The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday about the constitutionally permitted length of police seizures in a case brought by protesters whose phones have been confiscated indefinitely since their arrests in the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations.
The protesters want their phones back, and the central question judges sought to hammer out was when a law enforcement “seizure” must end or become a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
However, the D.C.’s Office of the Attorney General argued that the seizure itself was legitimate and the question of when a lawfully seized item must be returned to its owner is beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Judge Edwards added that the government’s seizure and continued possession of the phones sounded like a Fourth Amendment problem.
But in this case, the protesters had their phones taken when arrested, meaning the case law they were citing didn’t apply. Ms. Coburn agreed, but said it was applicable under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Fourth Amendment grounds the plaintiffs were arguing. ACLU attorney Michael Perloff agreed that some of the plaintiffs were confused about how to go about that process since they didn’t have criminal cases brought against them.
France Dernières Nouvelles, France Actualités
Similar News:Vous pouvez également lire des articles d'actualité similaires à celui-ci que nous avons collectés auprès d'autres sources d'information.
Appeals court takes up transgender health coverage case likely headed to Supreme CourtA federal appeals court is considering cases out of North Carolina and West Virginia that could have significant implications on whether individual states are required to cover health care for transgender people with government-sponsored insurance.
Lire la suite »
Appeals court takes up transgender health coverage case likely headed to Supreme CourtA federal appeals court is considering cases out of North Carolina and West Virginia that could have significant implications on whether individual states are required to cover health care for transgender people with government-sponsored insurance
Lire la suite »
Appeals court takes up transgender health coverage case likely headed to Supreme CourtA federal appeals court is considering cases out of North Carolina and West Virginia that could have significant implications on whether individual states are required to cover health care for transgender people with government-sponsored insurance.
Lire la suite »
Appeals court takes up transgender health coverage case likely headed to Supreme CourtA federal appeals court is considering cases out of North Carolina and West Virginia that could have significant implications on whether individual states are required to cover health care for transgender people with government-sponsored insurance.
Lire la suite »
Appeals court takes up transgender health coverage case likely headed to Supreme CourtA federal appeals court is considering cases out of North Carolina and West Virginia that could have significant implications on whether individual states are required to cover health care for transgender people with government-sponsored insurance.
Lire la suite »
Appeals court takes up trans health coverage case likely headed to Supreme CourtAttorneys representing the transgender people denied coverage in West Virginia and North Carolina argued the exclusion is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Lire la suite »