SCOTUS Makes It Easier To Sue Police And Prosecutors For Malicious Prosecution

On April 4th, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), in the matter of Thompson v. Clark[1], held that for purposes of a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff is not required to show that the criminal prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of innocence. Rather, the plaintiff need only show that the prosecution ended without a conviction. A more detailed analysis and discussion of this case is provided below.

FACTS

Larry Thompson lived with his fiancé (now his wife) and his newborn daughter in a Brooklyn apartment. In January 2014, his sister-in-law was also residing in the apartment. In January, the sister-in-law called 911 and claimed that Thompson was sexually abusing his one-week-old daughter. Two emergency medical technicians (EMTs) responded, but when they arrived at the residence, Thompson denied that anyone had contacted 911. The EMTs returned with four police officers, but Thompson told them they could not enter the apartment without a warrant. The police officers entered the apartment and handcuffed Thompson. The EMTs examined the newborn baby and, finding red marks on her body, took her to the hospital to be examined. Medical personnel at the hospital determined the marks were a case of diaper rash and found no signs of abuse.

The officers arrested Thompson for resisting their entry into the apartment and he was taken to the local hospital and then to jail. The officers charged Thompson with “obstructing governmental administration” and “resisting arrest.” Thompson remained in police custody for two days, when a judge released him on his own recognizance.

Before the matter reached trial, the prosecution moved to dismiss the charges and the trial judge dismissed the case. The prosecutor did not provide an explanation as to why she sought to dismiss the charges, and the trial judge did not provide an explanation as to why he dismissed the case.

Thompson brought suit for damages under § 1983 against the police officers who had arrested and charged him, alleging several constitutional violations, including a Fourth Amendment claim for “malicious prosecution.”

Under Second Circuit precedent, to prevail on a claim for malicious prosecution in violation of his 4th Amendment rights, Thompson was required to show that his “criminal prosecution ended not merely without a conviction, but also with some affirmative indication of his innocence.” Since Thompson could offer no explanation as to why the prosecutor moved to dismiss the charges or why the trial judge dismissed the case, he was unable to show that his case ended with an affirmative indication of his innocence. As such, the District Court ruled that Thompson’s criminal case had not ended with an affirmative indication of his innocence and granted judgment to the defendant officers on that Fourth Amendment claim. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Thompson’s Fourth Amendment claim.

As stated, to maintain such a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, that they obtained a favorable termination of the underlying criminal prosecution. The primary question the Court analyzed was, what does a favorable termination entail? Is it enough for the plaintiff to show only that their criminal prosecution ended without a conviction? Or, must have plaintiff also demonstrate “that the prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of their innocence, such as an acquittal or dismissal accompanied by a statement from the judge that the evidence was sufficient?” As the various Courts of Appeals have split over how to apply the favorable termination requirement of the Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split.

SCOTUS OPINION

When determining the elements of a constitutional claim under § 1983, it is SCOTUS’ practice to first look to the elements of the most analogous tort as of 1871, when § 1983 was enacted, “so long as doing so is consistent with the values and purposes of the constitutional right at issue.” SCOTUS determined that the most analogous tort to the Fourth Amendment claim is malicious prosecution. Courts have described the elements of the malicious prosecution tort as follows: “(1) the suit or proceeding was ‘instituted without any probable cause’; (2) the ‘motive in instituting’ the suit ‘was malicious’, which was often defined in this context as without probable cause and for a purpose other than bringing the defendant to justice; and (3) The prosecution terminated in the ‘acquittal or discharge of the accused.’”

The third element of this tort – what constitutes a “favorable termination of the underlying dispute” – is the focus of SCOTUS’ decision. SCOTUS found that in reviewing court decisions considering the question, American courts as of 1871 were largely in agreement that the “‘technical prerequisite is only that the particular prosecution be disposed of in such a manner’ that it ‘cannot be revived.’” Courts found that a favorable termination can include the dismissal of a matter because it “marked an end to further proceedings against the defendant” on the charges. Likewise, courts held that plaintiffs could maintain a case for malicious prosecution when a prosecutor “abandoned the criminal case” or the court “dismissed the case without providing a reason.” SCOTUS further noted that the “treatises of that era agreed that a favorable termination occurred so long as the prosecution ended without conviction.”

SCOTUS found that “Because the American tort law consensus as of 1871 did not require a plaintiff in a malicious prosecution suit to show that his prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of innocence, we similarly construe the Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 for malicious prosecution.”

SCOTUS concluded that a Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution does not require the plaintiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. Rather, a plaintiff need only show that the criminal prosecution ended without a conviction. As such, SCOTUS reversed the judgement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

TAKE AWAY

In its decision, SCOTUS explicitly stated that it expressed no view on any additional questions that may be relevant to the matter on remand, including whether Thompson was ever seized as a result of the malicious prosecution, whether he was charged without probable cause, and whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

What does this decision mean for the future of law enforcement? Will the Court’s holding have a chilling effect on an officer’s decision to arrest? Will prosecutors be less willing to dismiss cases prior to trial, when to do so could result in an increase in malicious prosecution cases? While these possible consequences are likely not what the Court intended, they very well could be the end result of such a decision.

During its analysis, SCOTUS opined that its decision would not affect an officer’s protection from unwarranted civil suits as, among other things, officers are still protected by the requirement that the plaintiff show the absence of probable cause and by qualified immunity. What various law enforcement agencies understand, however, is that the concept of qualified immunity has come under attack by legislatures throughout the country. The assurances by SCOTUS that officers have this option available to them does not necessarily instill confidence amongst officers or law enforcement agencies.

Judge Alito filed a Dissenting Opinion in which he stated, “What the court has done is to recognize a novel hybrid claim of uncertain scope that has no basis in the constitution and is almost certain to lead to confusion.” Alito further stated that “the Court claims that the ‘gravamen’ of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is the same as that of a malicious prosecution claim: the ‘wrongful initiation of charges without probable cause.’ . . . But what the court describes is not a Fourth Amendment violation at all. As explained, that amendment protects against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ not the ‘unreasonable initiation of charges.’” Alito concluded that “the Court’s recognition of a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim has no basis in our precedents.”

[1] 596 U.S. ____ (2022)

source

SCOTUS Civil Rights Ruling against Police Hailed by BU Faculty

Amicus brief filed by LAW dean and Center for Antiracist Research staff may have played a role in Court’s decision in Thompson v. Clark

The little-known civil rights case started back in 2014. The ruling came in 2022. And when the US Supreme Court decided Thompson v. Clark this week in favor of Larry Thompson, by a 6-3 vote, both the BU School of Law and the BU Center for Antiracist Research (CAR) had cause for joy and relief.

The backstory: in January 2014, Thompson, a Navy veteran and postal worker, was living in Brooklyn with his fiancée, their newborn, and Thompson’s sister-in-law. The baby was a week old when the sister-in-law called 911 to claim that Thompson had sexually abused the infant, pointing to a red rash on the baby’s buttocks as proof. Four officers came to the house and when Thompson refused to let them in without a warrant, they tackled him, pinned him to the floor, and arrested him, with one officer filing criminal complaint charges that he resisted arrest (a charge that was later dropped without any explanation).

But when the hospital said the baby merely had a diaper rash, Thompson, who had spent two days in jail, sued the police under a 150-year-old federal civil rights law, known as Section 1983, that lets citizens sue state officials over violations of their constitutional rights, even after prosecutors drop all charges. He claimed the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable seizures.”

In a BU Today POV last October, Neda Khoshkhoo, CAR assistant director of research and policy, and Caitlin Glass, CAR interim associate director of policy, wrote: “Anyone who cares about deterring racialized police misconduct should watch this case closely.”

In support of Thompson’s argument, LAW Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Glass, Khoshkhoo, Jasmine Gonzales Rose, a School of Law professor of law and CAR deputy director of research and policy, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, arguing that Thompson’s rights had been violated.

While it’s not known if the amicus brief influenced any of the justices directly, the editor of the Supreme Court Press, which assists with preparing documents for SCOTUS, emailed the brief’s authors: “Congratulations—Your amicus brief was successful. This is a message to the BU team that we worked with on the amicus curiae brief in Thompson v. Clark et al. Your case was reversed and remanded. Amicus briefs are a unique and powerful method for directly interfacing with government on important matters and your voice was heard.”

“When I read the opinion, I felt such joy,” Gonzales Rose says. “A plaintiff bringing a Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution need only show that their prosecution ended without a conviction to have their proverbial day in court! I was also relieved that the majority did not follow Justice Alito’s dissent and allow this case to be an excuse to eliminate malicious prosecution claims.”

BU Today asked Gonzales Rose, Khoshkhoo, and Glass for perspective on the ruling’s importance. They answered together.

source

Thompson v. Clark – Maliciou$ Prosecution claim under § 42 U.S.C. 1983  Click Here
20-659 Thompson v. Clark (04-04-2022) – Suing the Government 

Learn more about these sujects

• Malicious Prosecution
• Prosecutional Misconduct
• Vindictive Prosecution
• Retaliatory Prosecution
• Abuse of Process

Selected Issues in Malicious Prosecution Cases

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct

Vindictive Prosecution – Georgetown University

VINDICTIVE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION

What is Abuse of Process?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution?

Malicious Prosecution Actions Arising Out Of Family Law Proceedings: Proceed Carefully

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution

SCOTUS Makes It Easier To Sue Police And Prosecutors For Malicious Prosecution

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

National District Attorneys Association – National Prosecution Standards – NDDA

What Happens If Charges Are Dropped Before Trial?

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Thomp$on v. Clark – Maliciou$ Pro$ecution 

Reichle v. Howards (2012) – Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials –1st Amendment

People v. Superior Court (Greer) 5th & 8th Amendment – Bias / Malicious Persecutor

Hartman v. Moore (2006) –Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Epic SCOTUS Decisions

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is processing previously withheld John F. Kennedy assassination-related records to comply with President Joe Biden’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Temporary Certification Regarding Disclosure of Information in Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, requiring disclosure of releasable records by December 15, 2022. The National Archives has posted records online to comply with these requirements.

Accessing the Release Files

The table below displays metadata about all the released documents. You can also DOWNLOAD PDF that has LIVE LINKS to EVERY DOCUMENT RELEASED download the spreadsheet as an Excel file cited https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release2022?page=36

The assassination of John F. Kennedy

For Americans of a certain age, Nov. 22, 1963, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, joined Dec. 7, 1941, and Sept. 11, 2001, as dates that “live in infamy,” never to be forgotten.

President Kennedy’s death, shot from the Texas schoolbook depository by Marxist sharp-shooter Lee Harvey Oswald during a Dallas motorcade, stunned the nation and the world.

In Greenville, which had voted overwhelmingly for Richard Nixon three years earlier (the state went Democratic), the news brought flags lowered to half-mast across the city, tolling bells from St. Mary’s, and sobbing mourners in offices, schools, and factories.

During the weekend that followed, people picked up special editions of The Greenville News and sat glued to their television sets as the drama continued to unfold. They saw strip club owner Jack Ruby’s murder of Oswald on live television. They watched film of Kennedy’s flag-draped coffin being carried into the Rotunda of the Capitol and mourned with thousands of visitors from around the world.

On Monday, when newly sworn in President Lyndon Johnson declared a day of national mourning, they watched, many with tears in their eyes, the almost 19th century pageantry of Kennedy’s funeral procession and his burial at Arlington National Cemetery. cited

Background

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. He was shot twice while riding in a motorcade on the way to give a speech. His alleged killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, was arrested that same day but was shot to death a few days later while in police custody.

The Assassination

Kennedy and his wife, Jacqueline, were in Texas on a fundraising trip. After visiting San Antonio, Houston, and Fort Worth, the couple traveled to Dallas. Riding in an open car in the presidential motorcade, the Kennedys were accompanied by Texas governor John Connally and his wife. Vice president Lyndon B. Johnson was in a separate car.

As the president’s car passed through Dealey Plaza around 12:30 p.m., he was shot first in the neck and then in the head by bullets that appeared to be fired from the Texas School Book Depository. Connally was injured by the same bullet that passed through Kennedy’s neck. The motorcade rushed to the hospital, where Kennedy was declared dead at 1 p.m. Vice President Johnson was sworn into office as president at 2:38 p.m. on board Air Force One.

Lee Harvey Oswald

A little over an hour after the shooting, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested by police as the main suspect. In between Kennedy’s assassination and the arrest, Oswald had also allegedly shot and killed Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit.

Oswald, a Marxist and former Marine, proclaimed his innocence, but two days later (November 24), he was shot by nightclub owner Jack Ruby on live television as he was being transferred to the county jail.

Committee Investigations

Kennedy’s funeral was held on November 25. Almost immediately after Kennedy’s death, conspiracy theories began circulating. Johnson created the Warren Commission on November 29, 1963, to investigate the shooting. After 10 months, the commission determined that Oswald had acted alone.

In 1976, the House Select Committee on Assassinations was created to reevaluate Kennedy’s death (as well as that of Martin Luther King Jr.). In 1979, this committee reported that there was likely more than one shooter. However, afterward, the reliability of the evidence, and thus the committee’s conclusions, were questioned.

Learn more about the Assassination of John F. Kennedy through historical newspapers from our archives. Explore newspaper articles, headlines, images, and other primary sources below. cited 

JFK assassination: Thousands of records of President Kennedy’s killing in 1963 made public

The US National Archives has released more than 13,000 documents related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

But the White House, citing national security concerns, has blocked the release of thousands more. A batch of archives on the case had already been declassified in December 2021.

According to the National Archives, 97% of the approximately five million pages of the file are now available to the public.

The release of the latest documents was not expected to include any new bombshells or change the official conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine and communist activist who had lived in the Soviet Union, acted alone.

However, the latest cache will be useful for historians focusing on the events around the assassination.

Kennedy was shot and killed while riding in his motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963, at the age of 46.

Thousands of books, articles, TV shows and films have explored the idea that Kennedy’s assassination was the result of an elaborate conspiracy. None have produced conclusive proof that Oswald worked with anyone else.

Many of the released documents belonged to the CIA, including several that focused on Oswald’s movements and his contacts. Other documents focus on requests from the Warren Commission investigating the assassination.

The documents show that the US government opened a file on Oswald in December 1960, nearly three years before Kennedy’s murder and after Oswald’s failed defection to the Soviet Union in 1959.

In Mexico City, they “intercepted” a phone call Oswald made from the Mexican capital to the Soviet Embassy “using his own name” and speaking “broken Russian”. The documents show that Oswald was hoping to travel through Cuba on his way to Russia and was seeking a visa.

There were initial concerns that Jack Ruby — a nightclub owner who fatally shot Oswald two days after the assassination — might have had some connection to Kennedy’s killer. But a memo to the presidential commission investigating the assassination in September 1964, newly released, said the CIA had “no indication” that they had ever been “connected in any manner”.

In 1992 the US Congress ordered that all remaining sealed files on the investigation should be made public by October 2017, except for those the president authorised for further withholding.

In 2017, then-President Donald Trump released some, but decided to release the remaining documents on a rolling basis.

All remaining JFK files were originally supposed to have been released in October 2021, but President Biden postponed the move, citing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.They were then meant to be disclosed in two batches: in December 2021 and another by December 15, 2022, after undergoing an intensive one-year review.

The CIA said that with Thursday’s release, 95% of the documents in its JFK assassination records collection have been released in their entirety. No documents will remain redacted or withheld in full after an “intensive one-year review” of all previously unreleased information, the intelligence agency said.

Biden said a review of still undisclosed documents would continue until 1 May 2023, after which date any withheld information would be released by 30 June — unless agencies recommended continued postponement cited 

 

---

JFK assassination: National Archives releases nearly 1,500 confidential documents

Many of the documents relate to Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald

By Timothy H.J. Nerozzi | Fox News

The National Archives and Records Administration on Wednesday released nearly 1,500 confidential documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The government agency released the files via their website. Historians, political scholars and believers in a wide range of theories about Kennedy’s assassination immediately began poring over the documents.

Many of the documents relate to Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Many files also reference tensions between the United States and Cuba, evaluating statements from leader Fidel Castro that allude to the possibility of Kennedy being in danger due to escalating aggression between the two nations.

NARA explained in a brief statement on their site that the institution was “processing previously withheld John F. Kennedy assassination-related records to comply with President Joe Biden’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Temporary Certification Regarding Disclosure of Information in Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, requiring disclosure of releasable records by December 15, 2021.”

The records are scanned and available individually as PDF files. The site also offers a text search for readers looking for key subjects or phrases.

“The National Archives has posted records online to comply with these requirements,” the site explains.

Many unanswered questions remain about the Kennedy assassination which took place on Nov. 22, 1963. In the decades since, conspiracy theories and speculation of all kinds have surfaced, adding to the swell of allure surrounding the single event that changed – and continues to mystify – the country.

Fox News legal analyst and host of ‘JFK: The Conspiracy Continues’ Gregg Jarrett joined ‘Fox & Friends’ in August, telling co-host Will Cain that the government is to blame for the skepticism — asserting that most Americans don’t believe the beloved 35th U.S. president was shot and killed by a lone gunman.

“The government, to this day, continues to hide thousands of assassination records,” said Jarrett.

US unseals thousands of classified JFK assassination documents

The documents cover a CIA surveillance operation against Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK’s assassination

By Anders Hagstrom , Adam Sabes | Fox News

The National Archives unsealed thousands of formerly classified documents relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

President Biden ordered the release of 12,879 documents relating to the attack, including many from the CIA’s personality file on Lee Harvey Oswald that it maintained both before and after JFK’s killing.

Conspiracies surrounding JFK’s killing have piqued the curiosity — and sometimes obsession — of Americans for decades. Nevertheless, White House officials have reportedly indicated that nothing in the documents will support the two most popular conspiracies: That Oswald was not the shooter and that JFK’s killing was a government conspiracy.

The release is the largest since December of last year when the Biden administration released 1,500 documents, most of them related to Oswald; 12,879 documents were released on Thursday. Fox News is reviewing the files.

In ordering the release of the documents, Biden said that some documents are being withheld “to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

The president said he directed government agencies to review “the full set of almost 16,000 records that had previously been released in redacted form” and added that they “determined that more than 70 percent of those records may now be released in full.”

“This significant disclosure reflects my Administration’s commitment to transparency and will provide the American public with greater insight and understanding of the Government’s investigation into this tragic event in American history,” Biden said in the order.

Last year’s release was disappointing for many interested in the issue, with Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett stating at the time that the government had much more to release.

“There are some surprising results and information in those documents,” Jarrett said. “But, thousands more are yet to be released.”

“The government, to this day, continues to hide thousands of assassination records,” he added.

Jarrett went on to assert that most Americans do not believe the official story that Oswald operated as a lone gunman in the attack, as was found in the 1964 Warren Commission.

Adding fuel to the fire was Oswald’s own assassination in 1963 at the hands of a Texas nightclub owner.

The chief topic in Thursday’s release is Oswald’s 80-volume “personality file,” a document containing essentially everything the CIA knew about Oswald both before and after the attack, according to Politico.

The documents also offer insight into the CIA’s surveillance operation against Oswald in Mexico City just weeks before the assassination.

JFK assassination files:
Gregg Jarrett breaks down public skepticism over document reveal

Fox Nation’s ‘JFK: The Conspiracy Continues’ breaks down the wider story and offers proper context to the conspiracy theories and speculation fueled by the assassination

By Yael Halon | Fox News

The National Archives and Records Administration on Wednesday released nearly 1,500 confidential documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. 

The tranche of documents comes amid public demands for transparency about the November 22nd, 1963 assassination, which has fueled conspiracy theories and speculation of all kinds in the decades since.

Fox Nation revisited that tragic day in Dallas in a special titled, ‘JFK: The Conspiracy Continues,” which outlined some unanswered questions and public skepticism historians hope to finally clarify in light of Wednesday’s document release, with thousands more yet to be disclosed.

Fox News legal analyst and host of the Fox Nation show Greg Jarrett said in August that the government is to blame for the skepticism — asserting that most Americans don’t believe the beloved 35th U.S. president was shot and killed by a lone gunman.

“There are some surprising results and information in those documents,” Jarrett said. “But, thousands more are yet to be released.” “The government, to this day, continues to hide thousands of assassination records.”

President Biden in October delayed their release until this month, giving federal agencies more time to review the documents and make the necessary redactions.

Many of the newly released documents relate to Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Many files also reference tensions between the United States and Cuba, evaluating statements from leader Fidel Castro that allude to the possibility of Kennedy being in danger due to escalating aggression between the two nations.

“He denied killing the president, was paraded before reporters and told them he was a patsy,” Jarrett said.

Almost immediately after the Warren Commission in 1964 ruled that Oswald had been the lone gunman, conspiracy theories began to circulate over whether he had been the only shooter and if the CIA had been involved in the Kennedy assassination.

“For some Americans,” the Warren Commission was part of the conspiracy, drawn in by Johnson and FBI director Jay Edgar Hoover days after Kennedy was shot,” Jarrett explained.

But before authorities were able to fully question Oswald, the former U.S. Marine was shot and killed on Nov. 24, 1963, by Texas nightclub owner Jack Ruby – adding more fuel to the speculative fire that the U.S. government was hiding what it knew about the assassination.

“The questions were swirling about Lee Harvey Oswald, why he did it, who motivated him to do it, was he alone or was there some shadowy conspiracy involved?” Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera says in the Fox Nation show. “What the hell happened that day in Dallas Texas?”

Now, with the help of award-winning director Oliver Stone, Jarrett’s four-part deep-dive takes on the issue, striving to give the American people the whole story and offer proper context as historians and political scholars analyze the latest trove of documents. Fox News’ Laura Carrione contributed to this report.

---

Thousands of JFK assassination files finally released – will bombshells emerge?

Material not expected to rebut Warren commission conclusion that president was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone

Historians and conspiracy theorists have been given an early Christmas present: the release from US National Archives of 13,173 documents relating to the official investigation into the 1963 assassination of President John F Kennedy.

From barely legible memos filled with the crabby handwriting of CIA agents, through reports on secret meetings with Russian diplomats, to painstaking detective work on the movements of Lee Harvey Oswald, the trove of documents will keep JFK assassination obsessives busy for months. Few expect bombshells among the pile, however.

The newly declassified materials are unlikely to disturb the conclusion of the 1964 Warren commission charged with getting to the bottom of the outrage. It found that Oswald, a former Marine and communist who defected to the Soviet Union, had killed Kennedy, acting alone, by firing three shots as the 46-year-old Democratic US president rode in an open-top limousine through Dealey Plaza in Dallas on 22 November 1963.

One of the newly released documents, dating from September 1964, underlines that point. At the request of the commission, the CIA had searched its own files for any connection between Oswald and Jack Ruby, the local nightclub owner who shot and killed Oswald on live television in the basement of Dallas police headquarters two days after the Kennedy assassination.

“Examination of Central Intelligence Agency files has produced no information on Jack RUBY or his activities,” the document states. “The Central Intelligence Agency has no indication that RUBY and Lee Harvey OSWALD ever knew each other, were associated, or might have been connected in any manner.”

Thursday’s release of thousands of documents means that 95% of the CIA’s records on the assassination are now available to the public. As a final step there will be an “intensive one-year review” of any remaining closed files before a complete opening of the books by 30 June 2023.

The unveiling of the CIA documents has been delayed for years. In 1992, Congress ordered their full release by October 2017, but the deadline was pushed back by presidential decrees from both Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

Such postponements have allowed conspiracy theories to flourish. Some of the most instantly intriguing material in the newly-released stash concerns the proliferation of conspiracy theories and misinformation around the assassination. Over the years there have been umpteen lurid suggestions of who was responsible, ranging from the Cubans, the Soviet Union and the Mafia to the Teamsters union boss Jimmy Hoffa – and the CIA itself.

A file marked “secret” from September 1964 gives clues as to how lurid stories spread quickly in the months after Kennedy died. CIA agents in Stockholm reported back to HQ on their quizzing of an unnamed subject who had been reported in the Swedish newspapers to have said that he had lived in Cuba for many years and had advance knowledge of the assassination.

The agents wrote: “When asked whether he had foretold assassination of Kennedy, he denied quote ascribed to him and said could not recall any similar statements. Said he knew nothing of assassination before it happened … Appeared slightly embarrassed as if ashamed of statements he made while drunk.”

A separate document also from September 1964 described a meeting between a Soviet diplomat in Helsinki, Felix Karasev, and US officials. The encounter began with the US-Soviet officials waging a couple of bets on the Olympics which were to be held the following month in Tokyo.

“Will necessitate two drinking parties,” the official memo drily noted.

Talk then turned to the Oswald case. The US officials suggested to Karasev that maybe there was Soviet involvement behind Oswald’s actions, and he replied: “This would have been possible if Oswald had been in China, but not in the Soviet Union.”

Karasev then counter-attacked that “he could not help but believe that Ruby was tool of ‘reactionary forces’”, and that it would have been impossible for him to shoot Oswald “without assistance of some US officials”. The Americans “tried debunk this impression, but Karasev held to his views”.

The new files also record conspiracy theories swirling years after the Warren commission. A secret document from March 1978 refers to an article in the Guardian reporting on a BBC documentary.

The film explored the possibility that the assassination was a spinoff from a CIA/mafia plot to murder Cuba’s Fidel Castro. It claimed links between Oswald, the CIA and the Soviet KGB.

The US officials who wrote the memo warned that the documentary had been “presented in prestigious [BBC current affairs program] ‘Panorama’ slot which has wide and large audience. Will have considerable impact on viewers.”

Fast forward to today, and the “who killed JFK?” industry remains in robust health. Hours after Biden released the new files, Tucker Carlson, Fox News’s conspiracy theorist-in-chief, began his primetime show by telling his 3 million viewers that the CIA did it.

Carlson had talked to an “unnamed source” with direct knowledge of the JFK files the CIA was still hiding. The informed view of the “source” was that “the CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It’s a whole different country from what we thought it was. It’s all fake.”

Lest anyone had any doubts, Carlson emphasised the credibility of the “source”. “This is not a ‘conspiracy theorist’ we spoke to. Not even close,” he said. cited

The Secret Service may have been ‘impaired’ the day JFK was assassinated

Some of the Secret Service members in charge of protecting President John F. Kennedy might have been impaired the day he was killed. That’s what author Susan Cheever says in her new book “Drinking in America: Our Secret History.” Following is a transcript of the video.

Susan Cheever: The Secret Service men who were guarding the presidential motorcade, who are in the follow-up car to JFK and Jacqueline Kennedy during the Dallas motorcade in 1963, had been out drinking until 2, 3, 4, 5 in the morning. So those guys who were responsible for saving the lives of JFK and Jacqueline were clearly impaired.

What happened was the night before they were all in Fort Worth with the president. They hadn’t gotten anything to eat all day. So after the president and first lady went to bed seven of the Secret Service men went out looking for food. And first they went to the Fort Worth Press Club where they had heard there would be some food, but there wasn’t any. So they had a beer, a couple scotches. whatever, and then some of them went back to the hotel and a few of them went on to another club called the Cellar Coffee House.

Which Chief Justice Earl Warren was furious about this when he found out. And in the Warren Commission report there is Chief Justice Earl Warren exploding about this and he calls the Cellar Coffee House some hippie joint, right.

So some of them stayed at the Cellar Coffee House until 5 in the morning for a 8:48 call. So you know, if you’re up until 5 in the morning, if you’ve had anything to drink, you’re not your best self at noon or 1230 the next day. cited 

could ‘blow up’ US education system:

youngest at most risk: former teacher

Teachers must evolve to keep up with technology, prevent kids from leaning on AI, writing coach says

The emergence of artificial intelligence chatbots that can complete students’ assignments will lead to a crisis in learning, forcing educators to rethink schooling entirely, a former teacher said.

“The introduction of new artificial intelligence technologies into schools that enables students to auto-generate essays has the capacity to blow up our entire writing education curriculum,” Peter Laffin, founder of Crush the College Essay and writing coach, told Fox News. “It may make us have to rethink it from the ground up, and that might ultimately be a good thing.”

Last week, tech company OpenAI unveiled an AI chatbot, ChatGPT, which has stunned users with its advanced functions. The language model can automatically generate school essays for any grade level, answer open-ended analytical questions, draft marketing pitches, write jokes, poems and even computer code.’

EDUCATOR EXPLAINS HOW AI COULD HELP IMPROVE SCHOOLING. WATCH HERE:

The internet is swirling with predictions about how this sophisticated technology could impact several industries and render countless jobs obsolete. But at the forefront of Laffin’s concern is the impact it will have on education.

“I do believe that students will be able to use this technology undetected to complete assignments,” he told Fox News. “It’s going to be increasingly difficult for teachers to be able to tell the difference.”

Laffin said younger students in particular are at risk of losing the most to chatbots. So, too, will inner-city schools with lower teacher-to-student ratios, where instructors are less familiar with their students’ work, making it harder to detect the use of AI.

“The more easily available this is for younger students, the more problems this will create,” Laffin told Fox News.

College students using ChatGPT to complete busywork assignments will be disrupted less because “you are already at a level of sophistication where you understand the content,” Laffin explained. But if younger students use AI for an assignment like writing a history paper, “you’ve not only cheated on a writing exercise, you’ve also cheated yourself out of learning the history.”

The artificial intelligence-powered ChatGPT garnered global interest and exceeded 1 million users in less than a week. It’s also the first time a high-level AI text generator with a user-friendly interface has been made available to the public for free.

“The fact that this might cause a crisis in education might ultimately be to our benefit,” Laffin said. “Because writing is something that we just don’t teach very well.”

he writing coach recommended teachers evolve their assignments and move away from traditional five-paragraph essays. They should instead create more innovative models of teaching, he said.

“The practices in schools always seem to lag behind a little bit what the latest technology is,” Laffin told Fox News. “You can always be sure that kids are going to be one step ahead of the teachers, so there needs to be a lot of vigilance on this.”

To watch Laffin’s full interview, click here.

cited https://www.foxnews.com/tech/ai-bot-schoolwork-blow-up-us-education-system-youngest-risk-former-teacher

Immunity Fail – 1st & 4th Amendment

Mike Callahan – The Objectively Reasonable Officer

Jury trial required to determine liability for mass arrest, alleged excessive force and supervisory indifference

No qualified immunity for officers in ‘kettling’ case

Kate Halloran

Police officers who orchestrated an allegedly violent mass arrest of peaceful protestors and innocent bystanders in St. Louis, Mo., are not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit alleging they violated a man’s constitutional rights, the Eighth Circuit has ruled. (Baude v. Leyshock, 23 F.4th 1065 (8th Cir. 2022).)

Baude brought claims against the city and its police department under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also stated in his complaint that many of the people in the kettle were not protesters—they were local residents, business owners, journalists, and others who were rounded up indiscriminately and herded into the kettle, where they were arrested en masse. The plaintiff also alleged that he observed officers acting indiscriminately and using force—including deploying pepper spray and kicking, beating, and dragging—against people in the kettle who were not behaving violently or aggressively.

The district court rejected the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. They filed an interlocutory appeal with the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed.

The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff met his burden to state a plausible claim that the defendants’ actions violated his clearly established constitutional rights and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. On the Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim, the plaintiff alleged that the officers did not warn him or the others that they were going to be confined to an area and arrested en masse. Even though a mass arrest can be legal under the Fourth Amendment, the court explained, it requires that police “have grounds to believe all arrested persons were a part of the unit observed violating the law.” This can include innocent bystanders whom police incorrectly believe are part of the unit violating the law, but video from the incident that showed people milling about freely and moving in and out of the kettle area even after the police purportedly ordered the crowd to disperse raised questions of fact. The court noted that the video did not “show any real sense of urgency or confrontation visible in the crowd” and that the officers could not rely on the earlier actions of a small group of people whom they claimed were acting violently to justify a mass arrest.

On the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, the court stated that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of his arrest—one of the two requirements of the test for qualified immunity. Thus, the plaintiff needed to prove only that the force used against him—pepper spraying him and zip tying his hands—was objectively unreasonable. Again referencing video evidence from the incident, the court concluded that it “paint[ed] a picture of a compliant individual among a generally peaceful and compliant crowd who was boxed into an intersection by police, pepper sprayed, and forcefully arrested” and that this was sufficient at the pleading stage to call into question whether the officers acted reasonably.

The court also held that the plaintiff’s claims against supervisory officers of the St. Louis police department could proceed. The court rejected the officers’ contention that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not participate in the use of force against the plaintiff and that they had no obligation to intervene in the mass arrest if they believed their subordinate officers were acting reasonably. The court explained that Eighth Circuit precedent at the time of the incident clearly established that supervisory officers who fail to intervene when they have knowledge of subordinate officers’ actions that create a “substantial risk of serious harm” can be liable for a Fourth Amendment violation. Because the plaintiff’s allegations and the video evidence raise factual questions on this issue, it is for a fact-finder to decide, the court concluded.

“When the Eighth Circuit saw the video, it ruled that it matched our allegations and that there’s no basis to give qualified immunity to these arguments,” said St. Louis attorney Javad Khazaeli, who represents Baude. “We would hope, at some point, that the city of St. Louis, after being told repeatedly by district court judges and Eighth Circuit appellate judges that what its officers did was wrong that it would finally hold somebody accountable.” Khazaeli noted that more than a dozen other cases and a class action are pending against the defendants for what happened that night.

Police “Kettling” And Keeping The Peace

Baude v. Leyshock from the Eighth Circuit has a lot of legal issues that we have discussed and a new term that we have not, which is “kettling.” First let’s start with what we have discussed before: our case today brings to question excessive use of force during a protest. As a reminder, a court evaluates the reasonableness of the force by examining the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. This case also highlights the duty to intervene and the claim from the plaintiff that supervisory officers did not do so: Officers have an affirmative duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers. To hold an officer liable for failure to intervene it must be shown that the officer knew a person’s rights were being violated, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so.

The one new term that we have not discussed is “kettling.” The court brings up this term and states that “kettling” may be considered excessive during protests if there is no need for it. “Kettling” (also known as containment or corralling) is a police tactic for controlling large crowds during demonstrations or protests. It involves the formation of large barricades of police officers who then move to contain a crowd within a limited area.

On September 17, 2017, between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., a “handful” of individuals protesting the acquittal of a police officer charged with murder broke windows and destroyed flowerpots on Olive Street in downtown St. Louis, Missouri. Twice before 9:00 p.m., a police officer gave dispersal orders to the small number of protestors who were present. Over the next two hours, police officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department began blocking roads and directing civilians to the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard, an area containing condominiums, apartment buildings, and businesses, including restaurants and bars.

Brian Baude, who lived near the intersection, saw reports on social media that protesters had destroyed property in the area, so he decided to investigate. He left his home around 9:30 p.m., unaware of the earlier dispersal orders. According to Baude, Lieutenant Colonel Gerald Leyshock approved a plan in which St. Louis Metropolitan officers would prohibit anyone from leaving the vicinity of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard and arrest everyone present. Afterwards, officers surrounded, squeezed, and eventually blocked anyone from leaving the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard using a technique Baude described as “kettling.” When Baude saw the police herding the bystanders into a confined space, he asked to leave the intersection but was informed by officers that it was too late. In addition to Baude, those being contained by the SLMPD officers included downtown residents, business patrons, protesters, observers, and members of the press. Video evidence documented multiple citizens approaching officers and requesting permission to leave, which was denied. After Baude was herded into the intersection by SLMPD officers, he was pepper-sprayed by an officer and arrested as part of a mass arrest. Baude claimed that, during the course of his arrest and detention, his hands were zip-tied and he was transported to the City Justice Center, where he was searched and held for 14 hours. Baude was eventually released, and charges against him were dismissed.

Baude sued Lieutenant Colonel Gerald Leyshock and several other SLMPD supervisory and subordinate officers for violating his constitutional rights. First, Baude claimed that the subordinate officers unlawfully seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment by arresting him without probable cause that he had committed a crime.

Second, Baude claimed that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force when they “kettled” him, pepper-sprayed him, and zip-tied his hands.

Third, Baude claimed that supervisory officers either observed the excessive use of force by subordinate officers or intended for subordinate officers to use excessive force and subsequently did not intervene to stop it. After the district court denied the officers qualified immunity, they appealed.

Eighth Circuit Court Opinion

Concerning Baude’s unreasonable seizure claim, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that it was undisputed that Baude was seized when the officers indiscriminately encircled all individuals in the area, including protestors, observers, business patrons, and residents who were simply walking by, and then refused to allow anyone to leave voluntarily. Specifically, Baude alleged that the officers failed to warn him and the allegedly peaceful group that they were about to be surrounded, herded into a confined area, and arrested. Baude also alleged that, even though he was at all times peaceful, the officers denied his request to leave the area and then arrested him without probable cause.

After being seized, Baude alleged that subordinate officers relayed information about the crowd to their supervisors, who directed the subordinate officers to arrest Baude without probable cause that he had committed a criminal offense. The court noted that the subordinate officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because his claim that he was just following his superiors’ allegedly lawful orders to arrest Baude was contradicted by Baude’s allegations regarding his own conduct.

The court stated that it was required to consider Baude’s allegations and accompanying exhibits as true and view them in Baude’s favor. As a result, the court concluded that Baude’s allegations and the accompanying video of the encounter stated a “plausible claim” that the officers’ conduct constituted an unlawful arrest; therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Regarding Baude’s excessive force claim, the court found that Baude’s allegations and the video evidence submitted established that Baude was a compliant individual among a generally peaceful and compliant crowd who was boxed into an intersection by police, pepper-sprayed, and forcefully arrested. The court added that, at this stage of the proceedings, some specific questions such as whether “kettling” a crowd was in-and-of itself excessive force, whether the application of zip-ties caused any injury, or whether Baude was actually compliant could not be determined. Consequently, the court held that when viewing the alleged facts in a light most favorable to Baude, which it was required to do, the court could not conclude that the use of force against Baude was objectively reasonable.

Concerning Baude’s claim that the officers failed to intervene, Baude alleged that it was the coordinated actions of the officers in surrounding the assembly and using chemical agents that made it clear that these tactics were planned and that senior officials of the SLMPD not only had notice of, but actually sanctioned the conduct of the officers. Although the officers disputed these allegations, the court noted that at this stage of the proceedings, it was required to accept as true all facts pleaded by Baude. Therefore, the court held that the supervisory officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on Baude’s failure to intervene claim.

Takeaways

The recent years have seen an increase in protests and the use of social media has made it easy for crowds to gather quickly. In this case, the officers only informed the original protesters about the dispersal orders. Just because a crowd had formed earlier to protest something, it does not mean that those who are passing through later should be corralled. The officers in this situation indiscriminately encircled all individuals in the area, including protestors, observers, business patrons, and residents who were simply walking by, and then refused to allow anyone to leave voluntarily. This type of conduct is unacceptable for officers. Their role is to keep the peace and protect the community, not to impose unnecessary sanctions. In this situation, the supervisors had a responsibility to intervene and prevent this kind of conduct. Under no circumstances should officers prevent residents from leaving an area if there is no credible safety concern.

source

Baude v. Leyshock, 23 F.4th 1065 (8th Cir. 2022)