#projectrealnv

On January 24th, 2018, the prosecutor’s office in Big Horn County, Montana is cracking down on any expectant mothers who use drugs or drink alcohol. A court attorney is fighting to seek restraining orders against those pregnant women and is encouraging the public to report drug or alcohol incidents to the sheriff department.

The reason behind this movement is to limit child abuse during labor and to make the mother accountable for her actions. According to the article, roughly half of all U.S. states now consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be child abuse. One way it is child abuse is a birth defect called ‘sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).’

On the flip side, if the government intervenes on the well-being of a mother and her baby, it will cause a slippery slope that will jeopardize with the well-being of the mother and the fetus. Another aspect is that a woman will refuse to seek help if they feel they will be reprimanded for their outreach, which causes a discrepancy within the health provider's field.

When it comes to the aspect of law and justice, many roles are filled by police officers, prosecutors, and judges. Police officers are tasked to patrol certain areas and stop, and or prevent crime from happening. If there is probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the officer has a right to issue a stop and act accordingly per state laws and policies. As for Prosecutors, if a person is charged with a crime, the prosecutor reviews all of the evidence that is presented within a case. Lastly, for the judge evaluates all of the aspects of the case and pleads the defendant guilty or not guilty. 

Explain your answers to the questions below, and for more details you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pregnant-women-big-horn-county-montana_us_5a674bf8e4b0e5630073b88c?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Questions:

1. Why do you think it is or is not ethical to prosecute expected mothers who use drugs or alcohol?

2. How is the mother hurting the unborn child while using drugs or alcohol?

3. Do you think the judge’s policy will help reduce the number of cases of SIDS in the community, have no impact on the number of cases, or cause an increase in the number of cases, and why do you think the policy will have that effect? 

4. Why do you feel the judge’s plan is the best one for the community, or what better solutions would you recommend and why would you recommend those over the one the judge has come up with?

On January 14th of 2018, 12 people from a volunteer group were arrested for handing out food to the homeless.

To provide some backstory to this situation, a community group called “Break The Ban” were distributing food and other items to the homeless population at a park in California. According to the police officers that arrived, they were violating a ban on sharing food in city-owned public areas, which was recently passed by the City of El Cajon in 2017. The reason for this ban was to stop the spread of Hepatitis A. the police cited some of the volunteers to jail but did not take them. But, for the two volunteers they arrested are scheduled to appear in court. The group was outraged by the act and is planning to fight the citations and the food-sharing ban.

There was another case in which this incident has occurred. According to Forbes, in Fort Lauderdale, police arrested a 90-year old man and two ministers in 2014 for trying to share their food with the homeless. In October of 2014, the city enacted an ordinance that bans sharing food in public parks, unless they have a permit from the city. As a result of this situation, the organization arrested (Food Not Bombs) sued the city of Fort Lauderdale on the basis of the ordinance violated their right to free speech and free association, and the ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague.” At first, a federal district court dismissed the case since food sharing events were outside the scope of the First Amendment since it did not convey a “particularized message.”

But, under that line of reasoning, that sounds like the First Amendment is confined to expressions conveying a particularized message. So, as a result, the case was ruled that Food Not Bombs does have a First Amendment right to share food. The case was sent back down to the lower courts to determine if the city’s ordinance was in violation of those rights. The city of Lauderdale has not responded to the request yet.

Explain your answers and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-el-cajon-california-arrests_us_5a5de4f4e4b0fcbc3a1355f4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And / or

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/27/federal-court-first-amendment-protects-sharing-food-with-homeless-people/#fe8283b4884

Questions (answer them all!):

1. How does the First Amendment apply to these news stories?

2. Why do you feel the ordinance being issued to prevent the spread of Hepatitis A was or was not justified? 

3. Are there laws in your community restricting feeding the homeless, if so what are they, how do you feel about there being or not being laws about this activity in your community, and what can you do to support/change those local laws/policies?

4. (High School Students only) Even if you disagree with the policy in this case, imagine that there are some activities that people volunteer for or donate to that are meant to ‘make the world a better place’, but which should be managed or limited by local laws. How should local governments and law makers decide if an activity requires them to get involved in those activities (ex: Should sheltering homeless animals and feeding the homeless face the same kinds of restriction)?

On August 3rd of 2018, a video surfaced from California as a man in a suit drags an unconscious man off the train to avoid delay.

Controversial as this incident may be, the video depicts a white male in a suit dragging an unconscious black man. During the incident, the white male was recorded by a passenger on the train. The passenger explained how the unconscious man was wearing a medical bracelet, had metal staples in his skull, and threw up before going unconscious. In the video, onlookers expressed their anger towards the man in the suit by saying he had no right to assume he was partying, per an eyewitness. As an act of retaliation towards the man in the suit, the passengers held the train doors open, to prevent the train from leaving while they phoned the paramedics.

Once paramedics and officers arrived on the scene, the unconscious man was taken to the hospital, but the man in the suit was not investigated or a point of interest in this case. The video of this incident was posted on Youtube and gained momentum by its audience and local news stations. This is still an ongoing investigation.

Explain your answers and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://lbpost.com/news/crime/video-man-drags-unconscious-passenger-off-blue-train-train-in-long-beach-to-avoid-delay/

Questions (answer them all!):

1. Just because someone broke a law, that doesn’t mean they’ll always be prosecuted for it, so was it lawful for the man in the suit to drag the unconscious man to train platform, and would it lawful for him to leave the man behind?

2. In this case, the man in the suit will not be charged with this act, explain why you agree or disagree with this decision.

3. 'Duty to rescue’ laws require people to help others if they witness someone in trouble and are able to help without endangering themselves.  Are there 'duty to rescue’ or similar laws where you live, and do you agree with your community having or not having them? 

In a society based around computers, we entrust these devices a lot of personal and professional data. To maintain these valuable items, we entrust companies such as Avast, AVG, Kaspersky Lab, McAfee, Webroot, and other antivirus companies to not only protect our computers from malware and viruses but to also maintain a level of privacy when accessible to them. In a recent report from AV-Comparatives (an antivirus testing and comparison organization), they found that your antivirus product may have a list of web pages you’ve visited along with your sensitive personal documents!

Released in May 2014, AV-Comparatives performed a study that analyzed the antivirus products running in the background of a computer and what they sent to the antivirus company. Another aspect they inspected was the End User License Agreements (EULA) that many users, like myself, neglect to read. Lastly, a questionnaire was sent to antivirus company, so they can fully explain the extent of their products and their purpose.

As a result, companies answered with unfitting answers that contradicted what their products actually did! For instance, some companies will assign your system a unique identification number and transmit a list of visited websites, whether they are malicious or safe. Companies can also transmit your computer’s name, local IP address, language, running processes, and Windows username to the antivirus company. More importantly, these companies can also access documents or sensitive items that may be private for you, if they deem it as ‘suspicious’.

For specifics on this study, click here!

With this situation being an issue of privacy, there are a few laws geared toward cybersecurity and privacy. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), passed in 1986, allows the U.S. government to access digital communications such as email, social media messages, and information on public cloud databases. With a subpoena, the government is allowed to access more information. This can apply to different companies, such as Google, Facebook, Avast, etc.

A more recent law that has passed was the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Originally passed in 2000, it was the first U.S. privacy law written for the internet. Implemented in 2013, It requires websites that collect information on children under the age of 13 to comply with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC is a federal agency that administers consumer legislation and ensures a fair and free commerce. The purpose of this law is to determine whether a website is geared towards children by reviewing its content, graphics, audience, language and features, and advertising. This law can also collect information from children, whether websites’ operators intentionally or intentionally do so.

Lastly, in Nevada, NRS 603A- Nevada Personal Information Data Privacy Encryption Law was passed in 2010 to mandate customers’ encryption and stored personal information. This primarily applies to business who collect personal information but requires them to encrypt any and all personal information that is given to the company by the customer.

Do you think that sending of personal information/files should be pointed out/requested during setup, or should it remain disclosed in the EULA?

Should companies specify what they do with the information and how they dispose of it?

Should the government impose limitations to accessing sensitive information?

Explain your answers and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/antivirus-tracking-youd-surprised-sends/

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. You have the right to an attorney….”  Those words – which you may recognize from shows or movies – are the words used to inform someone who is being arrested if their Miranda Rights.   They’re not just for entertainment though – they are very real rights every American is entitled to, but they have only been read to suspects since 1966.  That process came about as a result of a Supreme Court decision, but their origins date back much earlier. In fact, the process of reading a suspect their Miranda Rights is rooted in a historical event that took place in 1919.

That year, a triple murder of foreign diplomats occurred in Washington D.C. (a diplomat is someone who acts as the representative of a foreign government). The three victims all worked for the Chinese Educational Mission before being assassinated. When there were no leads or clear motives, the police focused in on the only suspect they had.

On the day of the assassinations, a young Chinese student named Ziang Sung Wan had been seen at the house where the killings had occurred. The police went to his home in New York and after searching it without a warrant, pressured Wan (who was suffering from a flu at the time) into going back to Washington D.C.  with them.  Upon their arrival, the authorities isolated Ziang in a hotel room and held him without formally placing him under formal arrest.  After extended periods of isolation and interrogation that lasted more than 9 days, they eventually pressured him into making a confession.

During trial for the murders, Wan took back his confession, saying that he only confessed to make the detectives’ interrogation come to an end. The judge refused to acknowledge Wan’s statement despite the conditions that were used to obtain his confession.  Eventually, Wan was found guilty of first degree-murder.  At the time, the penalty for a guilty first-degree murder conviction was death-by-hanging.

Wan’s case was one of many at the time that had stirred debate among judges and lawyers in the country over which police conduct and interrogation methods were lawful, and which of those methods and behaviors were unlawful.  At the same time, Ziang’s attorneys were filing appeals and pursuing their client’s acquittal relentlessly, knowing that his life was on the line.  Eventually Ziang’s lawyers managed to get his case heard by the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).

As a result of the raging national debate in the law community over police tactics and the constitutional questions raised by Ziang’s case, one justice was tasked with drafting up a decision that would lay the groundwork for the Miranda Rights we know today.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote the court’s decision, in which the court interpreted the Fifth Amendment as permitting only volunteer confessions as being admissible as evidence in federal court proceedings, and that a confession could be coerced involuntarily even if an explicit threat had not made.

If that’s too wordy, think about it like this: The police didn’t tell Ziang “If you don’t confess we’re going to break your legs”.  Because they held him for 9 days though - while he was sick, in uncomfortable conditions, and without telling him when they would stop -  they had basically forced him to confess to end the torment he was experiencing.

Unfortunately, because Wan had been tried in Washington D.C. (which is a federal jurisdiction) the new standard only applied to cases in federal courts. The ruling wouldn’t apply to states or local court proceedings for years.  The standard created by Justice Brandeis’ ruling also ended up being interpreted in a variety of ways for decades after it was first issued.  For years after the ruling, cases ended up before SCOTUS that would produce rulings which added more specificity to Justice Brandeis’ initial court opinion on Ziang’s case.

Eventually, in 1966 Chief Justice Earl Warren would mandate safeguards for suspects dealing with police in the opinion he issued for SCOTUS in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.  Those safeguards would eventually develop into the Miranda Rights most people are familiar with today. His writings leaned heavily on the court opinion issued in response to Wan’s case, making it clear the Ziang Sung Wan v. United States is the legal soil from which the Miranda Rights we know today grew from.

Thanks to the Wan and Miranda decisions, today suspects are informed that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them in the court of law, that they have the right to counsel, and that if they are unable to afford one, an attorney will be appointed for them.

1)    Now that you know some of the history behind Miranda Rights, do you have any feelings about your right to remain silent? What questions do you have about your right to remain silent?

2)      TV may lead you to think that the right to remain silent is only used by criminals who are done talking to police and want to leave the interview.  That’s not the case at all though.  What are some situations that could lead someone to exercise their right to remain silent?

3)      Suppose you found yourself needing to exercising your right to remain silent.  What would that look like?  Simply saying “I wouldn’t talk” isn’t enough: Tell us Why you might have decided to exercise your right, what you would do while exercising that right, how you would be treated while exercising the right, and the possible benefits and consequences of remaining silent.

When replying to any of the questions above, please provide detailed responses.  If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1919-murder-case-gave-americans-right-remain-silent-180968916/

Thieves in one Texas community attempted to steal courthouse ATMs three times in just one week!  During the third attempt, thieves used a stolen pickup truck to smash the back door of the courthouse, attached some sort of strap to the ATM and dragged the machine out of the building.

It is unknown if the suspects who stole the ATM on the third attempt were behind the previous two incidents, but the timing is certainly suspicious.  Whether they were the same people or different ones, the people behind each of those incidents will face serious consequences once they are caught!

If the thieves had taken the time to think about their actions or if they’d been fortunate enough to know some basic things about the law, they’d realize the risks that come with getting caught involved with these heists are ridiculous!    

Very few criminal charges result in a trial for the defendant.  That means the accused rarely has a chance of being acquitted (being declared ‘not guilty’ of the crime he or she has been charged with).   That’s because trials are expensive and don’t guarantee an outcome.  Most of the time, lawyers for both sides will negotiate a deal to avoid a trial and to guarantee they get the best outcome they could hope for if things did not go their way in court.  In criminal cases, a lot of time that can mean the person being charged still ends up going to prison, they just go for less time than they would if they had been found guilty in a trial.  

One of the tools a prosecutor has to motivate defense teams to negotiate is their ability to ‘stack charges’.  In the ATM story, you might think “Ok, the thieves will be charged with stealing the ATM”.  It’s not that simple though!

Consider all these things that we already know about the ATM theft incidents:

- The thieves stole a truck to use for the ATM theft

- The thieves used a stolen truck to commit the ATM theft

- The thieves were trespassing in the courthouse after hours

- The thieves broke into a property

- The thieves damaged a property

- The thieves broke into a courthouse, which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves damaged a courthouse which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves used a vehicle to intentionally damage a courthouse

- The thieves stole the court’s property

- The thieves stole an item worth thousands of dollars

- The thieves stole an ATM, which can also be considered a form of bank robbery

- The thieves may have spent the money in the ATM

Those aren’t just 12 facts about the case – they are 12 possible charges that could be filed against a person for one criminal incident. That means the person would be charged with 12 crimes from the one event!  That also means the defendant would face 12 different punishments if they were found guilty of each charge!

Don’t forget: Thieves had attempted to steal ATM’s from courthouses in the area 3 times that week!  If someone was convicted on all of the charges for just one of those incidents, an angry judge could sentence them to spend what would likely be the rest of their lives in prison.  If they were found guilty of all the crimes related to all 3 ATM incidents that week,  things might be even worse for them!

1)    What is the minimum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

2)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

3)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for all three ATM incidents, if they happened in Nevada?

4)    What federal laws were broken by the ATM thieves, and what is the maximum federal punishment they could receive?

5)    If the thieves were caught and found guilty of all charges related to the final robbery in Nevada’s state court, and then they were found guilty of all the possible federal charges in Federal Court, what is the maximum penalty they would face?

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions. The article this piece was originally sourced from is available here if you’d like to get a few more details first:

http://abc7chicago.com/thieves-target-texas-courthouse-atm-for-3rd-time-in-a-week/3365855/

Directors Anthony and Joe Russo received death threats for not putting the character Hawkeye in “Avengers: Infinity War.” His absence was first noticed when the first movie trailer was released in November 2017. As time got closer to the movie release date, it became clearer that Hawkeye wasn’t going to be featured in the movie.  As a result, some of Hawkeye’s fans revealed that even villains love superheroes.

Actor Jeremy Renner, who plays Hawkeye, revealed that the director brothers were receiving death threats because his character was not included in the movie. When asked how he felt about the dedication being shown by some of his less respectable fans, Renner said “It’s a nice feeling I suppose. I think the Russo brothers got way too many death threats. I’m like, ‘Wow, dude, that’s intense. I’m sorry.”

Looking at Nevada Revised Statute 202.448, these threats appear to be criminal.   The statue defines “making threats or conveying false information regarding acts of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, lethal agents or toxins” as a criminal act.

NRS is a Nevada statute, but certain acts of issuing a threat are also federal crimes!  United States Code Title 18 Chapter 41 Section 875 states that “whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

1) What are the maximum amount of penalties could be faced by the people who made the death threats to The Russo Brothers?

2) Explain the different legal penalties for threats made in person in comparison to threats made over the internet?

3) List 3 other laws regarding threats (other than NRS 202.448 and USC.18.41.875, and report what the maximum penalty for each one is.

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/infinity-war-directors-received-death-threats-over-hawkeyes-absence-2018-6

One of the things the Nixon Presidential Administration will always be remembered for are the tapes made in the Whitehouse. Now thought of as a matter of history, at the time the taped recordings made at the white house were highly controversial.  These taped records of conversation in the White House are credited as having played a major role in the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Given all of that history, a situation where tape, record, president, and white house can be used in the same sentence is one that most administrations would try to avoid.  The 45th president of the United States however has a reputation for doing things differently, which may be why we have this interesting story to share with you:

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 states that all presidential records must be preserved.  You may not be familiar with the law, since you’re not President of The United States. So, you know – that’s fair.

When someone is elected to the Presidency of the United States for their first term, there’s a transition period during which they are taught about policies, procedures, and laws they need to abide by.

Despite measures like the briefings given to a president-elect, President Donald Trump apparently has a habit of ripping up things like notes, memos and other papers when he has finished with them. White house staffers have reportedly been taping these documents back together after the President has torn, ripped, or shredded them so that the administration remains in compliance with The Presidential Records Act of 1978.

Invitations, letters and newspaper clips with notes are regularly torn up by President Trump. Clear scotch tape was given to employees to piece the ripped documents back together. One employee who was fired early on in 2018 that had claimed he put papers back together on the job said “We’re making more than $60,000 a year, we need to be doing far more important things than this. It felt like the lowest form of work you can take on without having to empty the trash cans.”

The employee who was fired claims that when he left the office, employees were still regularly engaged in the practice of taping documents back together. Some White House staff called the ripping habit Trump’s ‘unofficial filing system.’ The White House had no comment on the situation when asked.

1) In America, no person – including - the president is not above the law.  Everyone needs to #PlayByTheRules.  That being said, if the documents are able to be pieced back together, does President Trump’s tearing up documents count as ‘document destruction’?  Could it be successfully argued that tearing up documents is just a really bad system of organization that makes records preservation harder?

2) What if the president were to go further though?  Imagine instead of liking to tear up documents when being done with them, a president preferred to set them on fire.  Clearly then, the document would be destroyed.  What would the legal consequences be for violating The Presidential Records Act of 1978?

3) Pick a side: Do you think that there are any laws a president should be exempt from?

- If you agree: What laws should a president be exempt from, and what are the reasons for exempting the president?

- If you disagree: Why should the president have to follow the same laws as everyone else? Are there benefits, and if so what are they?  Is is simply to avoid risks, and if so what risks are being avoided by making presidents follow every single law that everyone else has to follow?  Give a thoughtful, detailed, response!

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rips-documents_us_5b1e030de4b09d7a3d744da2