Videos

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 [...]

Mechanic challenges Pasadena, Texas' mandatory parking minimum in state court

Azael Sepulveda, also known as Oz, loves everything about cars. He has [...]

Azael Sepulveda, also known as Oz, loves everything about cars. He has a popular YouTube channel where more than 22 million viewers have watched him explain how to perform car ...repairs.

https://ij.org/case/texas-mechanic

He also has successfully run his own repair shop, Oz Mechanics, for 9 years with stellar reviews. Recently, Azael decided he wanted to expand his business by moving out of his leased space and buying his own shop. Azael’s dreams seemed to be coming true when he bought a storefront in his hometown of Pasadena, Texas, in the summer of 2021. But instead of welcoming his investment in his community, the city of Pasadena forbade Azael from opening. The reason? The City decided that he had to provide 28 parking spaces—a nearly sixfold increase from the five existing spaces at the storefront—just to open his business. Azael would never need this many spots for his shop, as he is a one-man operation that takes cars by appointment only. And installing the new spots would cost him at least $40,000—almost half the price of the property and more than he can possibly afford.

As a result of the City’s unreasonable demands, Azael cannot open his new shop. This is despite the fact that the previous business that operated at the storefront—an auto machine shop similar to Azael’s — used the existing five spaces with no problems or complaints. Making matters worse, Azael tried to follow the procedure the City itself recommended to apply for an exception from the parking requirements. But when he applied, the City refused to even consider his application.

Pasadena’s requirements are unconstitutional. The Texas Constitution prohibits governments from enforcing unreasonable or overly oppressive laws that burden a person’s economic or property rights. Yet Pasadena’s parking minimums for auto repair shops have no reasonable justification and are so oppressive that they prevent entrepreneurs like Azael from opening businesses on their own property.

Azael has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight back against the City’s crippling and unreasonable demands. He has filed a lawsuit asking Texas state courts to strike down Pasadena’s auto-shop parking requirements and allow him to exercise his right to earn an honest living on his own property.[+] Show More

[DashCam] Cop pulls gun on two innocent boys, threatens mom with Taser.

A police officer arrested two innocent children at gunpoint. Now they [...]

A police officer arrested two innocent children at gunpoint. Now they are asking the Supreme Court to hold the officer accountable.

A court said the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unwarranted ...arrests is “hazy.” Now, with IJ’s help, a family is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clear the haze and rein in police’s ability to arrest someone for no reason.

https://ij.org/support/give-now/pollreis/

Rarely a day goes by that Americans don’t hear news of police wrongfully arresting someone. In many ways, Americans have grown numb to the fact that police and other government officials routinely violate our Fourth Amendment rights. But today, an Arkansas family working with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit public interest law firm, has asked the United States Supreme Court to reaffirm one of this country’s most important founding principles: that when government officials violate our constitutional rights, citizens can hold them accountable in court.

The case started in January 2018, when Haden and Weston Young—two boys, aged 12 and 14—were heading home from their grandparents’ house after a family dinner. As they approached their home, a police car came around the corner with its lights on. The car stopped and the officer emerged with his gun drawn. He had no reason to believe that two boys who were walking calmly toward his car posed any threat. And yet, within moments, the officer—who was looking for two grown men who’d fled from police earlier—shouted “get on the ground,” handcuffed the boys, and held them at gunpoint.

The boys’ mom, Casondra “Cassi” Pollreis, watched the scene unfold from her front yard. She rushed to the scene and pleaded with the officer, “They are my boys!” The officer ignored her pleas, pointed his Taser at her and shouted to get back inside. For six terrifying minutes the boys lay face down on a sidewalk while the officer paced around them with his gun pointed at their backs. Eventually the officer’s sergeant arrived, assessed the scene, immediately realized a mistake had been made and let the boys go. The officer got back in his car, closed the door, and said to himself “duuummb.” He knew that what he did was wrong.

The incident didn’t end that night. Cassi and the boys talked with a lawyer and decided to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the officer for making a wrongful arrest. The district court agreed and found that the officer had violated the boys’ Fourth Amendment rights, writing that “handcuffing two boys laying facedown on the ground, at gunpoint,” was “more intrusive than necessary.” But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, found that the boys had never been “arrested” at all. Instead, it said that what constitutes an arrest “can be hazy,” and that the officer’s conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Now, with the help of IJ, Cassi and her boys have asked the United States Supreme Court to take up their case. Today they filed a Petition for Certiorari asking the Court to rein in the ever-expanding doctrine of “stop and frisk” and make clear that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from being arrested without probable cause.

“Through silence and inaction, the Supreme Court has allowed the doctrine of ‘stop and frisk’ to morph into ‘stop, drop, handcuff, and hold at gunpoint,’” said IJ Senior Attorney Robert McNamara. “As the number of involuntary encounters between citizens and government officials has soared in recent decades, the rules protecting citizens from abuse in those encounters have withered. The Fourth Amendment is not ‘hazy’ when it comes to our basic right to go about our business without being assaulted by government agents who’ve lost their cool.”

At issue in the case is what is called a “Terry stop,” which is named after a 1968 Supreme Court case called Terry v. Ohio. In Terry, the Supreme Court held that police officers had a “narrow authority” to briefly detain someone without probable cause and pat them down to ensure they aren’t carrying any weapons—but that’s all. Since then, many federal courts—like the Eighth Circuit in this case—have broadened Terry’s authority to include highly intrusive, sometimes violent law enforcement conduct as constitutionally permissible. At the same time, other courts have reined in the practice.

Today’s petition is part of the Institute for Justice’s mission to fight on behalf of those individuals who are denied their rights and to hold government officials accountable for their unconstitutional actions. IJ stands up for ordinary American’s Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in their both their property and persons. Most recently, IJ filed a lawsuit in Ohio to stop “whenever, wherever” business inspections. IJ has also filed lawsuits across the country standing up for tenants’ right to be free from warrantless home inspections.[+] Show More

When Can Your Past Bar You From a Job—And When Should It?

In Virginia, any one of 176 so-called barrier crimes can disqualify a [...]

Watch Cops Seize Combat Vet's Life Savings [RARE FOOTAGE]

Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as subscribers of our YouTube [...]

Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as subscribers of our YouTube channel know well, even innocent people aren’t safe from civil forfeiture.

Stephen is a 39-year-old retired Marine from Lubbock, Texas. ...He is a devoted father of two teenage daughters and, once a month, he drives from Texas to see them in California, where they live with their mother. Eager to be closer after spending the pandemic in Texas caring for his elderly parents, he has been shopping for a home near the California-Nevada border.

https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/

In February 2021, Stephen was making his usual trip west through Reno when he was pulled over by the Nevada Highway Patrol for supposedly following a tractor-trailer too closely.

The officer complimented Stephen’s driving, thanked him for observing the speed limit, and explained that NHP was “conducting a public information campaign” to help drivers avoid danger. Confident that the officer was only there to help, Stephen cooperated with his escalating investigation, even volunteering that he was carrying a large amount of cash.

Ninety minutes later, Stephen had been robbed of his life savings—$86,900—which he carried with him after a spate of robberies in his parents’ neighborhood. The officer who pulled Stephen over wanted to let him go; he was overruled by NHP Sergeant Glenn Rigdon, who ordered the money seized specifically so that it could be “adopted” by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

“Adoption” is a process by which federal law enforcement agencies can take over a seizure by state and local law enforcement. If the federal government is successful in forfeiting the property, its “equitable sharing” program guarantees the state or local agency that seized the property up to 80% of the proceeds for use in the agency’s budget.

In Stephen’s case, the DEA sat on his life savings for months, ignoring the legal deadlines requiring it to charge Stephen with a crime, begin a civil forfeiture case against his property, or return the money within six months of seizure. The DEA did none of those things. So, on August 30, IJ sued it in federal court on Stephen’s behalf.

Early the morning of September 1, the agency announced it would return all of Stephen’s money. In less than 24 hours, it had learned of our lawsuit, answered hard questions from The Washington Post, and committed to reviewing its policies for federal adoptions.

When we learned he would be getting his money back (filled with joy), he told us, “This isn’t over.”

And it isn’t. At the same time we filed in federal court, we also filed a major constitutional challenge in state court. Our state case aims to make federal adoptions impossible in Nevada as violations of the state constitution’s guarantees of reasonable seizures supported by probable cause and due process of law—not based on mere suspicion or for the financial benefit of the seizing agency. If we are successful, it will be the first time a state court has struck down federal adoptions. And a victory will take the profit motive out of roadside seizures.

Filmed with a Canon C70 with a 50mm 1.2 lens. Aputure 300d, 120d, and amaran.[+] Show More

Videos

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

Stay Informed