The PSP has today deployed police forces to monitor demonstrations for the right to housing in various towns and cities across the country – with particular focus on Lisbon and
The post PSP pledges to prioritise dialogue with demonstrators appeared first on Portugal Resident.
West Des Moines, Iowa—Iowa voters may disagree on immigration, taxes, and the economy, but government surveillance is drawing opposition from across the political spectrum.
An Emerson College poll of 750 likely Iowa voters, conducted between late August and early September, found that 61 percent opposed police use of automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras, compared with 26 percent in support.
The backlash comes as police departments across the state increasingly rely on surveillance technology supplied by private companies such as Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions. Their cameras record license plates and vehicle information, feeding searchable databases that allow law enforcement to piece together motorists' movements, including those of people suspected of no crime.
As Iowa's gubernatorial and congressional campaigns enter their final stretch, voters are increasingly pressing candidates on whether they intend to place limits on the technology. Jacqueline Thompson, an ordained elder in the Iowa Conference of the United Methodist Church and a self-described centrist Democrat, said she has been concerned about government surveillance for years.
"It's always been important to me [and] I've always thought that was a problem," she said before a campaign rally at a senior living community in Des Moines earlier this month. "So, when people started jumping on the bandwagon saying it, I was like, 'Hello, I've been here already!'"
Thompson pointed to two Democratic candidates, Nate Willems, who is running for Iowa attorney general, and Taylor Wettach, a candidate for state auditor, as having caught her attention with their emphasis on corporate oversight and access to government records.
For Thompson, the renewed attention to privacy is a welcome development in a political environment where Democrats and Republicans rarely find common ground. "It's kind of nice to hear the people come back to the middle [and discuss this]," she said.
Police surveillance technology has spread across Iowa faster than the rules governing its use.
A recent study identified at least 62 Iowa law enforcement agencies that had accessed other agencies' Flock databases, including departments that did not operate cameras of their own. Police departments can therefore search information collected well beyond their jurisdictions without having to install a single camera themselves. The study (led by Megan Graham, a clinical associate professor and director of the Technology Law Clinic at the University of Iowa College of Law) found significant gaps in transparency surrounding ALPRs.
The constitutional implications are already being tested in court. On October 1, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that a sheriff's deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by searching a motorist's location history through automated license plate reader systems operated by Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions without a warrant.
The search turned up more than 50 records of the driver's whereabouts across multiple states over a month. In the 38-page ruling, the judge ordered the resulting evidence suppressed, describing the technology as a form of "indiscriminate mass surveillance." The decision is not binding in Iowa, and legal challenges to ALPR surveillance still face an uphill battle, but it adds to the legal scrutiny of police tracking motorists without warrants.
The University of Iowa study also raised concerns about unauthorized database access, erroneous alerts, and the potential use of locally collected information for federal immigration enforcement.
Flock Safety says it has not provided U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Border Patrol with direct access to its systems. But the researchers found that local law enforcement agencies elsewhere in the country had conducted searches on behalf of federal authorities, effectively allowing them to obtain information without direct access.
Taxpayers are also footing the bill. Cedar Rapids reported operating 76 cameras at a combined average cost of more than $20,000 a month, according to the study.
Researchers struggled to determine the full extent of surveillance across Iowa. Some agencies refused to disclose the number or locations of their cameras, while others withheld records concerning unauthorized access or erroneous alerts, citing confidentiality.
The cameras are not limited to Iowa's largest cities. Becca Eastwood, deputy policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, said they have spread across large, midsize, and smaller communities, prompting a surge in opposition over the past year.
The backlash "has just exploded, like no other issue that I have seen in my time at the ACLU," Eastwood told Reason in an interview. Candidates running for state and federal offices are increasingly getting asked if they support police departments using ALPR cameras, she said.
Some local governments are already reconsidering their contracts. Indianola and Waukee suspended their Flock camera arrangements, Iowa Public Radio reported in August. Dallas County paused a planned rollout while awaiting guidance from state lawmakers. Ankeny, which operates 16 Flock cameras, is reportedly expected to reconsider a possible contract extension next year.
The backlash also cuts across the immigration debate. While concerns about federal immigration enforcement have helped draw attention to the cameras, critics argue the same surveillance infrastructure can be used against anyone, regardless of which party controls the government.
"This is a nonpartisan issue because people recognize that surveillance can be weaponized against anyone the government wants to weaponize it against," Eastwood said. "An increase in police surveillance impacts certain populations more, right now [but] nobody is immune."
The opposition is beginning to force Iowa's candidates to take positions on a technology that, until recently, attracted relatively little attention outside law enforcement and civil liberties circles.
Among the gubernatorial candidates, interviewed by Iowa Radio last month, Republican Zach Lahn has called for state-level regulation, arguing that the widespread collection of information about where people drive is unacceptable. Meanwhile, Democrat Rob Sand has expressed support for safeguards governing the collection and use of license plate data and said he would sign legislation if privacy concerns persisted. But he has also pointed to the cancellation of some Flock contracts as evidence that the market is responding to public concerns.
For now, neither approach offers much clarity on whether police should be required to obtain warrants before searching motorists' location histories or how far restrictions on data collection should go.
Ryan Johnson, a libertarian-leaning Republican who works as a machinist near Waterloo, said he could accept cameras in certain locations, such as downtown areas or near traffic signals. But he objects to their spread into residential neighborhoods and public spaces.
"Just having Flock cameras everywhere, [in] residential [areas], putting them at parks and pools, we don't need that," Johnson said while attending a Lahn rally earlier this month.
So far, some of the most concrete changes to ALPR practices have come from Flock itself. In August, the company announced that it would reduce its default data-retention period from 30 days to seven and require officers to enter a criminal case number or code for each search. The changes would not, however, require police to obtain a warrant before accessing the records.
Gary and Nancy Guthrie, a Democratic couple attending a Des Moines rally supporting Chris Jones for secretary of agriculture, remain skeptical of the cameras.
"I don't have a good feel for that," Nancy Guthrie said. "Personally, I'm very much against Flock cameras."
For all the attention the issue is receiving on the campaign trail, Iowa voters have yet to hear much about what legal limits candidates would actually impose on police surveillance.
The post Iowa Voters Don't Want Police or Flock Tracking Their Cars. Politicians Are Still Catching Up. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
France has deployed 70,000 police officers and gendarmes ahead of nationwide demonstrations on Saturday, with authorities warning of a heightened risk of unrest after vandalism and looting damaged about 3,000 businesses the previous week.
RELATED: France Reports 855 Arrests in Paris After Protests
Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu warned late Friday that the threat remained high, particularly from radical far-left groups and criminal elements operating alongside demonstrations called by trade unions, students and the Yellow Vest movement.
Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez announced a large-scale security operation to prevent further violence and looting.
“We will show no mercy to looters and troublemakers,” Nuñez declared. He has faced criticism from the left over police tactics and from the right for failing to prevent the previous week’s unrest.
France to mobilise 70,000 security forces for Saturday protest, interior minister says https://t.co/ok4e8kEy5t https://t.co/ok4e8kEy5t
— Reuters World (@ReutersWorld) October 23, 2026
Authorities have banned gatherings in numerous cities and restricted the routes of other demonstrations on security grounds, prompting criticism from trade unions and human rights organizations.
In major cities, trade union demonstrations were authorized on Saturday only in Paris, Marseille, Strasbourg, Lille, Mulhouse, Grenoble, Toulouse and Amiens.
In Paris, a last-minute change to the union march’s route sparked a dispute between police officials and organizers. Authorities cited the heightened threat following a racist attack on the outskirts of the capital the previous day as they redirected the march from Place de la Nation to Place d’Italie, keeping it away from the city center.
Several museums in the capital, including the Louvre and the Musée d’Orsay, will remain closed, as will the nearby Palace of Versailles. A nighttime curfew in the areas around Place de la République and Les Halles will also remain in force until Monday.
Banks and businesses in central Paris were boarding up shopfronts and windows late Friday and early Saturday in anticipation of possible vandalism, according to observations by Spanish news agency EFE.
Security concerns also extend to Orléans, about 130 kilometers (81 miles) south of Paris, where the far-right National Rally (RN) is holding a congress to formally launch Marine Le Pen’s presidential candidacy, roughly six months before the election.
Authorities estimated that 11,000 people took part in a counter-demonstration in Orléans on Saturday against Le Pen’s party. Organized in opposition to racism, fascism and imperialism, the march proceeded peacefully in a festive atmosphere, according to EFE.
Protesters chanted slogans including “Macron resign, Le Pen to prison” and sang the French national anthem, La Marseillaise, as well as the Spanish-language protest song “The People United Will Never Be Defeated.”
Authorities deployed about 3,000 officers in Orléans to prevent clashes between demonstrators and attendees at the RN congress. The local prefecture authorized Saturday’s march but banned a separate demonstration planned for Sunday.
The security measures reflect the authorities’ efforts to prevent further disorder while allowing some demonstrations to proceed. Restrictions on public gatherings and the deployment of thousands of officers have shaped preparations for Saturday’s rallies across France.
© Dakota Santiago for The New York Times
Avec celle des transports, la question de la sécurité donne des sueurs froides aux organisateurs de grands événements. Le gouvernement a-t-il tiré toutes les leçons de la finale de la Ligue des champions de football en juin 2022 ? Un retour sur ce fiasco permet d'éclairer les dysfonctionnements majeurs de l'organisation et d'une approche anachronique.
La finale de la plus prestigieuse compétition interclubs de football, organisée par l'Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) opposant Le Liverpool Football Club (LFC) au Real Madrid, le 28 mai 2022 à Saint-Denis, a offert à des centaines de millions de téléspectateurs l'image d'un chaos ainsi que du fiasco de l'organisation et de l'ordre public « à la française ». Seuls le sang-froid et les capacités d'adaptation des supporters liverpuldiens ont permis d'éviter un drame d'ampleur. Des milliers d'entre eux ont risqué l'écrasement du fait des défaillances des autorités. Ils furent ensuite pris en étau entre des agresseurs tentant de les dépouiller et une police dépassée recourant à la force de manière intempestive et sans discernement.
La première cause du désordre est liée à l'acheminement d'une partie des spectateurs vers le Stade de France : les itinéraires fléchés, les dispositifs de fouille et de contrôle des billets n'étaient pas dimensionnés pour une absorption efficace des flux humains. Dès lors, la densité de la foule accumulée a fait craindre le pire. Le match a débuté avec 36 minutes de retard, plusieurs milliers de personnes détentrices de billets n'ont pu assister à la première mi-temps et des centaines d'autres n'ont rien vu de la rencontre. L'après-match fut à nouveau le théâtre de nombreux vols à l'arraché. Plusieurs milliers de supporters relatent la désorganisation, le manque d'informations, la colère et la peur générées. Cette soirée mondialement télévisée a donné l'image d'un hôte mal préparé, soumis à une délinquance massive, et de forces de l'ordre débordées répondant par une violence disproportionnée et exercée contre… les spectateurs.
Comment en est-on arrivé là, alors que la France dispose d'une solide expérience d'organisation de grands événements sportifs, en particulier à Saint-Denis ? Certes, la finale, initialement programmée à Saint-Pétersbourg, a été relocalisée tardivement en France, du fait de l'invasion de l'Ukraine par la Russie. Cette décision fortement soutenue par le président de la République n'a laissé que trois mois aux organisateurs, au lieu des dix-huit généralement consacrés à la planification d'une telle rencontre. Une grève partielle sur l'une des lignes de RER a bousculé l'organisation. Mais les problèmes d'insécurité autour du stade sont identifiés de longue date, tout comme les difficultés récurrentes d'accès à l'enceinte.
L'origine des décisions n'ayant pas permis d'enrayer cet enchaînement critique semble en réalité procéder de trois tendances. Tout d'abord, la prégnance d'une conception « confrontationnelle » et démonstrative du maintien de l'ordre apparaît en décalage avec les besoins de dialogue des spectateurs venant de l'étranger assister à un événement festif. Ensuite, un déséquilibre en termes de relations de pouvoir s'est instauré entre parties prenantes ; en particulier, la centralité de la préfecture de police de Paris (PP) a empêché de définir collectivement un dispositif de sécurité adéquat. Enfin, les réticences à s'inspirer des diverses expertises disponibles ont contribué à plusieurs approximations.
En France, la sécurisation des grands événements sportifs est essentiellement appréhendée sous l'angle du maintien de l'ordre — une priorité renforcée par la menace terroriste. Lors des rencontres de football en particulier, la discipline demandée aux spectateurs prend le pas sur l'accueil et le service aux personnes. Le décalage est notable par rapport aux dispositifs déployés dans d'autres pays européens et aux engagements pris dans ce même Stade de France, où la France avait organisé en 2016 la signature de la Convention du Conseil de l'Europe sur une approche intégrée de la sécurité, de la sûreté et des services lors des matches de football et autres manifestations sportives. Paris avait ratifié l'année suivante ce traité incitant à faire des supporters des partenaires pour organiser des « événements sûrs et conviviaux (1) ».
Les pouvoirs publics redoutaient des violences liées à la présence de hooligans, témoignant d'une vision anachronique des supporters de Liverpool : ceux d'aujourd'hui n'ont plus rien à voir avec ceux des années 1980 qui s'illustrèrent notamment durant le drame du Heysel (Bruxelles, 1985). La tactique de maintien de l'ordre choisie a conduit les autorités françaises à négliger la sécurité publique qu'auraient pu incarner les policiers en civil, habilités à interpeller et prévenir la délinquance visant les spectateurs. Peu mobiles, rapatriés derrière les grilles du stade afin d'empêcher les intrusions, les effectifs déployés n'ont pour leur part guère été en mesure d'enrayer les agressions.
Par ailleurs, le commandement de la PP avait pour objectif central de préserver la capitale d'éventuels débordements. Sur les 29 unités de force mobile mobilisées le 28 mai, composées chacune de 80 CRS, gendarmes mobiles ou membres de compagnies d'intervention de la PP, 9 étaient présentes aux environs du stade, 6 autour de la « fan zone » du cours de Vincennes (destinée aux supporters de Liverpool présents à Paris sans billet) et 4 sur des sites sensibles comme les Champs-Élysées. Ce déploiement a amoindri les capacités de réaction lorsque des désordres se sont produits à Saint-Denis. L'autonomie de la PP génère de surcroît une concurrence interservices avec la police nationale (2). Des enjeux de pouvoir ont altéré la pertinence du dispositif, puisque la PP a confié l'essentiel de la surveillance des secteurs sensibles à Paris aux CRS et aux gendarmes mobiles, renforçant la marge de manœuvre de ses unités propres au Stade de France. Or ces dernières n'ont ni expérience dans la gestion des supporters ni compétence en matière de gestion des foules. Du reste, l'usage disproportionné de gaz lacrymogènes relevait des membres des compagnies d'intervention de la PP.
Les effectifs de la PP sont connus pour exercer des formes dures de contrôle social (3). Leur recours débridé à la violence a choqué les supporters britanniques habitués à des interactions pacifiées avec les forces de l'ordre. Le niveau d'agressivité de la police est modulé par son commandement, lequel, dans le cas d'espèce, assume une approche dure du maintien de l'ordre : c'est la doctrine revendiquée par M. Didier Lallement, préfet de police de Paris (qui a dû quitter son poste peu après ces événements), M. Alexis Marsan, représentant le préfet au poste de commandement opérationnel du Stade de France, et M. Paul-Antoine Tomi, responsable de la mise en œuvre opérationnelle du dispositif de sécurité.
Les connaissances disponibles sur ces types de publics et leur encadrement émanant d'associations, d'universitaires, d'acteurs territoriaux, de journalistes ou encore de services spécialisés au sein de la police ont peu été prises en considération. La police britannique a par exemple transmis au renseignement français un portrait rassurant des supporters de Liverpool, soulignant leur comportement exemplaire en déplacement, leur respect des consignes policières, ainsi que la présence très peu probable de hooligans en région parisienne. Une note de la division nationale de lutte contre le hooliganisme synthétise ces éléments. Transmise le 25 mai à la PP, elle n'a pas été relayée aux autres parties prenantes ni fait l'objet d'échanges lors des réunions ultérieures.
L'association Football Supporters Europe (FSE) explique que les services de l'État n'étaient pas présents lors de l'habituelle visite préparatoire du site à laquelle elle participait. « Nous n'avons donc pu que constater une accumulation d'erreurs, sans pouvoir influer sur le déroulement des événements », témoigne son directeur général. Depuis 2019, cette association ne dispose plus de canal de communication avec la PP et le ministère de l'intérieur. En tout état de cause, la centralisation du pouvoir a soustrait plusieurs décisions clés au discernement collectif — comme le cadrage décalé du maintien de l'ordre et le choix d'un itinéraire d'acheminement inadapté, car bien trop étroit.
À mesure qu'approchait la finale, la PP a été de moins en moins encline à coopérer, comme en atteste l'enquête indépendante de l'UEFA : « il n'existait aucun mécanisme permettant d'infléchir les opérations de police, ou de faire remonter le problème par une partie prenante autre que la police (4). » La Fédération française de football (FFF) a ainsi subi un passage en force de la PP. Chargée d'orienter les supporters des stations de transport en commun vers le stade, elle avait mis en place un fléchage destiné à limiter les effets de la grève sur la ligne du RER B. L'objectif était d'éviter l'engorgement de l'accès au stade le plus direct à la sortie du RER D, où s'est concentré l'essentiel des difficultés de transit. Le 23 mai, la PP a ordonné le démontage de cette signalétique de délestage, estimant qu'elle perturbait ses habitudes de travail. Cette décision, qui constitue une des causes de l'échec, n'a pas été évoquée lors des réunions de coordination.
L'UEFA a admis que la délégation de ses prérogatives sécuritaires à la FFF et aux services de police a été excessive, s'apparentant à une forme de dessaisissement de sa responsabilité. À une autre échelle, au sein du poste de commandement opérationnel du stade, alors que les signes d'une dégradation rapide de la situation étaient sans ambiguïté, les responsables de l'UEFA n'ont pas osé faire état de la nécessité d'infléchir le dispositif, doutant que le commandant de police suive leurs conseils.
À la suite des auditions menées par le Sénat, l'une des recommandations invite à réaffirmer le rôle de coordination de la délégation interministérielle aux grands événements sportifs (Diges) (5). Cela trahit la difficulté de cette dernière à s'émanciper de la tutelle de la PP, en dépit d'une expertise reconnue.
Dès la mi-temps de la rencontre, le ministre de l'intérieur a attribué les problèmes survenus à la présence de 30 000 à 40 000 supporters de Liverpool sans billet ou munis de faux, alors que l'intensité de la fraude était assez habituelle pour ce type de match (moins de 2 500 faux billets auraient circulé). Cette stigmatisation a généré des réactions indignées au Royaume-Uni. Ces déclarations prématurées comme le verrouillage de la communication gouvernementale ou la disparition des images de vidéosurveillance ont empêché la mise en œuvre d'un retour d'expérience transparent, car cela aurait conduit les acteurs impliqués à contredire la posture du ministre. L'occasion de progresser en matière de sécurité (avec en ligne de mire les Jeux olympiques) n'a ainsi pas pu être complètement saisie.
Le gouvernement entend répondre par une accélération technologique et le biais de la vidéosurveillance et des algorithmes de reconnaissance faciale stimulée par des opportunités de marché (6). À supposer qu'elle puisse apporter une plus-value sécuritaire, la mise en œuvre de tels dispositifs nécessitera des phases de test et une appropriation qui ne seront guère effectives en quelques mois. Elle soulève aussi des questions éthiques et de respect de la vie privée pourtant promptement balayées par le Sénat et l'Assemblée nationale.
(1) Conseil de l'Europe, Convention sur une approche intégrée de la sécurité, de la sûreté et des services lors des matches de football et autres manifestations sportives (STCE n° 218), 3 juillet 2016, Saint-Denis.
(2) « La Préfecture de police de Paris, Réformer pour mieux assurer la sécurité dans l'agglomération parisienne » (PDF), Cour des comptes, 16 décembre 2019.
(3) Anne Wuilleumier (sous la dir. de), « Désescalade de la violence et gestion des foules protestataires. Quelle(s) articulation(s) en France et en Europe aujourd'hui ? », Institut national des hautes études de la sécurité et de la justice (INHESJ), Défenseur des droits, juillet 2021.
(4) « Independent Review 2022 UEFA Champions League Final » (PDF), février 2023.
(5) François-Noël Buffet et Laurent Lafon, « Rapport d'information sur les incidents survenus au Stade de France le 28 mai 2022 », n° 776, Sénat, 13 juillet 2022.
(6) Lire Thomas Jusquiame, « Des villes verrouillées au nom de la sécurité », Le Monde diplomatique, janvier 2024.
Earlier this week, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch said that the police shooting of 1-year-old boy Kohen Wiley in a Walmart parking lot earlier this year was a "justified" use of force. On Thursday, Sgt. Hunter Foster, the Senatobia police officer who shot Wiley, resigned from the department.
Foster's resignation comes after a tumultuous week for the Mississippi attorney general's office and the Senatobia Police Department (SPD). After Finch ruled the shooting a justified use of force on Monday, DarkHorse Press leaked footage of the body camera video from officers at the scene, along with Walmart surveillance video. On Thursday, the Mississippi Department of Public Safety released more footage, including from the bodycam of Foster, which WLBT News obtained. Together, the footage shows a less cut-and-dry incident than what statements from Fitch and the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation imply.
Surveillance footage shows Kohen's mother, Vellesiya Wiley, and her friend running to their car from the Walmart entrance as Wiley holds baby Kohen in her arms. Police officers soon enter the frame chasing the duo. After getting in the car, Wiley's friend backs out of the parking spot and hits another parked car. The officers crowd around the vehicle, drawing their guns and shouting "stop." Foster places himself directly in front of the vehicle, his gun primed and ready. The driver puts the car in gear and accelerates toward the officers. According to his bodycam footage, Foster, one of the two officers in the vehicle's path, lets off three shots as he hops out of the way and continues to aim his gun at the car as it passes him. It appears that at least one of the shots pierced the front windshield, while the others came through the window on the passenger side, where Kohen was sitting on his mother's lap. The car then drove away, and officers gave chase.
After reviewing the footage, Ben Crump, the Wiley family attorney, said during a Thursday press conference that the police officers "never ever should have drawn their weapons for a misdemeanor shoplifting allegation."
"The shot from the side of the vehicle was not justified," he added. "[Foster] was not in harm's way when he shot from the side." He claims that the shot that killed Kohen came from the side, corroborating an independent autopsy the family conducted.
Martin Zummach, an attorney for Foster, told the Associated Press that the driver "tried to kill" his client and other officers at the scene, giving Foster "no choice but to fire his weapon." He said it was "strictly muscle memory" that led Foster to fire those additional shots, according to WSB News. "The one that went through the side glass that everybody's going crazy about? That's because she was moving so fast," he said.
Regardless of whether the car was "moving so fast," Foster, who moved out of the vehicle's path, clearly had the choice not to fire his weapon. But instead of de-escalating the situation, the police officers decided to draw their guns and step in front of a vehicle, turning an incident involving an alleged shoplifter fleeing a misdemeanor into a life-or-death game of chicken.
The post Mississippi Cop Who Shot 1-Year-Old Kohen Wiley Resigns After State Calls Shooting 'Justified' appeared first on Reason Magazine.
© Abdul Saboor/Reuters
© Pool photo by Reed Saxon
A new speed record has been set on Lisbon’s Vasco da Gama Bridge: 292 km/ hour – and now the driver is facing a stiff fine (at least €500) and
The post Mercedes clocked travelling at 292 km/h on Lisbon’s Vasco da Gama bridge appeared first on Portugal Resident.
In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss the ongoing violent protests in France.
If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in D.C. Tickets are available here.
The post France's Protests Descend Into Looting and Property Destruction appeared first on Reason Magazine.
School resource officers (SROs) in Texas referred tens of thousands of elementary and middle schoolers for prosecution for relatively minor misconduct over the last decade, a news investigation found.
An analysis by The New York Times and the San Antonio Express-News reported that, as the number of SROs in Texas grew, children in Texas ages 10 to 13 were referred to prosecution for misbehaving in school more than 47,000 times since 2014. A referral doesn't necessarily result in charges being filed, but each one represents a minor being taken into police custody and put in contact with the criminal justice system, which can have long-lasting educational, emotional, and financial impacts for students and their families.
"Most of the students were accused of minor offenses, like making threats, using cannabis vapes or lashing out at classmates or teachers," the papers reported. "Few caused serious physical harm."
Among the examples cited by the Times and Express-News were an 11-year-old who bumped into a school counselor, a 10-year-old who said he saw someone on campus with a weapon, and a 10-year-old who kicked an assistant principal after his cellphone was taken away.
In one case, a 12-year-old girl who refused to go to the principal's office was handcuffed, arrested, and driven to the school police headquarters. "When she would not put her hand on a fingerprint machine, officers twisted her opposite arm behind her back until she screamed and complied, according to body camera footage," the outlets reported.
The analysis found that referrals of children 10 to 13 increased by a greater percentage than referrals of older students. (Children under 10 cannot be prosecuted under Texas law; many other states don't set a minimum age for delinquency.)
The two outlets published another joint investigation in May on how SROs in Texas schools have used heavy-handed tactics, including Tasers and pepper spray, against students over seemingly minor misconduct.
The findings mirror other recent studies. A report published in July by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa found that, while SROs were placed in Iowa schools to keep students safe from violence, the threat they most commonly dealt with was illicit vaping.
The number of police in schools nationally dramatically increased in recent years, growing by 23 percent at high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools between 2018 and 2021, largely under the justification of stopping mass shootings and handling violent situations.
Organizations like the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) say that carefully selected, well-trained officers act as a filter and decrease arrests by building strong relationships within the school with staff and students.
Civil liberties groups and disability advocates have long argued that increases in school police and zero-tolerance policies for petty disturbances have fueled the "school-to-prison" pipeline and led to disproportionate enforcement against minorities and students with disabilities. Those groups have been aided by viral news stories of police arresting and assaulting school children.
Following the police killing of George Floyd in 2020 and national calls for police reform, several major school districts across the country ended their SRO programs.
However, several states that experienced horrific school shootings, like Florida and Texas, moved in the opposite direction, passing laws that required police officers or armed guardians in public schools.
A 2020 Reason investigation described how Florida schools had become a high-stakes experiment in policing after Florida more than doubled the number of SROs across the state following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. A study published in 2020 found that after the increase, the number of Florida school arrests—which had been declining for years—suddenly started to rise. There was also a sharp increase in the use of physical restraint against students.
A 2021 working paper by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, which billed itself as the broadest and most rigorous examination at the school level of how SROs impact student outcomes, found that while SROs "do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools," they did not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.
Another study by researchers at the University of Maryland and the firm Westat, who studied several dozen middle and high schools in California, found that increasing the number of SROs led to both immediate and persistent increases in the number of drug and weapon offenses and the number of suspensions and expulsions of students.
The post Texas School Police Referred Tens of Thousands of Children to Prosecutors for Minor Misbehavior appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Since 1871, a federal statute has authorized Americans to sue state and local officials for violating their constitutional rights. But since 1982, thanks to the court-invented doctrine of qualified immunity, such claims have been allowed only when they allege violations of "clearly established" law.
Because courts often require plaintiffs to meet that standard by citing precedents involving closely similar facts, qualified immunity can prove insurmountable even for victims of outrageous abuses. But as two recent cases illustrate, there are limits to this license for misconduct, meaning officials may still be held accountable when they flout longstanding constitutional principles, even when they do so in novel ways.
In 2022, Mario Rosales and Gracie Lasyone sued two Alexandria, Louisiana, police officers, Samuel Terrell and Jim Lewis, alleging that they had pulled Rosales over without legal justification. The cops ordered Rosales and Lasyone, his girlfriend, out of the car and detained them for 21 minutes, during which they grilled the couple about illegal drugs, frisked Rosales, and instructed him to empty his pockets.
Terrell and Lewis sought refuge in qualified immunity. But last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Rosales and Lasyone had plausibly alleged several Fourth Amendment violations, including a stop based on a "fabricated traffic violation," an improperly prolonged detention, and unjustified searches.
In reaching that conclusion, the 5th Circuit relied mainly on a 1968 decision in which the Supreme Court said police may detain someone only if they reasonably suspect he is involved in criminal activity and may frisk him only if they reasonably suspect he is "armed and dangerous." Assuming the facts alleged in the lawsuit are true, the three-judge panel unanimously held, Terrell and Lewis had failed both of those tests.
When the officers stopped Rosales, the principles that the 5th Circuit applied had been the law of the land for more than half a century. Terrell and Lewis nevertheless argued that "any constitutional violation arising from the traffic stop was not clearly established," which gives you a sense of the chutzpah that qualified immunity invites.
Police commonly pull drivers over, ostensibly for traffic violations, in the hope of implicating them in drug crimes. A case that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit considered this month involved a much more unusual scenario: a judge who locked two children in jail cells because he was frustrated by their resistance to a parental custody decision.
During a 2019 hearing in Taney County, Missouri, a divorced couple agreed that the mother would have primary custody of their two children, then 12 and 14. But contrary to that agreement, the children did not want to go home with their mother, which led to an argument in the courthouse lobby.
Judge Eric Eighmy intervened, telling the children they had to leave with their mother and repeatedly warning them that they could end up in foster care if they refused to do so. When that did not work, Eighmy jailed them until they became more cooperative.
"The time spent in the holding-cell area was between twenty and forty minutes," the 8th Circuit noted. And since Eighmy did not have probable cause to believe the children had committed any offense, "much less one that justified placing them in a holding cell," the court said, their confinement clearly violated the Fourth Amendment.
If so, Eighmy argued, he had no way of knowing that. The 8th Circuit panel unanimously disagreed: "As we put it over a decade and a half ago, long before the events in this case, 'it is clearly established that a warrantless arrest, unsupported by probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment.'"
Notably, the 8th Circuit did not think the bizarre details of the case counted in Eighmy's favor. "We are not concerned about the lack of a prior case" with "fundamentally similar" facts, it said. "Indeed, given how clear the law is, it would have been surprising to find one."
© Copyright 2026 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
The post 2 Recent Cases Illustrate the Limits of a Doctrine That Often Blocks Civil Rights Claims appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Police authorities have seized 42 tonnes of cocaine since January this year, 17 more than in the whole of 2025, national director of the Judicial Police (PJ), Carlos Cabreiro, has
The post Cocaine seizures in Portugal “already exceed 42 tonnes” this year appeared first on Portugal Resident.
Fairfax County, Virginia, police officer Scott Abram was charged with two counts of misdemeanor shoplifting for stealing merchandise from two Target stores. Police say that while using the self-checkout at a Target in Burke, Abram scanned a cheaper item's barcode to pay less for another item, then left the store with both products despite only paying for one. Abram was in uniform and on duty at the time. Police say he had committed a similar theft at a Target in Springfield the day before, while off duty. A 23-year veteran of the Fairfax County Police Department, Abram chose to retire rather than face termination. Each charge is a misdemeanor that can carry up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine if convicted.
The post Brickbat: Sticky Fingers appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Police brought 271 people to police headquarters following Sunday’s disturbances in Milan, including 220 minors. Of those detained, 32 were formally arrested and another 28 were reported to the judicial authorities, according to figures released on Monday, 19th October.
The violence has prompted the Italian government to consider further restrictions on those involved in violent demonstrations, potentially introducing additional powers directed at organised disorder and juvenile offenders.
The disturbances began during demonstrations on Saturday, 17th October, organised amid growing dissatisfaction over household expenses, public services and wider political grievances.
Although the protests initially included peaceful participants, groups of masked individuals subsequently confronted riot police in central Milan. Officers used tear gas and water cannon as demonstrators erected burning barricades and threw objects at security personnel.
The unrest continued on Sunday, when shops were attacked close to Piazza del Duomo, one of Milan’s principal commercial and tourist areas.
Among the premises targeted were branches of Decathlon, Arc’teryx and Vodafone. Television footage showed damaged shopfronts, overturned street furniture and burning rubbish containers.
According to police figures reported on Monday, 174 of those taken to police headquarters were subjected to preventive detention measures introduced under recent Italian security legislation.
Fourteen members of the security services were reported injured during Sunday’s disturbances, including ten police officers and four members of the municipal police.
The judicial authorities are examining the conduct of individuals suspected of taking part in attacks on businesses and confrontations with officers. Prosecutors have sought custodial measures against several adults accused of offences including devastation, looting and aggravated resistance.
The large proportion of minors among those detained has become a central issue in the political response.
Milan was not the only city affected by disorder. Saturday’s demonstrations also produced confrontations in Turin, Bologna, Brescia and Bergamo.
Italian police reported arrests across the affected cities, while the scale and organisation of the disturbances have raised questions about whether different groups were acting independently or using demonstrations as opportunities for coordinated violence.
There is not yet sufficient publicly established evidence to attribute the disorder to a single organisation or political movement.
The clashes coincided with major protests in neighbouring France, where similar concerns over living costs and public administration have contributed to increasingly confrontational demonstrations.
Although the grievances overlap, the Italian and French movements have different political backgrounds and organisational structures.
Following a meeting at Palazzo Chigi on Monday, Meloni’s government indicated that it was considering a legislative response, potentially through an emergency decree.
According to details of the government discussions, proposals under examination include additional measures against violent offences, changes to preventive policing and possible restrictions addressing road blockages.
Some measures could be drawn from security legislation already under consideration in the Italian Senate. Ministers have also discussed the need for more effective intervention against juvenile offenders.
The meeting included Deputy Prime Ministers Matteo Salvini and Antonio Tajani, Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto and senior officials from the police, Carabinieri and intelligence services.
The government has stressed that peaceful demonstrations must remain protected while arguing that violence and organised destruction require a stronger response.
No final legislative text had been adopted at the conclusion of Monday’s meeting. A decree could be considered by the Council of Ministers as early as Tuesday, although the precise content remains subject to further examination.
The unrest has also produced a dispute between Milan’s municipal authorities and the national government.
Mayor Giuseppe Sala questioned the adequacy of the policing arrangements, arguing that the number of officers initially deployed was insufficient to control the disturbances.
Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi rejected that criticism, while senior government figures accused local political leaders of failing to condemn the violence unequivocally.
The disagreement reflects a wider question over how responsibility for anticipating and containing serious public disorder should be divided between local administrations and national security authorities.
Italy’s opposition has also challenged the government’s handling of the disturbances. Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi criticised Meloni and Piantedosi over their failure to prevent the violence, calling for a change in leadership at the Interior Ministry.
The political argument is likely to intensify if the government proceeds with emergency legislation. Supporters of stronger police powers argue that the existing framework is insufficient to deal with rapidly organised disturbances, while opponents will scrutinise the proportionality of new restrictions and their effect on peaceful protest.
The immediate test for the government will be whether additional legal powers can improve public-order operations without replacing effective policing, intelligence gathering and judicial enforcement.
Walking through East Cleveland, Ohio, feels a touch like you've wandered onto the set of a postapocalyptic film noir. Grand, gilded homes announce themselves on neighborhood streets, some crowned with turrets, many with windows punched out like missing teeth. Often, no one is home, because no one lives there. It is safer than 1 percent of U.S. cities.
So why did local law enforcement pour considerable time and resources into pursuing a man for a sound truck?
That question is not really a legal one, at least not in the most technical sense. But it is the driving force behind a thorny case a federal court recently resuscitated: Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, a saga concerning a man whose vehicle became an obsessive target of the East Cleveland Police Department (ECPD) after he used it to campaign for a mayoral challenger.
Some of the facts are in dispute. But the basic gist is as follows: William Fambrough, long a politically engaged East Clevelander, campaigned for Juanita Gowdy—a challenger to then-Mayor Brandon King—by broadcasting messages around the city with his sound truck. That ultimately came to an end after law enforcement impounded the car, cited him for parking and noise violations, and prosecuted him for the latter.
Fambrough sued, alleging the complex legal odyssey set into motion over his step van amounted to First Amendment retaliation, an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and a violation of the 14th Amendment's proscription against selective enforcement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit rejected some of those claims. But it resurrected claims against King and his chief of staff, Michael Smedley—depriving them of qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that inoculates state and local government officials from facing lawsuits if their alleged misconduct was not "clearly established" as illegal in prior case law. It also revived Fambrough's retaliation claim against the city.
As the 6th Circuit summarizes: King "says he received a phone call from a resident who complained about Fambrough's sound truck and someone else's box truck being parked in a residential area," so he told someone to take care of it. Scott Gardner, then the city's chief of police, "was concerned about selectively enforcing" the parking ordinance—which prohibits parking a truck in front of residential property, except for loading or unloading—because it is indeed almost never enforced. This was the beginning of a long pursuit, which ultimately saw a swarm of officers dispatched to Fambrough's house in August 2021 to confiscate the vehicle, allegedly resulting in $6,000 in damage. Fambrough also had to pay $528 in fees to get the damaged truck back.
"All the attention City officials gave Fambrough struck Gardner as unusual," the 6th Circuit notes. "The mayor's office wasn't this attentive even in homicide cases. And considering that the City had around only 50 police officers at the time and had 'serious crime problems,' Gardner thought it was odd to devote this much attention to permitting and parking issues." Based on available data, East Cleveland's violent crime rate is 1,409 per 100,000 residents, about four times higher than the national average.
Yet Gardner ultimately got on board. Smedley phoned him on August 9 "extremely upset," according to Gardner, and told the police chief he was "incompetent" for failing to "take care of" Fambrough's sound truck. Smedley wanted the "utmost enforcement as possible." So Gardner sent an email. "Please, find this vehicle and tow it," he wrote to all of ECPD. "Cite the operator with disturbing the peace and loud music. Please contact me as soon as this is complete to claim a surprise." A surprise!
Police succeeded. "On its face, the email told officers to tow Fambrough's truck regardless of whether it was parked illegally," writes the 6th Circuit. "And the Noise Ordinance authorizes seizure only of 'the sound device used,' and only upon conviction. So Gardner's instruction to tow the truck wasn't authorized by municipal law." The court still held that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It also gave Gardner qualified immunity, ruling it is not clearly established that someone who acts as a conduit for someone else's alleged retaliation—which here came from the mayor's office—is a "responsible party."
Heather McCollough, the city's assistant law director, subsequently prosecuted Fambrough for allegedly violating the noise ordinance. According to a sworn declaration from Fambrough's attorney, McCollough outlined some of Fambrough's offenses on a call: that he "made complaints about the police department" and filed "public records requests," among other issues. Notably, it is legal to do those things. McCollough was typically willing to resolve minor noise complaints, she added, but not so much in this case, because Fambrough needed to "stand down." (He ultimately pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct, a reduced charge.)
"Only after [Fambrough] began supporting Gowdy's election was the weight of the law thrown against him," the 6th Circuit writes in its analysis of potential municipal wrongdoing. "And the City's police officers didn't uncover Fambrough's violations of their own accord. Instead, City decisionmakers sent them to Fambrough's home each time to enforce the Parking Ordinance. So the timing of the parking-related enforcement actions supports an inference that Fambrough's political speech was the motivating factor—as does the fact that the City rarely enforced the Parking Ordinance against anyone else despite having plenty of opportunities to do so." Incredibly, a photo of another truck can be seen down the street on the same day law enforcement came to fetch Fambrough's vehicle. (The law also includes pickup trucks, so the city arguably has a lot of enforcement to do if it sincerely believes this law matters.)
King allegedly set the chain of events into motion while Smedley took the driver's seat. "Smedley's pattern of incessantly calling and berating Gardner," the 6th Circuit adds, "clashes with the idea that Smedley was chiefly concerned with minor permitting, noise, or parking issues." After all, if that were true, why would the problem appear to begin and end with one person?
Over five years have passed since the ordeal. Although Fambrough is now potentially closer to getting in front of a jury, he has yet to actually state his case, still burdened by the onerous process government actors invoke to kill such suits before the community can assess the merits. King, meanwhile, won that election. He left office in May 2025, however, after he was found guilty of one count of theft in office, four counts of having an unlawful interest in a public contract, three counts of representation by public official or employee, one count of filing a false disclosure statement, and one count of soliciting improper compensation.
The post He Campaigned for the East Cleveland Mayor's Opponent. Then Police Came for His Truck. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Police are assessing a social media post by the wife of Andy Burnham's national security adviser Jonathan Powell that shows support for banned extremist group Palestine Action.
The post Police Assess Post by Wife of Andy Burnham’s National Security Adviser After She Expresses Support for Banned Terror Group Palestine Action appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Graham Linehan, the Father Ted creator, may have been unfairly arrested by the Metropolitan Police because of his gender-critical views, the police watchdog has said.
The post Metropolitan Police May Have Unfairly Arrested Linehan Over Gender Critical Views, Says Watchdog appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
British imams are openly preaching that husbands can beat wives who refuse sex – and the police are doing almost nothing about it.
The post The British Imams Telling Men to Beat Their Wives for Refusing Sex appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce faces criminal charges for standing silently on a street, saying nothing and obstructing no one. Whatever your views on abortion, CJ Strachan argues that criminalising silent prayer is not who we are.
The post When Prayer Becomes a Crime: This is Not British appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Login