case. On Sunday, prosecutors agreed. The two officers are on administrative duty, and the FBI has gotten involved in investigating the incident.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has called the video footage “extremely disturbing,” but USA Today notes that the shooting took place just hours after Lightfoot, the Chicago Police, and the Chicago Transit Authority announced plans to tackle crimes on public transit. Maybe they should have been a bit more specific about which crimes.

This encounter is exactly what troubles people when police announce enforcement actions on mass transit. We’d like to assume that police are tackling muggers and other people with violent or larcenous intentions. And perhaps the two cops suspected that Roman was bouncing from car to car because he was planning something bad. But they had no evidence Roman had actually done anything to victimize anybody else.

It’s a familiar pattern. Politicians use fears of serious crimes to push through ordinances that criminalize all sorts of non-threatening behavior, and those are then used to justify police interventions. Whether or not serious crimes get prevented, we get a crackdown on petty offenses. Many people get harassed. And in this case, one gets shot.

Chicago Lodge 7 of the Fraternal Order of the Police has predictably slammed city leaders for being horrified by the shooting. Union president Kevin Graham asked on Facebook: “Why has the superintendent and the mayor not commented on the fact that not one individual assisted these officers during the struggle to place the offender clearly engaged in felony resisting into custody, an offender who once again failed to comply with police orders?”

Because they were afraid they’d get shot?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2x3MhT7
via IFTTT

“Once the Cat Is Out of the Bag, the Ball Game Is Over”

In January, I blogged about an interesting Colorado case, in which the defendants moved to retroactively seal some previously filed court documents. I opposed the motion, and the movant narrowed it, but added this request:

Finally, to ensure that the Restriction is implemented, and in the face of Professor Volokh’s expressed desire to publish documents from this case, which publication would seriously harm Bonsai’s business interests, Bonsai requests that this Court’s order specify that no publication of these documents (or redacted portions of documents) be published, regardless of whether these documents were previously available on the court’s website or otherwise.

That, I argued to the court, would violate my free speech and free press rights, and not just my right of access to court records. Once someone has downloaded publicly accessible documents, that person has a right to quote them and write about them, and that right cannot be taken away by retroactively sealing the documents. The sealing order could bar future access to the documents in the court file, and might also constrain the parties to the case. But it can’t bar continued speech about those documents by outsiders who had lawfully accessed them. (Cf. Florida Star v. B.J.F.)

The motion was resolved a few days later (following an excellent telephonic oral argument by my student Jennifer Wilson), but I got distracted and neglected to blog an update; so here it is.

[1.] Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty didn’t reach the gag order question, because he denied the motion to seal, thus rendering the gag order request moot.

[2.] And he denied the motion to seal chiefly relying on his opinion four years before in Gunn v. WCA Logistics, LLC, No. 13-cv-02197-WJM-MEH, 2016 WL 7868827, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 12, 2016). He didn’t issue a detailed written order, but this passage from Gunn summarizes the matter well:

The documents at issue in Defendants’ motion were not filed under [seal]…. Only [some weeks later] did Defendants seek to [seal] the documents. Because Defendants failed to avail themselves of the protections provided by the District’s local rules in filing [the documents], any claim to confidentiality has been waived. The cat has already been let out of the bag. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Once the cat is out of the bag, the ball game is over.”) …. After-the-fact sealing should not generally be permitted. See id. at 144 (“… We simply do not have the power, even were we of the mind to use it if we had, to make what has thus become public private again.”).

To be sure, mistakes happen, and in my experience attempts to seal filed just a day or two after an erroneous open-court filing are sometimes granted. But once you wait weeks, and especially once others see the cat and decide to post a cat video of it on the Internet, the feathers don’t go back into the pillow. Courts actually give lawyers considerable latitude to fix procedural errors, especially if the lawyers ask nicely and contritely enough. But some errors are hard or impossible to fix; missed jurisdictional deadlines are a classic example, and so are erroneous filings in open court (again, especially if the request comes after weeks or months rather than days).

[3.] Attempts to unseal can work even years after the sealing, see, e.g., EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 146 F.3d 1042, 1047 (2d Cir. 1998); Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1354 (9th Cir. 2013); United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990). But some court rules strongly prefer prompt objections to motions to seal—the District of Colorado seeks objections basically within four business days of the motion, which is posted on the District’s web site. As a result, I had to move to oppose sealing right away, if I wanted to easily write about the case in the future; otherwise, moving to unseal later would be dicier and at least more time-consuming. I hope to write more about the case, which involves interesting issues of tort law, waivers of liability for recreational activities, and zip-line accidents, as more develops.

But in the meantime, here’s one of the documents that the court ruled couldn’t be sealed; it was filed as an attachment to the Complaint. (Of course, though it is potentially relevant to the case, it is by no means dispositive of whether the company is liable, and for all I know they may be entirely not at fault.)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2PHhcej
via IFTTT

“Once the Cat Is Out of the Bag, the Ball Game Is Over”

In January, I blogged about an interesting Colorado case, in which the defendants moved to retroactively seal some previously filed court documents. I opposed the motion, and the movant narrowed it, but added this request:

Finally, to ensure that the Restriction is implemented, and in the face of Professor Volokh’s expressed desire to publish documents from this case, which publication would seriously harm Bonsai’s business interests, Bonsai requests that this Court’s order specify that no publication of these documents (or redacted portions of documents) be published, regardless of whether these documents were previously available on the court’s website or otherwise.

That, I argued to the court, would violate my free speech and free press rights, and not just my right of access to court records. Once someone has downloaded publicly accessible documents, that person has a right to quote them and write about them, and that right cannot be taken away by retroactively sealing the documents. The sealing order could bar future access to the documents in the court file, and might also constrain the parties to the case. But it can’t bar continued speech about those documents by outsiders who had lawfully accessed them. (Cf. Florida Star v. B.J.F.)

The motion was resolved a few days later (following an excellent telephonic oral argument by my student Jennifer Wilson), but I got distracted and neglected to blog an update; so here it is.

[1.] Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty didn’t reach the gag order question, because he denied the motion to seal, thus rendering the gag order request moot.

[2.] And he denied the motion to seal chiefly relying on his opinion four years before in Gunn v. WCA Logistics, LLC, No. 13-cv-02197-WJM-MEH, 2016 WL 7868827, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 12, 2016). He didn’t issue a detailed written order, but this passage from Gunn summarizes the matter well:

The documents at issue in Defendants’ motion were not filed under [seal]…. Only [some weeks later] did Defendants seek to [seal] the documents. Because Defendants failed to avail themselves of the protections provided by the District’s local rules in filing [the documents], any claim to confidentiality has been waived. The cat has already been let out of the bag. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Once the cat is out of the bag, the ball game is over.”) …. After-the-fact sealing should not generally be permitted. See id. at 144 (“… We simply do not have the power, even were we of the mind to use it if we had, to make what has thus become public private again.”).

To be sure, mistakes happen, and in my experience attempts to seal filed just a day or two after an erroneous open-court filing are sometimes granted. But once you wait weeks, and especially once others see the cat and decide to post a cat video of it on the Internet, the feathers don’t go back into the pillow. Courts actually give lawyers considerable latitude to fix procedural errors, especially if the lawyers ask nicely and contritely enough. But some errors are hard or impossible to fix; missed jurisdictional deadlines are a classic example, and so are erroneous filings in open court (again, especially if the request comes after weeks or months rather than days).

[3.] Attempts to unseal can work even years after the sealing, see, e.g., EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 146 F.3d 1042, 1047 (2d Cir. 1998); Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1354 (9th Cir. 2013); United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990). But some court rules strongly prefer prompt objections to motions to seal—the District of Colorado seeks objections basically within four business days of the motion, which is posted on the District’s web site. As a result, I had to move to oppose sealing right away, if I wanted to easily write about the case in the future; otherwise, moving to unseal later would be dicier and at least more time-consuming. I hope to write more about the case, which involves interesting issues of tort law, waivers of liability for recreational activities, and zip-line accidents, as more develops.

But in the meantime, here’s one of the documents that the court ruled couldn’t be sealed; it was filed as an attachment to the Complaint. (Of course, though it is potentially relevant to the case, it is by no means dispositive of whether the company is liable, and for all I know they may be entirely not at fault.)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2PHhcej
via IFTTT