An elderly man was attacked by two men who choked him so hard they fractured his trachea during a robbery in Greenwich Village, police sources said. The 70-year-old man was walking into a building on Sixth Avenue near Bleecker Street when the two suspe…
An elderly man was attacked by two men who choked him so hard they fractured his trachea during a robbery in Greenwich Village, police sources said. The 70-year-old man was walking into a building on Sixth Avenue near Bleecker Street when the two suspects attacked him around 12:30 a.m. Sunday. The men put him in...
Surveillance video from inside a Brooklyn deli shows a 78-year-old man being beaten up and robbed by two thugs last week, authorities said. The elderly victim was inside Shorty’s Deli on Marcus Garvey Boulevard when one of the men attacked him around noon Wednesday. The suspect punched the victim several times in the face and…
Surveillance video from inside a Brooklyn deli shows a 78-year-old man being beaten up and robbed by two thugs last week, authorities said. The elderly victim was inside Shorty’s Deli on Marcus Garvey Boulevard when one of the men attacked him around noon Wednesday. The suspect punched the victim several times in the face and...
President Trump calls Chicago Fraternal Order of Police leader Dean Angelo and others from the union to discuss what to do about the ongoing gun violence in the city.
Chicago Fraternal Order of Police chief Dean Angelo, who represents the Chicago Police Department’s embattled and embittered rank and file, has been summoned to meet tomorrow with President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to discuss Chicago gun violence has on our city, reports the Chicago Sun-Times. Trump will meet with leaders of the National Fraternal Order of Police, which endorsed him last year.
“Angelo would want to be an active participant in the process if there is a consent decree forcing the city to make [police department] changes,” said a source. “Especially if there is a federal oversight person in charge to ensure the city follows the final Department of Justice report on Chicago police in January.” Angelo is embroiled in a re-election battle next month.
All states have mechanisms in place (including judicial waivers, statutory exclusions, and prosecutorial direct-files) that allow for juveniles (who commit certain serious or violent offenses) to be transferred for prosecution in the adult criminal cou…
All states have mechanisms in place (including judicial waivers, statutory exclusions, and prosecutorial direct-files) that allow for juveniles (who commit certain serious or violent offenses) to be transferred for prosecution in the adult criminal court system. The practice is rated No Effects for multiple crime/delinquency types. Youths transferred to adult court had slightly higher odds of recidivating, compared with nontransferred youth; however, this result was nonsignificant. In addition,
Passed over for other Trump administration jobs, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will head a project to combat opioid abuse. He has been discussing the details with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.
President Trump is tapping New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to chair a commission devoted to combatting opioid abuse, reports NJ.com. The news was first disclosed by the Washington Post. It’s unclear if the chairmanship will be part-time, how often it would pull Christie away from New Jersey, or if it would require him to step down as governor. Fighting opioid abuse is one focus of a a new White House office Trump is expected to unveil today, to be led by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Kushner and Christie, a fellow Livingston, N.J., native, have been working together informally for several weeks about opioid abuse.
Christie has long made battling drug addiction a key portion of his platform in New Jersey. He has vowed to devote much of his last year as governor to the issue. It was reportedly one topic he and Trump discussed when they had a much-publicized meatloaf lunch together at the White House last month. The chairmanship would finally give Christie a position in Trump’s administration –albeit it likely a small one — after months of speculation. Christie has said he turned down other job offers from Trump, saying none of them was worth leaving the governorship to take.
It was the biggest mass shooting in the U.S. so far this year. City Manager Harry Black said the incident was the culmination of a squabble “between two specific groups or individuals earlier in the day, escalating and ultimately leading to this tragedy.”
As clubgoers danced away on Saturday night, armed men hoping to settle a daylong score opened fire inside Cincinnati’s Cameo nightclub in the bloodiest mass shooting in the nation so far this year. One man died of his injuries and 15 others were injured, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports. The violence at 1:30 a.m. triggered a sweeping panic inside the packed club while patrons raced to flee. Once on the scene to triage victims, police and firefighters had to step over wounded bodies to determine which patients needed the most immediate care, said Dan Hils of the Cincinnati Fraternal Order of Police. Investigators scoured the city for the people responsible for the shootings. The Rev. Peterson Mingo of Evanston’s Christ Temple Church said he and other leaders of the African-American community have heard from citizens who “have been giving us names and we’re sending them to the police, and they say they’re cooperating.”
“People were just going to have a good time, and they got shot. That is totally unacceptable,” said Mayor John Cranley said. City Manager Harry Black said the shooting was the culmination of a squabble “between two specific groups or individuals earlier in the day, escalating and ultimately leading to this tragedy.” Cameo had paid for four off-duty police officers to patrol the parking lot, and they were the first to respond to the shooting, Hils, the FOP president, said. “They saw a lot of the patrons running out in an absolute panic,” Hils said. “They were literally stepping over victims to get to more critically injured victims. So you’re talking about a very horrific scene there. They tried everything they could to save the one gentleman’s life. They performed CPR, the police officer did, but to no avail.”
Last Monday, the TSA announced a peculiar new security measure to take effect within 96 hours. Passengers flying into the US on foreign airlines from eight Muslim countries would be prohibited from carrying aboard any electronics larger than a smartphone. They would have to be checked and put into the cargo hold. And now the UK is following suit. It’s…
Last Monday, the TSA announced a peculiar new security measure to take effect within 96 hours. Passengers flying into the US on foreign airlines from eight Muslim countries would be prohibited from carrying aboard any electronics larger than a smartphone. They would have to be checked and put into the cargo hold. And now the UK is following suit.
It's difficult to make sense of this as a security measure, particularly at a time when many people question the veracity of government orders, but other explanations are either unsatisfying or damning.
So let's look at the security aspects of this first. Laptop computers aren't inherently dangerous, but they're convenient carrying boxes. This is why, in the past, TSA officials have demanded passengers turn their laptops on: to confirm that they're actually laptops and not laptop cases emptied of their electronics and then filled with explosives.
Forcing a would-be bomber to put larger laptops in the plane's hold is a reasonable defense against this threat, because it increases the complexity of the plot. Both the shoe-bomber Richard Reid and the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab carried crude bombs aboard their planes with the plan to set them off manually once aloft. Setting off a bomb in checked baggage is more work, which is why we don't see more midair explosions like Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.
Security measures that restrict what passengers can carry onto planes are not unprecedented either. Airport security regularly responds to both actual attacks and intelligence regarding future attacks. After the liquid bombers were captured in 2006, the British banned all carry-on luggage except passports and wallets. I remember talking with a friend who traveled home from London with his daughters in those early weeks of the ban. They reported that airport security officials confiscated every tube of lip balm they tried to hide.
Similarly, the US started checking shoes after Reid, installed full-body scanners after Abdulmutallab and restricted liquids in 2006. But all of those measure were global, and most lessened in severity as the threat diminished.
This current restriction implies some specific intelligence of a laptop-based plot and a temporary ban to address it. However, if that's the case, why only certain non-US carriers? And why only certain airports? Terrorists are smart enough to put a laptop bomb in checked baggage from the Middle East to Europe and then carry it on from Europe to the US.
Why not require passengers to turn their laptops on as they go through security? That would be a more effective security measure than forcing them to check them in their luggage. And lastly, why is there a delay between the ban being announced and it taking effect?
Even more confusing, the New York Timesreported that "officials called the directive an attempt to address gaps in foreign airport security, and said it was not based on any specific or credible threat of an imminent attack." The Department of Homeland Security FAQ page makes this general statement, "Yes, intelligence is one aspect of every security-related decision," but doesn't provide a specific security threat. And yet a report from the UK states the ban "follows the receipt of specific intelligence reports."
Of course, the details are all classified, which leaves all of us security experts scratching our heads. On the face of it, the ban makes little sense.
One analysis painted this as a protectionist measure targeted at the heavily subsidized Middle Eastern airlines by hitting them where it hurts the most: high-paying business class travelers who need their laptops with them on planes to get work done. That reasoning makes more sense than any security-related explanation, but doesn't explain why the British extended the ban to UK carriers as well. Or why this measure won't backfire when those Middle Eastern countries turn around and ban laptops on American carriers in retaliation. And one aviation official told CNN that an intelligence official informed him it was not a "political move."
In the end, national security measures based on secret information require us to trust the government. That trust is at historic low levels right now, so people both in the US and other countries are rightly skeptical of the official unsatisfying explanations. The new laptop ban highlights this mistrust.
EDITED TO ADD: Here are twoessays that look at the possible political motivations, and fallout, of this ban. And the EFF rightly points out that letting a laptop out of your hands and sight is itself a security risk -- for the passenger.
Today the court hears oral argument in two cases. The first is Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton (consolidated with two other related cases), which asks whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s exemption for church plans applies to pension plans maintained by church-affiliated organizations. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. Emily Rector […]
Today the court hears oral argument in two cases. The first is Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton (consolidated with two other related cases), which asks whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s exemption for church plans applies to pension plans maintained by church-affiliated organizations. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. Emily Rector and Kimberly Petrick preview the case for Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel also looks at the case, noting that it “could possibly up-end thirty years of administrative interpretations that have granted a church plan exemption even though a plan was not initially established by a church – so long as it is maintained by an otherwise qualifying organization that is associated with or controlled by a church.” Today’s second argument is in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, in which the justices will consider the rules governing the venue in which patent infringement lawsuits can be filed. Ronald Mann had this blog’s preview. Nicholas Halliburton previews the case for Cornell.
Last Wednesday, the court issued a unanimous decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, holding that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a school to offer an “individualized education program” reasonably calculated to allow the student to progress appropriately in light of the child’s circumstances. The ruling, which overturned as too low a standard Gorsuch had applied in a 2008 IDEA case, came as Gorsuch was discussing the prior case during his confirmation hearing. Coverage of the decision and its ripple effect at the hearing comes from Anya Kamenetz and Cory Turner at NPR, John Aguilar and Mark Matthews in The Denver Post, Richard Perez-Pena in The New York Times, Lauren Camera in U.S. News and World Report, Patrick Reilly in The Christian Science Monitor, Caitlin Emma at Politico, Laura McKenna in The Atlantic, Emily Willingham in Forbes, Cristian Farias in The Huffington Post, Tessa Berenson in Time, and Liz Goodwin at Yahoo News. Commentary comes from Eleanor Sheehan at popsugar.
At Education Week, Mark Walsh reports on the court’s decision on Wednesday in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., which held that a feature of a useful article is copyrightable if it can be perceived as a separately protectable work, observing that the ruling gives “a V for victory to the dominant provider of cheerleader uniforms for schools, colleges, and spirit teams, ruling that some of its uniform designs were protected under federal copyright law.” Another look at the case comes from Patrick Hughes at Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property.
At Lock Law Blog, Ryan Lockman discusses Lee v. United States, an ineffective assistance of counsel case in which the lower court held that the defendant could not prove that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s erroneous advice to plead guilty, which resulted in mandatory deportation, because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, noting that at “issue is not just Lee’s fate, but also the Court’s view of the state of plea bargaining in this country.” At The Huffington Post, Manny Vargas weighs in on the case, arguing that all “Mr. Lee asks of the Court is that it reopen his criminal case so that it can be resolved properly and fairly based on correct information regarding the critical immigration implications for him of different possible dispositions of his case.”
At Bloomberg BNA, John Henry Stam reports on last week’s oral argument in Murr v. Wisconsin, in which the justices will decide what constitutes the “parcel as a whole” for the purpose of regulatory takings analysis, noting that “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy again appears to be the swing vote in a divided court.”
At Vinson & Elkins’ Lincoln’s Law Blog, Ralph Mayrell and John Elwood look at a pending cert petition in a False Claims Act case that asks whether relators can avail themselves of a statute of limitations tolling provision when the government has declined to intervene in the case.
Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.
Most states, with some notable exceptions, have raised the age at which youths are exposed to the adult justice system. But the harder task of improving services for troubled young people is still ahead, warns a Justice Policy Institute expert.
Lawmakers in New York, North Carolina, Missouri, and Texas are currently debating proposals that would move 16-or-17-year-olds (or both) out of the adult criminal justice system and into the juvenile court.
This development comes after seven states raised their age of jurisdiction over the past decade. In those states, as a result, half the number of youth who were previously automatically sent to adult courts now appear before a juvenile court judge—an outcome which increases the likelihood that a young person will move past delinquency, and avoid the abuse and harm youth can face in adult facilities.
But even with these advances, no state “finishes” the process of building a more effective youth justice system simply by changing a law. Policymaking is an ongoing process of continued improvement and of adopting approaches that will help youth succeed.
For those states that have “raised the age,” and have managed the change without increasing juvenile corrections costs, the next phase of reform will involve revamping their “reinvestment” approach – and stepping up support to serve youth in the community.
There is another reason why states that have already changed the age of juvenile jurisdiction were able to keep costs in check. They took parallel steps to reduce reliance on the most expensive, least effective ways to address a young persons’ behavior.
The most effective youth justice system approaches are focused on serving more youth in the community and reallocating existing resources to support youth and their families at-home. By diverting more youth from the courts, improving how probation and aftercare processes work, ramping up treatment for youth in the community if they need it, and using strategies to keep youth out of pretrial detention and youth facilities, youth justice systems can manage raising the age of jurisdiction while keeping corrections costs in check.
But unfortunately, just because facilities close it does not mean that all of the dollars saved are reinvested in strategies to help youth succeed.
Youth corrections budgets—even probation and aftercare budgets—are relatively small compared to mental health, education, workforce development, human services and housing. When a young person isn’t deeply involved in the justice system, other child-serving agencies coordinate resources, and harness multiple funding streams to address a young person’s needs in their community.
Taxpayers are already paying for an infrastructure to serve young people in the community. Ideally, stakeholders who fund and run community based services outside of the justice system should coordinate with juvenile justice agencies to provide the support that young people need to make it less likely they will reoffend.
Research has also shown for a decade that youth are less likely to reoffend when they are served by the youth justice system rather than the adult system – something that will save us all money by curbing downstream crime costs.
The community-based approaches that were key to Connecticut, Illinois and Massachusetts avoiding a spike in costs as they raised the age are less expensive than confinement; but they are not free.
Lawmakers in New York, North Carolina, Missouri and Texas should vote to raise the age this year. But after lawmakers celebrate the bill signing, they need to be focused on coordinating and supporting efforts to sustain the community-based approaches designed to address what any young person – justice involved, or not—needs to thrive.
Doing so will result in successful implementation of a move to raise the age.