Videos

Postal Service Caught Seizing Packages Without Warrant

In the spring of 2020, law enforcement agents working for the United States Postal Service violated that fundamental constitutional guarantee when they baselessly stopped, seized, and searched a set of ...four ordinary boxes containing thousands of Covid-19 face masks.

https://ij.org/case/oakland-mail-seizure/

The masks belonged to René Quiñonez, who operates Oakland-based Movement Ink LLC, a small, family-run, social justice-focused screen-printing company. Following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, organizers hired Movement Ink to rapidly print as many face masks as possible to distribute to protestors marching across the country. René, his family, employees, and friends worked night and day to hand-print each mask with political messages like “Stop Killing Black People.” When they finished, René packed the masks in ordinary brown boxes and shipped them overnight to organizers in Brooklyn, D.C., Minneapolis, and St. Louis.

But they didn’t arrive.

Instead, he and his clients were greeted by a disturbing “Alert” on the Postal Service website: “Seized by Law Enforcement.” René panicked. After all, he hadn’t done anything wrong. He knew face masks were not illegal; in fact, at the time, they were required by law.

After René contacted his Congresswoman and went to the press, the real story came out. Claiming the completely ordinary boxes were somehow suspicious, the agents seized and searched them without ever getting a warrant, let alone having the probable cause necessary to obtain one.

As a result of this unconstitutional conduct, the masks arrived at their destinations multiple days (and several protests) late. This cast a pall of suspicion over René and Movement Ink. Some of René’s longstanding clients dropped him, and the organizers backed out of plans for future recurring apparel orders. To this day, Movement Ink is struggling to recover from these blows to its reputation and business. And René remains distraught at the unjust cloud of suspicion law enforcement hung over him, tarnishing his reputation and his efforts to align his business with his activism.

But René is not one to take an assault on his constitutional rights lying down. On June 2, 2022, René and Movement Ink partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of California to hold the officers who baselessly seized and searched his mail accountable for violating his rights.[+] Show More

Postal Service Caught Seizing Packages Without Warrant

In the spring of 2020, law enforcement agents working for the United [...]

Gov't Official with NO Police Authority Detained Drivers, Granted Qualified Immunity

Do you think anyone who works for the government—not just the [...]

Do you think anyone who works for the government—not just the police—should be able to pull you over and detain you?

https://ij.org/case/minnesota-csi/

And if a government employee who was never granted police ...powers assumes these powers unilaterally and clearly violates your constitutional rights, should you be able to hold them to account? Or should they be allowed to get off scot-free through “qualified immunity” merely because they work for the government?

Across the nation, government officials are routinely exceeding their authority and violating the rights of ordinary Americans but are escaping accountability because of the court-created doctrine of qualified immunity. As a result, citizens have been beaten in unprovoked attacks, detained illegally, and even killed by government workers. But the victims and their families have been denied their day in court to hold these bad actors accountable because courts across the nation—following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court—refuse to enforce constitutional limits on government officials who, they say, are shielded by qualified immunity.

When the U.S. Supreme Court created qualified immunity, it said it was balancing “two evils.” On the one hand, the Court conceded that granting qualified immunity would sometimes leave people without a remedy when government employees violated their rights. On the other hand, if suits were broadly allowed, those tasked with performing government jobs could be afraid to execute these tasks to the best of their abilities.

Qualified immunity was the Court’s attempt to get this balance right. It provided government officials with a protection from lawsuits, but only if these officials were executing the duties prescribed to them by law. In other words, immunity would be available only in suits “arising from actions within the scope of an official’s duties.”

If there is one thing that proponents and opponents of qualified immunity agreed on, this was it: A government official’s ability to claim qualified immunity could be raised only in in defense of their actions while doing their job; they couldn’t receive qualified immunity when their actions far exceed any reasonable interpretation of their authority.

But this baseline premise is no longer the case.

Several months ago, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted qualified immunity to a county engineer who acted like a modern-day “Dwight Schrute” from the TV show “The Office.” Despite having no authority whatsoever to act like a police officer, this engineer pretended to be a traffic cop by pulling over two trucks traveling peacefully on a highway and detaining the drivers for three hours. He then called a local sheriff’s office, tribal police, and state troopers, asking them all to come and ticket the drivers because they were over a weight limit that he had made up less than an hour before. When state troopers finally arrived, they ticketed one driver but dismissed the ticket the following day.

In the end, the engineer unconstitutionally detained the drivers and their trucks and forced the police to waste valuable time. But for some reason, the court granted qualified immunity to the county engineer, who has no business performing traffic stops, for his unlawful detention of the drivers.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision runs in the face of the Supreme Court’s precedent on qualified immunity. It is also inconsistent with this nation’s historical practices. To ensure that rogue agents are not able to cloak themselves in an unjustified immunity, the Institute for Justice (“IJ”) now represents the owner of the trucks (Central Specialties, Inc., “CSI”) in seeking Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit’s decision granting qualified immunity to the county engineer. This case is part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, which is devoted to the simple idea that government officials are not above the rules; if citizens must follow the law, then government must follow the Constitution.[+] Show More

Gov’t Official Brought Defamation Lawsuit, BACKFIRED

#shorts #defamationcase

[CAUGHT] Local Police Terrorize Small Town, They Even Got a Tank

Police take an oath to protect and serve the public. But in Brookside, [...]

Police take an oath to protect and serve the public. But in Brookside, Alabama, a top-down scheme pushed by its police chief, mayor and council has prioritized something else instead: ...generating money. Hundreds of people tell similar stories about being pulled over for dubious reasons and charged with bogus violations. Many motorists were left stranded on the side of the road when their cars were towed without justification, often at night and with small children.

https://ij.org/case/brookside-alabama-fines/

The town prosecutor and judge rubber-stamped these abuses, and in turn, Brookside’s revenue spiked by over 600% in two years, with fines and forfeitures coming to fuel nearly half the town’s budget. Yet still, that was not enough for the minds behind Brookside’s policing racket. Police Chief Mike Jones, who recently resigned, declared the 600% increase “a failure” because the town could be raking in more cash with “more officers and more productivity.”

This “productivity” is carried out in a manner as outrageous as its goal. Following Chief Jones’ takeover, the police force began fabricating violations, patrolling outside its jurisdiction, threatening and harassing drivers, and handcuffing people and towing their cars for bogus reasons. The police have been targeting the people they know are more vulnerable, including low-income individuals and people of color. With its nine police officers and only 1,200 residents, Brookside’s rate of officers is one per 139 residents, more than four times the national average.

Brittany Coleman was one of the victims of Brookside’s policing for profit scheme. A recent University of Alabama graduate, she was pulled over by Brookside police for allegedly following her boyfriend’s car too closely, as they drove together to get lunch on her birthday. Without justification, the officer forced Brittany to stand handcuffed in the hot Alabama sun for more than 30 minutes as he searched her car. She was issued citations for tailgating and for marijuana possession. The possession charge was later dismissed because the police never actually found any marijuana. The officer told Brittany that, if not for the pandemic, he would have arrested her. Regardless, he ordered her car towed. Brittany was forced to pay Brookside nearly $1,000 in towing fees, fines, and court costs.

Abuses like these are not isolated incidents. Brookside police had a practice of finding any reason to tow cars and leave people on the side of the road. No matter the weather, no matter the time of day, and without regard to whether there were small children in the car, people were left stranded on empty country roads.

Brookside’s policing practices are deeply offensive—not only to common decency, but also the U.S. Constitution. Courts recognize that generating 10% of revenue from fines and fees raises a presumption of unconstitutionality; Brookside generated five times that. That’s why Brittany and three other victims of Brookside’s policing racket, represented by the Institute for Justice, are filing a class action lawsuit to affirm that police must act in the interest of justice, not their pocketbooks.[+] Show More

You've heard of 'Qualified Immunity' but have you heard about 'Prosecutorial Immunity'? #Shorts

Can the government spy on you on your property? 🕵️

Learn more about Terry's case here: https://youtu.be/BseFUvCHh7M #Shorts

New York Cops Took $8,040 From Her. She Was Never Charged With a Crime.

Cristal Starling runs a mobile food cart in Rochester, New York, to [...]

Cristal Starling runs a mobile food cart in Rochester, New York, to provide for herself and her grandnephew. She dreamed of expanding the business into a food truck, and she ...saved enough money to do just that. But in the fall of 2020, the local police raided her apartment and seized $8,040—the money she was going to use to pursue her dream.

https://ij.org/case/new-york-forfeiture-appeal/

Police accused Cristal’s then-boyfriend of dealing drugs, but he was acquitted by a jury. Yet Cristal’s nightmare continued. The police turned Cristal’s savings over to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which sought to keep her money through an abusive practice called civil forfeiture, and federal prosecutors pressed forward with the civil forfeiture case even after the not-guilty verdict. Civil forfeiture laws take the presumption of innocence and turn it upside down, forcing property owners like Cristal to prove their own innocence.

Cristal fought to get her money back. She did everything she knew—making phone calls, following instructions she received, and filing a claim with the DEA. It made no economic sense to hire a lawyer to recover $8,040, so Cristal tried to fight without one. She successfully navigated the administrative process at the DEA, but when prosecutors filed a forfeiture action in federal court she missed the deadline to file one required piece of paper. That was enough for the government to take her money forever.

The government never even tried to show that Cristal had done anything wrong, but it was able to take her money by tying her up in complicated legal procedures. And, unfortunately, that is typical in civil forfeiture cases. The average value of forfeiture cases is small, meaning it doesn’t make sense for most people to hire a lawyer even if they could afford one, and most civil forfeiture cases end with a missed deadline rather than a decision on the merits. Property owners are forced to run a procedural gauntlet, and they lose by default if they make just a single mistake.

Cristal has teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to appeal the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In a non-forfeiture case, the court would have let Cristal continue her case notwithstanding a single missed deadline. Forfeiture should be no different. Cristal showed up in court to fight, she tried to fight, and she should have been allowed to make her case.[+] Show More

Mom's Dreams Shattered by Corrupt Prosecutor. She's Fighting Back.

Everybody knows your prosecutor can’t also be your judge. Everyone, [...]

City threatens mom’s day care after golfer complaints 😱

Learn more about this case at https://ij.org/case/texas-home-daycare/. [...]

City Threatens Single Mom’s Day Care After Golfer Complaints

Women have traditionally used their homes to care for their neighbors’ [...]

Women have traditionally used their homes to care for their neighbors’ children. Now during the national shortage of childcare, neighborhood day cares are more important than ever. But in West ...Austin, some neighborhood golfers are trying to shut down a home day care by exploiting the fact that Lakeway, Texas, has some of the most restrictive zoning laws in the country for home businesses.

https://ij.org/case/texas-home-daycare/

Bianca King is a single mother to two small children. After being laid off during the pandemic, she realized how beneficial a neighborhood day care could be for other parents struggling to find quality, affordable childcare. Bianca began watching a few of her neighbors’ children during the workday as she stayed home with her own two children. The parents are extremely happy with Bianca’s day care, which provides an intimate and loving setting for their children so close to home.

But not all of Bianca’s neighbors are so happy about the service she provides to her community. Bianca’s suburban home backs up to the neighborhood golf course, and the sight and sound of children in her private backyard led several golfers to complain about Bianca’s business. Unfortunately for Bianca, one of these golfers used to be the Mayor of Lakeway, and he is intent on shutting down her day care.

The former mayor, Joe Bain, showed up to Bianca’s hearing before the zoning commission and complained that her day care was interfering with his golf game. Two more golfers joined him to oppose Bianca at her second hearing. The golfers didn’t like that they have to see toys and hear children playing when they tee off behind Bianca’s house, so they weaponized the city’s zoning laws against her business.

Lakeway’s zoning ordinance requires that home businesses meet 19 criteria that virtually no business could ever satisfy. In practice, the city uses these onerous requirements to give it broad discretion to deny any business it wants. City officials relied on several of these criteria to deny Bianca’s permit.

Lakeway’s home-business ordinance is unconstitutional. The Texas Constitution prohibits overly oppressive laws that burden a person’s economic or property rights. Lakeway has no legitimate interest in stopping Bianca from running a day care just because it may annoy some golfers.

Bianca has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight for her right to keep her day care open. She has asked the Texas state courts to reverse Lakeway’s denial of her permit and to rule that Lakeway cannot prevent harmless home businesses like Bianca’s day care.

Filmed on a Canon C100 Mark ii with L Series lenses.[+] Show More

How Cities Can Make it Cheaper, Faster, and Simpler to Open a Small Business

You shouldn’t need a law degree to start the small business of your [...]

New York County Tries To Destroy a 100-Year-Old Neighborhood

The government shouldn’t be able to force you off your land and [...]

The government shouldn’t be able to force you off your land and bulldoze your home to make way for private development, like a privately owned plant that makes semiconductors. ...But that is exactly what officials from Onondaga County in New York are threatening against the Burnet Road homeowners.

https://saveburnetroad.org/

For generations, Burnet Road has been the center of a tight-knit community and home to dozens of families. Britta and Danny Serog are siblings who grew up in the home their father—a Holocaust survivor—built in 1963. Though they moved away, each still cherishes and regularly visits the property. Paul and Robin Richer are a married couple who both, like Britta and Danny, grew up on Burnet Road in the 1960s and 70s, and they still live there today. They raised their two daughters in another home on Burnet Road, but, when Paul’s dad passed away, they moved into the house he’d built in 1954. In Paul’s words, they “moved back home.” Britta, Danny, Robin, and Paul love Burnet Road and the community there, and none wants to leave.

Unfortunately, Onondaga County wants to push the Serogs, Richers, and other families out. The County’s development agency (OCIDA) plans to use eminent domain to take the Serogs’ and Richers’ homes, bulldoze them, and add the vacant land to 1,200 acres of already-vacant land the County already owns in the hopes of attracting a huge corporation to build a microchip plant there.

Eminent domain has traditionally been understood as the power of government to take private property for a public use, like a courthouse or public school. But New York permits bureaucracies, like OCIDA, to use eminent domain to take property for purely private development, like expanding a vacant “commerce” park. New York courts encourages this abusive practice notwithstanding a nationwide backlash against takings for purely private development. And New York’s bureaucrats have no hesitation about using eminent domain to take private property for speculative private development or bullying New Yorkers off their property by threatening to use eminent domain.

The Institute for Justice is helping Britta, Danny, Paul and Robin to defend homes that are rightfully theirs. Your home is supposed to be your castle. But in New York, your home is your castle only until a government bureaucrat thinks of putting something there that might pay more taxes. That is not only wrong, it is unconstitutional.[+] Show More

Tennessee Widow Forced to Shut Down Home Business

Nashville resident Pat Raynor opened a state-licensed salon in her [...]

Will the Supreme Court Limit Police Power to “Stop and Frisk”?

One of the most controversial practices in modern policing is law [...]

These Inspectors Think “Open for Business” Means “No Warrant Required”

Jeremy Bennett had no idea that asking an Ohio Department of Natural [...]

Videos

Postal Service Caught Seizing Packages Without Warrant

Stay Informed