Author: TSA Press

New York City Police Commissioner James O’Neill just announced that he has decided to fire police officer Daniel Pantaleo, the man who killed Eric Garner in broad daylight.

Commissioner O’Neill announced the termination during one of the most victim-blaming speeches I’ve ever heard. O’Neill repeatedly blamed Garner for his own death: he accused Garner of resisting arrest, repeatedly; he accused Garner of trying to put Pantaleo through a window; he said he watches the tape (of Garner’s murder) and wanted to tell Garner “don’t do it,” just like he wants to tell the same to Pantaleo. At the very least, he blamed Eric Garner’s health for his death. “I’m sure Mr. Garner did not think himself in such poor health that a brief altercation with the police would result in his death.” The whole speech resurfaces the fundamental police lie that somehow “resisting arrest” is a capital offense on the streets of New York City.

O’Neill, responding to a question, says, “Every person who protects this country looks at that tape and thinks ‘that could possibly be me.’” MOTHERF***ER, everybody BLACK looks at that tape and thinks “that could possibly be me.” The police have authority to end my life BECAUSE I’m black, and all O’Neill can think to worry about is how the cops are going to take it because “one of their own” got fired for killing a man?

Despite the extreme pile of BS shoveled out by O’Neill, he eventually reached the right conclusion. He said that while Pantaleo was justified in initially applying the chokehold that killed Garner (f**k you), he concluded that at the point he was on the ground, gasping for air, BEGGING TO BREATHE, Pantaleo probably should have released his grip. He talked about how Pantaleo was trained to not use that technique, specifically because of how dangerous it is, and his refusal to release it must have consequences.

I’m sure the New York Police Union will bitch. Which is great. Instead of making a strong statement that the murder of unarmed black people will not be tolerated by this department, O’Neill made it seem like cops who will soon be out of the streets brutalizing black people are kind of justified.

NYPD is the freaking worst. If New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio had any freaking strength, he’d fire O’Neill for this press conference alone. The black and brown residents of New York City deserve a police commissioner who isn’t so desperate to whitesplain the cops who murder us.

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

If police come to your home and ask for DNA, would you give it, or would you demand some kind of warrant first?  You might also want to hear some reasonable explanation of why your DNA is being requested.

What if you knew that DNA matches aren’t as infallible as television portrayals?  Instead, they depend on the quality of the sample, how many other people’s DNA are mixed in, and the algorithm the particular forensic lab uses to determine probability statistics. A “match” can mean a lot or a little.  It all depends on how trustworthy the comparison is.

Finally, what if the DNA taken from you, even as an elimination sample, was to be kept indefinitely in a database without your knowledge or consent.

The actual taking of the DNA isn’t the problem.  It’s a relatively quick and totally painless process. DNA in the form of saliva is “harvested” from inside your mouth by rubbing a Q-Tip or small brush.  The sample is then placed in a sterile envelope and sent to a lab.  The profile generated (called an electropherogram) will be clear-cut and pristine, made up of a series of peaks that provide a presentation of your genetic makeup.

The problem is that the sample taken from your mouth is then compared with samples from crime scenes that are generally not as pristine.  The grip of a gun, for example, that has been handled by three or more people, might have barely enough DNA to compare to yours, and would show a mixture of DNA. However, labs could still compare that sample to your DNA and if your DNA does not affirmatively eliminate you as a contributor, you could still be included as a suspect.

Mixed-source DNA, especially when the crime-scene sample is as small as a pinprick, makes comparisons especially difficult and dangerous to suspects whose DNA profiles do not eliminate them from all suspicion.

DNA databases are growing nationwide.  I’ve been seeing more and more instances where DNA is gathered surreptitiously to establish probable cause to arrest, rather than to strengthen a case once the suspect has already been arrested. It’s not uncommon for police to offer suspects cigarettes or glasses of water in order to use the discarded cigarette butt or straw for DNA testing.  They might offer a suspect a can of soda, not to quench his thirst, but to have a surface from which to collect DNA.

I’ve known police officers who have searched garbage pails for anything that might carry DNA, including dirty diapers to establish paternity in family court cases.

Nowadays, it’s standard that people arrested and convicted of crimes provide DNA, even for misdemeanors.  Yet more and more DNA is getting into databases not because people have been arrested or are suspects, but as a shortcut around investigations.

In the recent high-publicity murder case of Karina Vetrano, a young female jogger in Queens, police sought saliva samples from 360 black men in Brooklyn and Queens. According to reports, many of the men were cajoled, coerced, and even threatened to give their DNA samples.

Once given, the samples went into databases even if those men were eliminated as suspects in the crime.  This goes for victims of crimes, too.  Their DNA is routinely collected to distinguish their biological material from that of the perpetrator and later stored indefinitely in the databases.

Without the regulations that govern the FBI or state medical-examiner data systems, police bureaus that collect DNA have fewer restrictions on how and when the data can be used, and how long it will remain in the system.

Even DNA from people who do ancestral testing can find its way to those databases.  According to reports, some of the major companies that provide DNA ancestral testing share their information with law enforcement, ostensibly to solve crimes.  Police cracked the case of the “Golden State Killer” in 2018 based on a comparison with the DNA of the killer’s relative.

An estimated 10 million people have had their DNA ancestry traced and there’s more every day.  That’s a lot of DNA data being shared without the providers’ permission or knowledge.

Maybe it doesn’t matter to those people if they’ve never done anything wrong and have no fear of being sought by police.  But for people who don’t even like to use E-ZPass because it gives the government a way of tracing them, I imagine this makes them uncomfortable.

Plus, even if you’ve done nothing criminal, think about your weird Uncle Louie.  He’s still part of the family.  Would you want to inadvertently turn him in?

Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

This week, ILTACON 2019 will be held August 18-22, in Orlando, FL. Attendees will have the opportunity to attend a four-part series on the hot topic and still mysterious cluster of technologies known as blockchain. The program is the brainchild of Katherine Lowry, Director of Practice Services at BakerHostetler. I recently interviewed Lowry to gain some insights into the evolution of her interest in blockchain in the law and her goal in designing the ILTA program.

According to Lowry’s LinkedIn write up, attendees who come to the “Blockchain series will have the opportunity to demystify and learn the practical impact of blockchain for lawyers.” Below is a description of the sessions which will run Monday through Wednesday at the ILTA conference in Orlando.

The series facilitator is Amy Y. Wan, CEO, Sagewise & Bootstrap Legal. The sessions and speakers will be:

• Building-a-Blockchain live (without computers) to bring clarity on how permissioned and permissionless blockchains work, but most important, identify what problems are solved using this technology. Speakers: Diana J. Stern and Christian Smith
• Demonstrations on how blockchain technology can be used to support practical business applications today! Speakers: Peter Buck, Hal Marcus, and Daniel Rice
• Smart contracts developed LIVE! Speakers: Carla Reyes and Henning
  Diedrich (@hdiedrich)
• Industry mapping of blockchain-based consortia and hear market leaders reflect on the future of blockchain. Speakers: Nita Sanger, Jay Hull, and Adrienne Valencia Garcia

I asked Lowry how she became interested in blockchain. She pointed to a 2015 article in The Economist entitled, The Trust Machine. She began to have discussions with her firm’s CIO, Bob Craig, on how to turn blockchain into a transformative business model. For several years, Lowry and Craig had been involved in developing a technology segment for the firm’s partner retreat. They shared the Economist article with lawyers and that triggered deeper conversations about innovation within practice groups. The firm hired a consultant, Mark Smalley, who helped them develop a “master class” for attorneys on probable uses for blockchain. The firm decided to form a “blockchain team,” including lawyers and technologists which explored research and development opportunities that focused on evaluating client needs. What are the pain points or white spaces where blockchain could address a client issue?  Ultimately, this all led to the creation of a 10-person innovation team known as IncuBaker, which Lowry oversees. Blockchain technology is just one of the projects that this team supports. The team includes a blockchain developer and an IT systems architect.

I asked Lowry how her prior experience or training helped prepare her to take on blockchain projects. Lowry, a lawyer by training, was drawn to using her legal knowledge to address legal technology issues rather than practice law. She worked for a large legal information vendor, became a software programmer, worked as a consultant, and as an in-house trainer. In all of these roles, she found that her focus was always on trying to improve the existing tools with new enhancements or improving workflow by creating completely new solutions.

In the 10 years that she has been at Baker, Lowry’s role has expanded from overseeing research services to include managing IT training, overseeing a project management team, and now driving innovation. She was given the autonomy to both create solutions and drive adoption. Lowry emphasized the importance of building bridges between IT and the lawyers. Since the launch of IncuBaker, her role has required extensive client outreach. In her current role, she meets and interacts directly with clients several times a week. This has enabled her to understand that clients and law firms often have very similar needs. As if her day job were not demanding enough, Lowry started a Cincinnati Blockchain Meetup Group which now has almost 400 members.

I asked Lowry to describe what her goal was in developing the blockchain program for ILTA. Lowry hopes that attendees will have an “a-ha” moment in which blockchain is demystified. Success would mean that attendees leave the program with an understanding of what blockchain is, how it works, and recognize the types of problems it can solve. Blockchain is not a single technology — it is a suite of solutions which can solve problems relating to the order and validity of transactions. The first session of the ILTA program will break down blockchain transactions using humans rather than computers to illustrate exactly how blockchain components interact. The second and third sessions will show blockchain in conjunction with specific business applications, such as digital signatures and validation of documents.

Session 4 will provide an overview of blockchain consortia and the future of blockchain. The session will map consortia by industry and identify likely future developments. Lowry sees blockchain opportunities in supply chain, digital identity, and interoperability between systems.

Not everyone will be ready to embrace blockchain technology when they leave ILTA. Lowry would regard the program as a success if attendees are simply no longer be confused and intimidated when they hear the word “blockchain.”

Jean O’Grady is a knowledge strategist/librarian/lawyer with over 30 years’ experience leading the transformation of research and knowledge services in Am Law 100 law firms. She is the author of the Dewey B Strategic blog, which monitors the evolving landscape of technologies and companies that are transforming the business and practice of law.

BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe – Soldiers and police deployed in large numbers in Zimbabwe’s second city Bulawayo on Monday to enforce a ban on an anti-government demonstration, as the country’s main opposition party sought to overturn that decision in court.

The street protest was the second called in four days by the Movement for Democratic Change’s (MDC), which accuses President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government of repression and economic mismanagement.

Authorities had also banned Friday’s gathering in Harare, intended as the launch event of a nationwide protest movement. The MDC called it off, saying it aimed to avert bloodshed after police there rounded up its followers and dispersed them with batons and water cannon.

In a similar show of force in Bulawayo, an MDC heartland, authorities prohibited the march on Sunday and on Monday sent soldiers in trucks into the centre of the city and nearby townships, bolstering police who patrolled on foot and lorries, witnesses said.

Businesses remained open and residents circulated as normal in the city, however.

David Coltart, an MDC senator from Bulawayo and lawyer, called the ban “clearly unconstitutional and unjust”, and told Reuters the party had lodged a court appeal that city magistrates would hear on Monday morning.

FITA chairperson Sinenhlanhla Mnguni says the two incidents — while concerning — don’t indicate an industry at war.

The protests were over worsening economic conditions and the jailing of Chief Ndiweni, a known critic of President Emmerson Mnangagwa [File: Philimon Bulawayo/Reuters]

Zimbabwe

We understand that today’s planned protests in Harare have just been called off by the organisers, following a High Court decision to uphold a Government ban. The crowds that had already gathered were dispersed by police, with reports emerging of the use of force against protestors.

With opposition demonstrations still likely to take place in Zimbabwe in the near future, we urge the Government to find ways to continuously engage with the population about their legitimate grievances on the economic situation, and to stop cracking down on peaceful protestors. If demonstrations go ahead we urge the security forces and protesters to ensure they proceed calmly and without any violence.

We are deeply concerned by the socio-economic crisis that continues to unfold in Zimbabwe. While acknowledging efforts made by the Government, the international community and the UN in Zimbabwe to mitigate the effects of the crisis and reform process, the dire economic situation is now impacting negatively on the realization of the economic and social rights of millions of Zimbabweans.

Long-term neglect and structural deficiencies have contributed to hyperinflation, resulting in soaring prices for fuel, food, transport and health services, which is having a dramatic impact on the population, and particularly on marginalized working-class people. The fact that key commodities and services have become less affordable for poor families, means there is an increasing need for strong social protection measures.

The economic crisis is converging with the impact of cyclone Idai that hit Zimbabwe last March, as well as the El Niño-induced drought, to create a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, with the result that around five million Zimbabweans, or one third of the total population of 16 million people, are now estimated to be in need of humanitarian aid.

Ahead of today’s planned protest, which was called off at the last minute, there were worrying reports of threats against citizens who wish to exercise their right to express their opinions of the economic situation via peaceful protests, with allegations of increased surveillance of, and threats against, civil society organizations by State agents.

More disturbing still, there have been reports of actual physical attacks on, and arrests and detention of, civil society leaders and activists over the past few months, with one human rights defender and one political activist reportedly temporarily abducted and severely beaten by unidentified armed men a few days ago, apparently because of their role in helping to organize the protests today. In the last few hours, we have heard reports of more such cases and are looking into them. Senior officials have also reportedly issued threats against organisers of demonstrations or against people who take part in them.

State authorities have a duty to ensure people’s rights to freedom of expression, and to facilitate and protect the right to peaceful assembly. In addition, we urge the Senate when reviewing the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill to protect the essential democratic freedoms of peaceful assembly and demonstration by ensuring the Bill’s compliance with the Constitution, decisions of the Constitutional Court, and international human rights standards.

In January, we expressed concerns about reports of excessive use of force, including live ammunition, by Zimbabwean security forces during protests following the announcement of an increase in petrol prices.  We are not aware of the indictment or prosecution of a single alleged perpetrator of human rights violations committed during or after of those protests. The Government does not appear to have carried out the requisite investigations into the violence, including the alleged excessive use of force by security forces, in a prompt, thorough and transparent manner, with a view to accountability, and we urge it to do so without further delay.

We also urge the Government to redouble its efforts to address the current challenges through a national dialogue, with the support of the international community, and to ensure that civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and activists can carry out their activities in a safe and secure environment without fearing intimidation or reprisals for their work.

Post published in: Featured