On the first night of the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), speakers assembled to make the case for Vice President Kamala Harris to be America's next president and to provide a glimpse of what policies she might pursue. Unfortunately, it's clear that industrial policy is likely to survive and thrive in a Harris administration, despite clear examples that giving public money to private companies carries significant risk.

Some speakers took shots at former President Donald Trump, with Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers (UAW), invoking the closure of a General Motors (G.M.) plant in Lordstown, Ohio. G.M. shuttered the factory in March 2019 amid slowing sales; in July 2017, Trump had told supporters in Youngstown, "Don't move. Don't sell your house," because lost factory jobs would come back.

"Trump lied, and abandoned Lordstown," intoned the announcer of a video that played before Fain took the stage. "The G.M. factory in Lordstown did close, putting thousands of people out of work, because Donald Trump doesn't care about our communities."

"In 2023, who helped bring jobs back to Lordstown, Ohio?" Fain asked during his speech. "Kamala Harris!"

But it's worth noting that G.M. closed the factory just a decade after it received $60 million from the state of Ohio to operate the facility until at least 2039. When G.M. reneged on the deal barely 10 years later, Ohio chose to let the company keep $20 million.

Then between 2019 and 2023, the factory had another occupant: Lordstown Motors, an automaker that planned to build electric pickup trucks. The brand new company purchased the factory for $20 million after borrowing $40 million from G.M. Ohio officials, having not learned a lesson from the experience with G.M., gave Lordstown Motors $24.5 million in grants and tax credits.

And yet despite all the financial assistance, Lordstown Motors entered bankruptcy in June 2023.

"Today, tens of thousands of auto jobs are returning to the United States, thanks to the policies of the Biden-Harris administration," Fain said in a UAW video released last week. "That includes jobs in Lordstown, Ohio, where auto workers at Ultium Cells are now building batteries for General Motors."

Ultium is G.M.'s electric vehicle battery cell technology. "Ultium's Lordstown plant could qualify for tax credits worth more than $1 billion a year," according to a 2023 UAW report. And in 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it would loan the company $2.5 billion to build three factories, including the one in Ohio.

Ultium is also building a $2.6-billion factory in nearby Michigan, for which that state's government agreed to give the company $666 million. And Ultium was not the only company singled out at the convention.

"Trump talked big about bringing back manufacturing jobs, but you know who actually did it? President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris," New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said, moments after Fain spoke. "Look no further than the city of Syracuse, where a company called Micron is building a $100-billion microchip factory with union labor."

In October 2022, Micron pledged to spend $20 billion by the end of the decade to build what it deemed "the largest semiconductor fabrication facility in the history of the United States," signifying "the largest private investment in New York state history." The company further noted that it "intends to invest up to $100 billion over the next 20-plus years."

But the Biden administration agreed to award that company $6.1 billion in federal handouts for its Syracuse factory and one near Boise, Idaho. New York promised another $5.5 billion in state incentives.

Of course, it's entirely likely that these deals will be every bit as lucrative as promised: Micron alone promises that its Syracuse factory will "create nearly 50,000 New York jobs, including approximately 9,000 high paying Micron jobs." But at the time of this writing, Micron has a market cap of $118 billion, suggesting that it could've made the initial $20-billion investment without state and federal taxpayers picking up so much of the tab. Similarly, even though G.M. currently has a market cap of $52 billion and it has reneged on an economic development deal in the very recent past, it still continues to benefit from public cash.

With three more nights to go, the DNC will likely feature more policy proposals for a potential Harris administration. Unfortunately, the first night indicated that industrial policy is alive and well in the Democratic Party.

The post Industrial Policy Is Alive and Well at the Democratic National Convention appeared first on Reason.com.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that every person shall be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This means government agents cannot enter your home or rifle through your stuff without a warrant, signed by a judge and based on probable cause. That right extends to the digital sphere: The Supreme Court ruled in 2018's Carpenter v. United States that the government must have a warrant to track people's movements through their cellphone data.

But governments are increasingly circumventing these protections by using taxpayer dollars to pay private companies to spy on citizens. Government agencies have found many creative and enterprising ways to skirt the Fourth Amendment.

Cellphones generate reams of information about us even when they're just in our pockets, including revealing our geographical locations—information that is then sold by third-party brokers. In 2017 and 2018, the IRS Criminal Investigation unit (IRS CI) purchased access to a commercial database containing geolocation data from millions of Americans' cellphones. A spokesman said IRS CI only used the data for "significant money-laundering, cyber, drug and organized-crime cases" and 
terminated the contract when it failed to yield any useful leads.

During the same time period, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) paid more than $1 million for access to cellphone geolocation databases in an attempt to detect undocumented immigrants entering the country. The Wall Street Journal reported that ICE had used this information to identify and arrest migrants.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spent $420,000 on location data in order to track "compliance" with "movement restrictions," such as curfews, as well as to "track patterns of those visiting K-12 schools."

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) admitted in a January 2021 memo that it purchases "commercially available geolocation metadata aggregated from smartphones" and that it had searched the database for Americans' movement histories "five times in the past two-and-a-half years." The memo further stipulated that "DIA does not construe the Carpenter decision to require a judicial warrant endorsing purchase or use of commercially
available data for intelligence purposes."

Even in the physical world, governments have contracted out their spying. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) spent millions of dollars paying employees at private companies and government agencies for personal information that would otherwise require a warrant. This included paying an administrator at a private parcel delivery service to search people's packages and send them to the DEA, and paying an Amtrak official for travel reservation information. In the latter case, the DEA already had an agreement in place under which Amtrak Police would provide that information for free, but the agency instead spent $850,000 over two decades paying somebody off.

It seems the only thing more enterprising than a government agent with a warrant is a government agent without one.

The post The Feds Are Skirting the Fourth Amendment by Buying Data appeared first on Reason.com.

A Michigan couple sued when their local township passed an ordinance to prevent them from opening a cemetery. This week, in a victory for property rights, a judge ruled in the couple's favor and threw out the ordinance entirely.

As Reason reported in January, Peter and Annica Quakenbush wanted to open a "green" cemetery, allowing people to bury their loved ones in a natural and environmentally friendly manner, free of chemicals like formaldehyde and coffins containing metal. They specifically intended to establish a conservation burial ground, in which decedents would be buried in biodegradable coverings like cotton shrouds or wooden caskets and the burial sites would be marked by natural landmarks like rocks or native trees. The site would otherwise remain an undisturbed forest.

The Quakenbushes bought a 20-acre plot near Brooks Township and started putting together the necessary paperwork. But local officials had other plans in mind, and in June 2023, the Brooks Township Board passed an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of all new cemeteries.

"In the past, cemeteries elsewhere have taken up large amounts of sometimes otherwise productive land," the ordinance declared. "Cemetery landscaping, grass cutting, monument repair and upkeep costs have increased dramatically over time. The problems associated with abandoned or 'orphan' cemeteries have increased throughout Michigan, and citizens look to the local municipal government…to take over abandoned or orphan cemeteries."

According to the Quakenbushes' lawsuit, after they first inquired about establishing their cemetery in February 2022, a zoning official emailed the township's legal counsel. "It is our general recommendation that new private cemeteries not be allowed within the Township except under certain very limited circumstances," the attorney replied. "Almost certainly, at some time in the future (whether in a few decades or the distance [sic] future), the family members of the deceased individuals will no longer own the parcel involved. What happens to the burials then? In all likelihood, it would devalue the  property and make it unmarketable or difficult to sell."

"My response to that is, what does it matter? It's not your property," Renée Flaherty, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who represented the Quakenbushes, told Reason in January.

Besides, there were numerous mechanisms in place to prevent that outcome: Establishing a conservation burial ground in accordance with the Green Burial Council's criteria, as is the Quakenbushes' intent, requires obtaining a conservation easement—preventing the land from being used for other purposes—and partnering with a land conservancy that can maintain the property in perpetuity.

Michigan state law also requires all private cemeteries to establish an "endowment and perpetual care trust fund," with $50,000 to start and monthly deposits of "not less than 15% of all proceeds received."

"Nearly 250 people had reserved a burial plot even while the ban was in place," a local FOX affiliate reported.

The Quakenbushes sued to overturn the ordinance as a violation of due process. The township filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. This week, after hearing oral arguments, Newaygo County Circuit Court Judge David Glancy not only dismissed the township's motion but found the ordinance unconstitutional.

A written order was not available at press time; a representative of the Newaygo County Circuit Court tells Reason that the court directed the plaintiffs' attorneys to prepare a ruling, which the judge will review in a later hearing.

"We're excited and feel vindicated by this ruling," the Quakenbushes said in a statement released by the Institute for Justice. "We are delighted that the judge understood that Brooks Township's ordinance violated our right to use our property and operate our cemetery."

"The Green Burial Council (GBC) is pleased to learn that Newaygo County, Michigan Circuit Judge David Glancy rejected Brooks Township's attempt to throw out a lawsuit against the 'cemetery ban' ordinance," the GBC said in a statement to Reason. "The Green Burial Council has stated before, that we believe Brooks Township's ordinance stood on a weak foundation of misinformation about green burial's negative impact on soil and water, and other similar fears. Though individuals may experience genuine trepidation about a naturally interred body's impact on their environment, local governments can easily find scientific evidence proving no such impact when burial practices are performed according to industry standards."*

UPDATE: This piece has been updated to include a statement from the Green Burial Council.

The post Michigan Officials Tried To Stop a 'Green' Cemetery. They Just Lost in Court. appeared first on Reason.com.

Less than a month after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, the agency that failed to protect him from harm may get a bigger budget.

On July 13, when Thomas Matthew Crooks shot and wounded Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, Secret Service agents sprang into action, heroically shielding him from further harm and escorting him from the stage.

But subsequent reporting revealed that the incident was entirely preventable: Rally attendees alerted law enforcement to the presence of a suspicious person more than an hour before he started shooting, and they later saw him climbing on top of a building with a gun. "Trump was on stage for around 10 minutes between the moment Crooks was spotted on the roof with a gun and the moment he fired his first shot," the BBC reported.

After a particularly disastrous appearance before the House Oversight Committee, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned. Appearing before two Senate committees this week, acting Director Ronald Rowe Jr. testified that he was "ashamed" of the agency's failure.

Almost immediately after the shooting, a narrative emerged that the lapse owed to a lack of resources.

At a July 15 White House press briefing, a reporter asked Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security—which oversees the Secret Service—"Is the Secret Service stretched too thin?"

"The Secret Service in—in times like this calls upon other resources and capabilities to handle a—a campaign of this magnitude," Mayorkas replied. "And I do intend to speak with members of the Hill with respect to the resources that we need."

"Our agency needs to be adequately resourced in order to serve our current mission requirements and to anticipate future requirements," Cheatle noted in her opening testimony before the House Oversight Committee on July 22. "As of today, the Secret Service has just over 8,000 employees," she told Rep. Stephen Lynch (D–Mass.). "We are still striving toward a number of 9,500 employees, approximately, in order to be able to meet future and emerging needs."

In a letter to Rowe this week, Sens. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) and Katie Britt (R–Ala.)—respectively the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security—sought to understand the agency's financial needs as the subcommittee drafts an appropriations bill.

"Congress provided more than $190 million to the Secret Service in Fiscal Year 2024, specifically for protection requirements related to the 2024 presidential campaign, plus an additional $22 million above President Biden's budget request for protection-related travel costs," the senators wrote. "Despite this increase, in mid-June, prior to the attempted assassination, the Secret Service submitted a reprogramming notification to our subcommittee detailing its intent to shift $19 million to cover a shortfall for protection-related travel funding." This was in addition to the imminent addition of two vice presidential candidates and their families to the agency's protective purview, plus independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom President Joe Biden added to the list after the shooting.

"As a result, the Secret Service is assuming new protection costs related to the campaign at a time when it already appears to lack sufficient resources to fulfill its protective mission," the senators continue.

But it's not at all clear that a lack of resources was the issue: The agency's budget in real numbers grew 55 percent over the last decade, to $3.62 billion, and its work force grew 33 percent from 2002 to 2019.

It is possible the agency may be stretched thin in its duties: The Secret Service is tasked by law with protecting not only the president, vice president, and their immediate families, but also former presidents, vice presidents, and their spouses for life, and their children until age 16. They also protect visiting heads of state and "other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad when the President directs that such protection be provided."

"The Secret Service currently protects 36 individuals on a daily basis, as well as world leaders who visit the United States," Cheatle told the House Oversight Committee.

But that's not the agency's only job: Agents are tasked with investigating a number of financial crimes like counterfeiting, money laundering, and identity theft, as well as ransomware attacks, botnets, and "online sexual exploitation and abuse by predators and other criminals, sometimes for financial gain."

It's possible that the Secret Service is doing too many jobs for the amount of resources it enjoys. Perhaps many of its financial and investigative tasks should be shifted to the U.S. Treasury Department, which is where the Secret Service originated before Congress added presidential protection to its plate in 1901. The numbers demonstrate that the agency's problem is not purely financial.

But it's also worth keeping in mind that government agencies, by their nature, do too much, too poorly, and for too much money. The Secret Service, for all the nobility of its mission, is no exception.

The post Secret Service May Get Even More Money After Failing To Protect Trump appeared first on Reason.com.

VinFast, a Vietnamese automaker that builds electric vehicles, announced in July that it would not begin production at its North Carolina plant for another four years. While the news is certainly a setback, the disappointment is compounded by the fact that the state is trying to bulldoze a number of private homes, and a church, to make the project happen.

In March 2022, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper announced that VinFast would build its first North American plant in Chatham County. The company would spend $4 billion and create 7,500 jobs, with production from the completed factory set to begin in July 2024. At its peak, the facility would be capable of producing 150,000 vehicles per year.

In exchange, North Carolina lawmakers agreed to give the company $1.25 billion in incentives, including $450 million for infrastructure, including "roadway improvements" and building out the water and sewer capacity; $400 million from the county; and a $316 million state grant paid out over 32 years, linked to the company's job creation promises. In effect, North Carolina taxpayers would be financing over 30 percent of the project.

President Joe Biden called the project "the latest example of my economic strategy at work." CNBC lauded the state's Democratic governor and Republican Legislature for "managing to put aside their very deep political divisions to boost business and the economy" when it named North Carolina America's Top State for Business.

But within two years, the deal was on shaky ground. The company announced in March 2023 that it would not be able to begin production at the factory until at least 2025 "because we need more time to complete administrative procedures," according to a company spokesperson.

Then in July 2024, in a press release about manufacturing output in the previous quarter, VinFast announced that it had "made the strategic decision to adjust the timeline for the launch of its North Carolina manufacturing facility, which is now expected to begin production in 2028," in order to "optimize its capital allocation and manage its short-term spending more effectively."

While this is disappointing news for many—company executives, shareholders, North Carolina state officials—it's worse for residents in the area.

Many of the state and county incentives are dependent upon VinFast meeting certain metrics: While the state doled out $125 million to reimburse the company for site preparation costs, it can claw back that entire amount if VinFast fails to hire at least 3,875 people—just over 50 percent of the required total. There are further clawback provisions if it doesn't hire at least 6,000 people and doesn't invest at least $2 billion into the project.

But even if the deal falls apart and the state gets its money back, some things can't be undone. As part of the deal, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) would conduct "roadway improvements" at the future site of the facility. As detailed in an August 2022 project overview, "private property is needed to construct the improvements proposed by the roadway project." And while the NCDOT "works to minimize impacts such as the number of homes and businesses displaced by a road project, some impacts are unavoidable."

In total, the state expected that the roadwork would "impact" five businesses, 27 homes, and Merry Oaks Baptist Church, which had stood since 1888. This meant the state was authorized to purchase the properties from the owners—or if the owners refused to sell, the state could simply take the properties through eminent domain.

Eminent domain, authorized by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, allows government entities to seize private property for public use, as long as the owner receives "just compensation." Of course, the only thing that separates this from a normal real estate transaction is that the use of eminent domain implies that the property owner did not want to sell but was forced to anyway.

While an electric car factory does not qualify as a "public use," the state is planning to bulldoze the houses, businesses, and church to make way for a new roadway interchange that will accommodate traffic to and from the site. Of course, under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London, the state would also have been justified to seize property to give to a purely private party, with Justice John Paul Stevens writing that "there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."

In fact, that seems to be just what happened: In July, after VinFast announced its latest delay, the Raleigh News & Observer reported that so far the state had spent $96 million—nearly all of it on site preparation and infrastructure—and purchased four homes, with negotiations ongoing with other homeowners and two businesses. And sadly, "North Carolina has acquired two businesses and Merry Oaks Baptist Church through eminent domain, meaning negotiations fell short and the state took over the land after paying the previous owners fair market values assessed by a state-approved appraiser."

In July 2023, VinFast offered to donate up to three acres of land from its 2,000-acre parcel to Merry Oaks Baptist Church so the congregation could relocate. But a better solution would have been for VinFast to simply shoulder the burden of development in the first place, first by footing the bill for the project itself and then by obtaining land where the government did not forcibly remove any obstacles in the way.

The post VinFast Delays Production After North Carolina Seizes Property for Factory Site appeared first on Reason.com.

A powerful New Jersey businessman has been accused of Mafia-like behavior in order to enrich himself and his associates on the taxpayer's dime. But is it all that different from business as usual?

At a press conference this week, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin announced a 13-count indictment, with charges including racketeering and extortion, against six defendants—chiefly George Norcross III, whom the New Jersey Monitor referred to as "a Democratic kingmaker widely regarded as New Jersey's most powerful unelected person." In an impressively bold move, George Norcross attended the press conference and sat in the front row, apparently even refusing to switch seats when asked by someone from Platkin's office.

According to the indictment, George Norcross has "led a criminal enterprise" since 2012, whose members "would extort others through threats of economic and reputational harm" in Camden, New Jersey. Specifically, in 2012–13, George Norcross and other indicted co-conspirators "used their political influence to tailor New Jersey economic development legislation to their preferences."

The Economic Opportunity Act of 2013 expanded the state's existing economic development grant programs, allowing a developer to claim "a credit of up to 35 percent of its capital investment, or up to 40 percent for a project located in a Garden State Growth Zone," defined as "the four New Jersey cities with the lowest median family income"—which would include Camden, the state's poorest city. The credits were intended to bring companies to the state or keep them from leaving. Recipients could claim the credits or sell them to other New Jersey taxpayers.

In 2019, The New York Times found that before that law passed, one attorney "was allowed by lawmakers to edit drafts of the bill in ways that opened up sizable tax breaks to his firm's clients." That attorney's firm was Parker McCay—whose CEO was George Norcross' brother, Philip Norcross, who is also indicted. The indictment alleges that after the law passed, Philip Norcross told a group of people, "We re-wrote a tax credit law…that says in essence, if you come to Camden, we're going to give you one hundred percent tax credit for all capital and related costs" over 10 years. "It will cause real havoc, it's unlimited."

Once the law passed, according to the indictment, the defendants "extort[ed] and coerce[d] others" in order to obtain their property along the Camden waterfront, "then occupied the properties they obtained interests in and sold the tax credits they obtained for millions of dollars."

George Norcross also apparently leaned on members of the Camden city government—including then-Mayor Dana Redd, who is also indicted—to pressure owners and developers to sell by denying necessary building permits or publicly disparaging them.

In one given example, George Norcross allegedly threatened a developer who refused to sell, saying he would "f**k you up like you've never been f**ked up before." City officials also denied him a permit to redevelop another site he owned, at Philip Norcross's insistence.

In the end, that developer apparently sold the rights to tax credits that eventually totaled $240 million, for a fraction of that amount. On one property, he sold credits for $1.95 million that would eventually total $18 million.

If this all sounds like a plot from The Sopranos, well, it basically is: For much of its run, the mobsters at the center of that show made money from a waterfront rejuvenation project in Newark, obtained through underhanded dealing with a crooked state official and which afforded plenty of no-show jobs and opportunities for graft.

The allegations against George Norcross are shocking, and yet also unsurprising. After all, the entire affair originated with a state economic development program, which already bears at least a passing resemblance to a Sopranos-style racket.

In 2019, The New York Times found that "over five years, 12 companies threatened to leave New Jersey" for New York—with each company even listing the exact same office complex as its intended destination—"unless the state provided tens of millions in tax credits." In each case, the New Jersey government agreed, totaling over $100 million in taxpayer money, and each company stayed. But the Times found that "nearly all of the 12 companies never seriously considered moving to New York." The leasing agent for the New York office complex even acknowledged, "We are aware that often times the tenant has no intention at all of relocating."

State economic development incentive programs are often sold on these sorts of "but for" incentives—as in, but for this tax break or grant, this company would go elsewhere. But these are rarely actually the deciding factors in a company's decision: In a 2018 paper, Timothy Bartik of the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research found that "typical incentives probably tip somewhere between 2 percent and 25 percent of incented firms toward making a decision favoring the location providing the incentive. In other words, for at least 75 percent of incented firms, the firm would have made a similar decision location/expansion/retention decision without the incentive."

Companies lobby for state-level handouts, even if they were likely to set up shop in that state anyway. And even by the state agencies' own numbers, the expenditures are rarely worth the cost.

"Beyond the state-specific political ramifications, the case also highlights a persistent problem in corporate subsidy programs that extends well beyond New Jersey: They're too easily corruptible, and they create a vicious feedback loop between political actors and politically connected corporations," writes Pat Garofalo in the Boondoggle Substack. "There's a very clear connection in academic literature between corporate subsidies, political donations, and ultimately corruption."

The George Norcross case, Garofalo writes, "highlight[s] the nexus between corporate tax handouts and corruption that is very often there but not usually this blatant."

Ultimately, the entire affair would just be a lurid story but for the fact that it involved hundreds of millions of dollars in state incentives which will ultimately be borne by New Jersey taxpayers.

The post N.J. Businessman Indicted for <i>Sopranos</i>-Style Economic Development Racket appeared first on Reason.com.

Last week, Reason reported on the rising trend of Colorado police departments increasingly using aerial drones as first responders to certain 911 calls.

A new investigation out this week reveals how such a system could work in practice, with startling implications for privacy and civil liberties.

In WIRED, Dhruv Mehrotra and Jesse Marx write about Chula Vista, a town in southern California roughly equidistant between San Diego and Tijuana. In 2018, the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) launched the Drone as First Responder (DFR) program, allowing 911 operators to deploy drones either in lieu of or in addition to uniformed officers—the first U.S. city to do so.

DFR "is not a replacement for officers, it's an enhancement," Police Chief Roxana Kennedy told KPBS at the time. In the program's first week, drones responded to 30 calls and led to three arrests, including a domestic violence case in which a man suspected of stabbing a woman fled back to a homeless encampment and a pursuing drone led police to his location. The program was initially limited to within one mile of the police station, but it expanded over time before receiving federal authorization to operate citywide in March 2021.

In the nearly six years since, as Mehrotra and Marx detail, CVPD drones have taken nearly 20,000 flights, "often dispatched for serious incidents like reports of armed individuals [but] also routinely deployed for minor issues such as shoplifting, vandalism, and loud music. Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, the city even used drones to broadcast public service announcements to homeless encampments."

WIRED examined "nearly 10,000 drone flight records from July 2021 to September 2023," encompassing "more than 22.3 million coordinates from flight paths," to assess CVPD's claim that drones are only dispatched in response to specific 911 calls or lawful searches and do not merely go roaming in search of suspicious activity.

"Drones were used in about 7 percent of the city's service requests," the authors found, including "nearly half of the incidents involving reports of armed individuals and about a quarter of those related to violent crime," plus mental health and domestic violence calls.

"The vast majority" of the 10,000 flight records analyzed "could be linked to corresponding 911 calls. But not all of them." In fact, about 10 percent "lacked a stated purpose and could not be connected to any relevant 911 call; for 498 flights, the department lists the reason as an 'unknown problem.'" Further, "nearly 400 [flights] didn't come within half a mile of where any call in the preceding half hour originated."

Even specifically sanctioned flights may be cause for concern: "Operators are trained to start recording with the drone's camera immediately, capturing video throughout the entire flight, from takeoff to landing," Mehrotra and Marx note. The cameras, "powerful enough to capture faces clearly and constantly recording while in flight, have amassed hundreds of hours of video footage of the city's residents," the vast majority of which the city has refused to release.

"On average, each drone flight passes above 13 census blocks and potentially exposes approximately 4,700 of the residents below to a drone's camera," the WIRED analysis found. And potential exposure did not fall equally: "Residents on a typical block in the working-class and largely immigrant west side of Chula Vista had drones in the skies above 10 times longer than a resident of a typical east-side block," Mehrotra wrote in WIRED's Politics Lab newsletter yesterday. West-side residents "alleged that police drones were following them personally, lingering unnecessarily in their backyards, or watching them during their most intimate moments," and others complained about the noise of drone rotors. (The CVPD claimed the disparity is due to the unequal number of 911 calls that each area receives; the WIRED analysis "confirm[ed] that this is largely the case.")

Interestingly, support for the drone program is also strongest among the lower-income Chula Vista residents most likely to be subjected to it. One Latino man—who lives in an apartment complex that CVPD drones have flown over more than 300 times since July 2021—told WIRED that the drones make him feel safer, especially after a stranger tried to steal his child and police deployed a drone to look for the suspect. This isn't unheard of: Polls show black Americans are significantly more afraid of the police than their white neighbors, yet they still want a strong, effective police presence in their neighborhoods.

Regardless, Chula Vista's drone program could be a concerning sign of where American policing is headed. Even apart from DFR, city residents have been subject to a shocking amount of surveillance in recent years: automated license plate readers, facial recognition software, and a partnership with Amazon for access to its Ring doorbell cameras. In December 2017, the CVPD partnered with a company to share its data with other law enforcement agencies, including federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

As Colorado's example makes clear, police departments increasingly see DFR programs as a plausible alternative to traditional policing, in which an officer would be dispatched to the scene of an emergency. While that's certainly true, it would also expose everyday citizens to a shocking new world of state surveillance.

The post Police Flew Drones Over One California City Nearly 20,000 Times in 6 Years appeared first on Reason.com.

Instead of dispatching an officer each time, several Colorado police departments may soon dispatch a drone to respond to certain 911 calls. While the proposal has promise, it also raises uncomfortable questions about privacy.

As Shelly Bradbury reported this week in The Denver Post, "A handful of local law enforcement agencies are considering using drones as first responders—that is, sending them in response to 911 calls—as police departments across Colorado continue to widely embrace the use of the remote-controlled flying machines."

Bradbury quotes Arapahoe County Sheriff Jeremiah Gates saying, "This really is the future of law enforcement at some point, whether we like it or not." She notes that while there are currently no official plans in place, "Gates envisions a world where a drone is dispatched to a call about a broken traffic light or a suspicious vehicle instead of a sheriff's deputy, allowing actual deputies to prioritize more pressing calls for help."

The Denver Police Department—whose then-chief in 2013 called the use of drones by police "controversial" and said that "constitutionally there are a lot of unanswered questions about how they can be used"—is also starting a program, buying several drones over the next year that can eventually function as first responders.

In addition to Denver and Arapahoe County, Bradbury lists numerous Colorado law enforcement agencies that also have drone programs, including the Colorado State Patrol, which has 24 drones, and the Commerce City Police Department, which has eight drones and 12 pilots for a city of around 62,000 people and plans to begin using them for 911 response within a year.

In addition to helping stem the number of calls an officer must respond to in person, some law enforcement agencies see this as a means of saving money. One Commerce City police official told The Denver Post that "what we see out of it is, it's a lot cheaper than an officer, basically." And Denver intends for its program to make up for an $8.4 million cut to the police budget this year.

On one hand, there is certainly merit to such a proposal: Unless they're of the Predator variety, drones are much less likely than officers to kill or maim innocent civilians—or their dogs. And as Gates noted, drones could take some of the busywork out of policing by taking some of the more mundane tasks off an officer's plate.

But it also raises privacy concerns to farm out too much police work to unmanned surveillance aircraft.

"Sending out a drone for any time there is a 911 call, it could be dangerous and lead to more over-policing of communities of color," Laura Moraff, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, told The Denver Post. "There is also just the risk that the more that we normalize having drones in the skies, the more it can really affect behavior on a massive scale, if we are just looking up and seeing drones all over the place, knowing that police are watching us."

Indeed, while this sort of dystopic panopticon would certainly make life easier for officers day to day, it would signal the further erosion of the average Coloradan's Fourth Amendment rights.

In Michigan, for example, police hired a drone pilot to take pictures of a person's property rather than go to the trouble of getting a warrant. Earlier this month, the state supreme court upheld the search, ruling that since the purpose was for civil code enforcement and not a criminal violation, it didn't matter whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Thankfully, there are some positive developments on that front: In March, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled against state troopers who flew a plane over a suspect's house and took pictures with a high-powered zoom lens to see if he was growing marijuana.

"The fact that a random person might catch a glimpse of your yard while flying from one place to another does not make it reasonable for law enforcement officials to take to the skies and train high-powered optics on the private space right outside your home without a warrant," the court found. "Unregulated aerial surveillance of the home with high-powered optics is the kind of police practice that is 'inconsistent with the aims of a free and open society.'"

The post Colorado Will Replace Cops With Drones for Some 911 Calls appeared first on Reason.com.

In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included $7.5 billion to build 500,000 public charging stations for electric vehicles (E.V.s) across the country in an effort to boost a switch to the use of clean energy.

As Reason reported in December, not one charger funded by the program had yet come online. Now, six months later, the number of functional charging stations has ticked up to eight.

That news comes from an Autoweek article earlier this month. In March, The Washington Post reported that only seven were built; a charging station in Bradford, Vermont, opened in April, containing four E.V. fast chargers. Public chargers are either Level 2, which use alternating current electricity and take several hours to fully charge an all-electric vehicle from empty, or Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) superchargers, which use direct current and can charge in less than an hour.

Why so little progress? Alexander Laska of the center-left Third Way think tank told Autoweek's Jim Motavalli that the federal cash "comes with dozens of rules and requirements around everything from reliability to interoperability, to where stations can be located, to what certifications the workers installing the chargers need to have." Laska says the regulations "are largely a good thing—we want drivers to have a seamless, convenient, reliable charging experience—but navigating all of that does add to the timeline."

A spokesperson with the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, which administers $5 billion of the $7.5 billion total, further told Motavalli that the delay is because "we want to get it right."

Thankfully, federal grants aren't the only way to build out charging infrastructure.

"US drivers welcomed almost 1,100 new public, fast-charging stations in the second half of 2023, a 16% increase," Bloomberg's Kyle Stock reported in January. And not just in big cities or progressive enclaves: Deep-red Idaho "switched on 12 new [DCFCs] between July and December," while "Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee welcomed 56 new fast-charging stations in the second half of 2023, an infrastructure increase of one-third."

While Stock notes that $5 billion of federal money is expected to roll out soon, "the vast majority of chargers added in the US last year were bets by for-profit companies on the future of battery-powered driving."

The most prominent company by far is Tesla, whose network of Superchargers includes over 57,000 DCFC chargers around the world and generated an estimated $1.74 billion of revenue in 2023 alone. Just in the fourth quarter of 2023, the company built 357 new stations, accounting for 3,783 charging ports.

Around two-thirds of all public chargers in the U.S. are manufactured for Teslas, but the company has also expanded its network for its competitors to use: In the 2025 model year, most major automakers' E.V.s will use the same charge port as Teslas and be able to access the Supercharger network.

Rivian, a Tesla competitor, is also building out its own DCFC network: In February 2024, it counted 400 chargers in 67 locations, with plans to expand further, and just like with Tesla's Superchargers, Rivian plans to make its chargers accessible to other models.

In fairness, both Tesla and Rivian have benefited from government handouts: State and local governments in Georgia promised Rivian a raft of incentives worth up to $1.5 billion. And Tesla has received at least $2.8 billion in federal, state, and local subsidies over the years, despite CEO Elon Musk's professed distaste for government intervention in the economy. In fact, Politico found in February that Tesla was the single largest recipient of funds disbursed by the federal NEVI program, winning "almost 13 percent of all EV charging awards from the law, earning it a total of more than $17 million in infrastructure grants."

But those companies still provide the best template for expanding access to public chargers.

While proponents of the federal regulations may defend the amount of red tape involved in the federal program, with demands on where a charging station can be placed and the types of licenses people need to build one, the fact is that the private sector is already building out a nationwide E.V. charging network that will be available to most drivers.

The post $7.5 Billion in Government Cash Only Built 8 E.V. Chargers in 2.5 Years appeared first on Reason.com.

In December 2022, Reason reported that both state and federal wildlife agents routinely trespass onto private land and plant cameras. Two Tennessee homeowners successfully sued the state over the practice, and a three-judge panel ruled in their favor. The state appealed the decision, and this week the court of appeals ruled in the homeowners' favor.

At issue is a state law allowing officers of the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency (TWRA) to "go upon any property, outside of buildings, posted or otherwise," in order to "enforce all laws relating to wildlife." In the case of Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth, TWRA officers not only entered their respective properties but also installed trail cameras to look for hunting violations, all without a warrant and ignoring "No Trespassing" signs. A lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice (I.J.) on behalf of Rainwaters and Hollingsworth asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue an injunction against the TWRA, barring it from carrying out any further unwarranted intrusions.

Under the "open-fields doctrine," Supreme Court precedent dating back to Prohibition holds that undeveloped land on someone's property lacks the same rigorous Fourth Amendment protections as their home and the "curtilage," the area immediately surrounding the home.

In March 2022, a three-judge panel from the Benton County Circuit Court ruled in the homeowners' favor, finding that the state constitution provided more protections than the Fourth Amendment. It determined that the state law allowing the TWRA practice created an "intolerable risk" of abuse and was "facially unconstitutional," but it stopped short of issuing an injunction. The state appealed the decision the following month.

In a hearing before the Tennessee Court of Appeals Western Section on June 20, 2023, I.J. attorney Josh Windham argued that the state law is unconstitutionally broad. "It allows TWRA officers to enter and roam around private land, fishing for evidence of crime," Windham said. "It doesn't require consent. It doesn't require warrants. It doesn't require probable cause….It's a blank check for officers to invade private land whenever and however they please."

Amanda Jordan argued for the Tennessee Attorney General's office that the statute was not unconstitutional and that the policy was necessary for the TWRA to do its job. She argued that "it's the particular purpose and function of the TWRA which makes such warrantless entry reasonable."

Judge Jeffrey Usman asked Jordan why, if the state would need a warrant in order to enter someone's property to look for criminal violations, it should not also need a warrant to do the same for civil violations of hunting laws. Jordan agreed that "while normal law enforcement officers would not be able to enter" without a warrant, "you have to look at the state's interest in furthering its duty of protecting and preserving" Tennessee's wildlife.

But Usman pressed further, asking whether the state has "an even stronger interest in protecting persons than wildlife." Further, he asked, "If you can't enter to investigate a crime being committed against a person…why is the interest greater to enter to protect wildlife?"

In a decision issued Thursday, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the property owners. The TWRA claimed that the homeowners' claims of injury were "speculative" as "TWRA agents have not entered the Plaintiffs' lands since September 2018." The court disagreed: Writing for a unanimous court, Usman noted in the decision,

Even if the TWRA has not entered the Plaintiffs' properties since 2018, it continues to assert its power to do so. The TWRA has asserted a continuing right to enter upon the Plaintiffs' properties. At oral argument, the TWRA suggested that if the Plaintiffs want to keep the TWRA off of their land in the future that they should desist in hunting.

"At the most foundational level," the court determined, "the statute is facially constitutional because there are applications of the statute that are constitutionally permissible," including "wild waste land areas." But in this specific scenario, where wildlife agents planted cameras on homeowners' land without ever even pursuing a warrant, the court found the TWRA's actions unconstitutional as applied.

"The TWRA's contention is a disturbing assertion of power on behalf of the government that stands contrary to the foundations of the search protections against arbitrary governmental intrusions in the American legal tradition, generally, and in Tennessee, specifically," Usman wrote. "What the TWRA claims is reasonable is not."

"Our entire theory of the case was vindicated by this decision," Windham tells Reason. "The part that goes against the trial court ruling [says] that the statute can be constitutionally applied to land where people haven't taken any steps to exert control or exert their privacy, which is a rule we don't particularly object to."

The post Tennessee Appeals Court Rules Against Wildlife Agents Who Planted Cameras on Private Land appeared first on Reason.com.

The federal government is finally expected to change the way it regulates marijuana, such that the drug would no longer be completely forbidden. The change is welcome, but it does not go far enough.

"The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug," the Associated Press reported on Tuesday. The proposal "would recognize the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation's most dangerous drugs. However, it would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use."

The policy would signal a welcome shift from decades of prohibitionist drug policy. Since 1970, the federal government has regulated marijuana under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, intended for drugs with "a high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use in treatment." Other Schedule I substances include heroin and peyote.

That description has always been ridiculous when applied to marijuana, but especially in recent years, as more than two-thirds of U.S. states, plus three territories and the District of Columbia, now allow marijuana for medical use—not to mention that 24 states, two territories, and D.C. further allow recreational use.

The proposed reclassification stems from President Joe Biden's October 2022 announcement calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary Xavier Becerra of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to "initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law."

In August 2023, HHS delivered its recommendation: Marijuana should be reclassified from Schedule I to Schedule III. According to the DEA, Schedule III drugs have "a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence" and can be prescribed by a doctor. Examples include ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids. Marijuana would not be completely legalized, though: Schedule III substances are still subject to regulation on their sale and use.

Even now, if the DEA decides to reschedule marijuana, nothing will change right away: The proposal "still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget," the A.P. notes, after which "the DEA will take public comment on the plan…. After the public comment period,…the agency would publish the final rule."

Marijuana prohibition is an antiquated notion, and its end is long overdue. Nearly 90 percent of Americans now think marijuana should be legal in some capacity, according to a Gallup poll conducted earlier this year, with 57 percent favoring full legalization and another 32 percent preferring that it be legal only for medical use.

Even the government's excuses for keeping cannabis illegal have never stood up to scrutiny. When HHS decided to recommend reclassification last year, it effectively reversed itself and contradicted its own long-held position on the topic; the DEA has previously declined to reschedule marijuana five times. As Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote in January, "The [HHS] reversal shows that marijuana's classification has always been a political question rather than a legal or scientific matter."

"It is significant for these federal agencies, and the DEA and [Food and Drug Administration] in particular, to acknowledge publicly for the first time what many patients and advocates have known for decades: that cannabis is a safe and effective therapeutic agent for tens of millions of Americans," said Deputy Director Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) in an emailed statement. But that's not far enough, Armentano argues: "Just as it is intellectually dishonest and impractical to categorize cannabis in the same placement as heroin, it is equally disingenuous and unfeasible to treat cannabis in the same manner as anabolic steroids and ketamine."

Rescheduling marijuana so that people can use it without fear of being put in prison is a welcome first step. But the best solution would be for Congress to simply decriminalize it altogether.

The post DEA Finally Expected To Reclassify Marijuana appeared first on Reason.com.

As we keep more and more personal data on our phones, iPhone and Android devices now have some of the most advanced encryption technology in existence to keep that information safe from prying eyes. The easiest way around that, of course, is for someone to gain access to your phone.

This week, a federal court decided that police officers can make you unlock your phone, even by physically forcing you to press your thumb against it.

In November 2021, Jeremy Payne was pulled over by two California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers over his car's window tinting. When asked, Payne admitted that he was on parole, which the officers confirmed. After finding Payne's cellphone in the car, officers unlocked it by forcibly pressing his thumb against it as he sat handcuffed. (The officers claimed in their arrest report that Payne "reluctantly unlocked the cell phone" when asked, which Payne disputed; the government later accepted in court "that defendant's thumbprint was compelled.")

The officers searched through Payne's camera roll and found a video taken the same day, which appeared to show "several bags of blue pills (suspected to be fentanyl)." After checking the phone's map and finding what they suspected to be a home address, the officers drove there and used Payne's keys to enter and search the residence. Inside, they  found and seized more than 800 pills.

Payne was indicted for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and cocaine.

In a motion to suppress, Payne's attorneys argued that by forcing him to unlock his phone, the officers "compelled a testimonial communication," violating both the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination. Even though the provisions of his parole required him to surrender any electronic devices and passcodes, "failure to comply could result in 'arrest pending further investigation' or confiscation of the device pending investigation," not the use of force to make him open the phone.

The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Payne pleaded guilty. In November 2022, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Notably, Payne had only served three years for the crime for which he was on parole—assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer.

Payne appealed the denial of the motion to suppress. This week, in an opinion authored by Judge Richard Tallman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against Payne.

Searches "incident to arrest" are an accepted part of Fourth Amendment precedent. Further, Tallman wrote that as a parolee, Payne has "a significantly diminished expectation of privacy," and even though the conditions of his parole did not require him to "provide a biometric identifier," the distinction was insufficient to support throwing out the search altogether.

But Tallman went a step further in the Fifth Amendment analysis: "We hold that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified
for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking," he wrote. "The act itself merely provided CHP with access to a source of potential information."

From a practical standpoint, this is chilling. First of all, the Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that police needed a warrant before drawing a suspect's blood.

And one can argue that fingerprinting a suspect as they're arrested is part and parcel with establishing their identity. Nearly half of U.S. states require people to identify themselves to police if asked.

But forcibly gaining access to someone's phone provides more than just their identity—it's a window into their entire lives. Even cursory access to someone's phone can turn up travel history, banking information, and call and text logs—a treasure trove of potentially incriminating information, all of which would otherwise require a warrant.

When they drafted the Fourth Amendment, the Founders drew on the history of "writs of assistance," general warrants used by British authorities in the American colonies that allowed government agents to enter homes at will and look for anything disallowed. As a result, the Fourth Amendment requires search warrants based on probable cause and signed by a judge.

Tallman does note the peculiar circumstances of the case: "Our opinion should not be read to extend to all instances where a biometric is used to unlock an electronic device." But, he adds, "the outcome…may have been different had [the officer] required Payne to independently select the finger that he placed on the phone" instead of forcibly mashing Payne's thumb into it himself.

The post Appeals Court Rules That Cops Can Physically Make You Unlock Your Phone appeared first on Reason.com.

Luxury electric automaker Rivian made several big announcements this week related to its expanding product line. At the same time, though, the company announced that it would pause construction on a factory in Georgia that received some of the most generous taxpayer-funded incentives in state history.

On Thursday, Rivian unveiled three new vehicles that will be available in the coming years. The company already offers the R1T and R1S, a luxury truck and SUV, respectively, which start at $70,000–$75,000 and can cost $100,000 or more. CEO R.J. Scaringe announced the R2, a smaller and more modest SUV that would be available in 2026 with prices starting at $45,000, as well as the R3 and R3X crossovers, also expected to be less expensive than the R1 series.

As Reason has documented, Rivian went public in November 2021, promising luxury electric vehicles that would be both stylish and rugged. The following month, the company—which only had a single factory in Illinois—struck a deal to build its second factory in Georgia: Rivian would spend $5 billion on the factory, and in exchange, Georgia state and local governments authorized up to $1.5 billion in tax credits and incentives.

In the years since, however, the company has struggled. In May 2023, Bloomberg reported that the company had lost 93 percent of its share value, and its market cap reflected "almost no value beyond the company's cash hoard." In the fourth quarter of 2023, the company lost $43,372 on each vehicle sold, up from a $30,648 per-vehicle loss in the third quarter.

Branching out into the more affordable R2 and R3 models is key to Rivian's long-term survival, opening up its product line to appeal to more than just those who can pay over $75,000 for a luxury vehicle. And to do this, it had to make some adjustments.

"To enable R2 to be launched earlier and with a considerable reduction in the capital required for its launch, Rivian plans to start production of R2 in its existing Normal, Illinois manufacturing facility," the company announced. It is also pausing construction in Georgia: "Rivian's Georgia plant remains an extremely important part of its strategy to scale production of R2 and R3. The timing for resuming construction is expected to be later to focus its teams on the capital-efficient launch of R2 in Normal, Illinois."

The move is expected to save the company $2.25 billion "as compared to the original forecast of launching the first line of R2 production at Rivian's Georgia site."

In October, the company announced that the Georgia site was "95 percent graded" and "nearly ready for construction to begin." Notably, under the incentive agreement, Georgia officials paid over $32 million for "clearing and grading" the site.

One year ago, almost to the day, Scaringe reaffirmed the company's dedication to the Georgia project, telling The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "We're committed to this state and this project," adding that "the future of our company in terms of scaling and growing really relies on the future of this project. There's not another option. We're not planning an alternative. This must work."

The electric vehicle market, while growing, is in flux, due to softening consumer demand and persistently high interest rates. Just last month, Apple—the first company in history to ever record a $3 trillion valuation—canceled its decade-long quest to develop an electric car. General Motors and Ford have also rolled back pledged investments in electric vehicles.

In that sense, Rivian's pivot would be perfectly reasonable—companies must be free to adapt to changing circumstances in a way that benefits both their customers and their shareholders. But as with any central planning scheme, state economic incentives don't tend to allow for those sorts of dynamic pivots. In this case, Georgia officials mortgaged a large amount of taxpayer money on a plan that foresaw the company continuing on a path that no longer seems financially feasible.

The post Rivian Pauses Construction at Factory That Costs Georgia Taxpayers $1.5 Billion appeared first on Reason.com.

Earlier this week, lawmakers on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees put forward six spending bills that would fund the government through the end of the year. In a press release, Republicans on the House committee bragged that the bills would "save taxpayers more than $200 billion over the next ten years"—a period of time over which the Congressional Budget Office predicts the national debt will expand by $20 trillion and eclipse the nation's gross domestic product.

Some of those savings come from cuts to federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Unfortunately, even those cuts are much more modest than they appear.

In their press release, House Republicans boasted that the appropriations package "utilizes the power of the purse to address the weaponization of the growing bureaucracy within the FBI and ATF." Specifically, they do this by "reversing [ATF's] anti-Second Amendment overreach…by significantly reducing its overall funding by $122 million, a 7% decrease" from 2023, as well as holding the FBI "accountable for targeting everyday Americans by reducing its overall operating budget by $654 million and cutting its construction account by 95%."

But these already-meager cuts don't involve very much actual cutting.

The FBI's salaries and expenses totaled over $10 billion in 2023, and it requested over $11 billion for 2024; the appropriations bill would grant $10.6 billion—a bit less than the FBI wanted but only about one-half percent less than last year's budget and certainly nothing approaching the 6 percent cut Republicans bragged about.

Republicans get around this with some tricky math: In a 2022 omnibus spending bill, the Bureau received $652 million toward the construction of a campus in Huntsville, Alabama. Republicans include the $652 million when touting a 6 percent cut, even though the money apportioned for salaries and expenses barely budged.

In fact, when Republicans bragged about "cut[ting] the FBI's construction account by $621.9 million"—for a whopping 95 percent decrease—that precipitous drop uses the one-time Huntsville cash as its starting point. Besides, the FBI only asked for a $61.9 million construction budget, which would have constituted a 90 percent decrease on its own.

Meanwhile, the ATF received $1.672 billion for salaries and expenses in 2023, while the appropriations bill would apportion $1.625 billion—a decrease of just 2.8 percent, not the 7 percent drop House Republicans claimed. That supposed 7 percent cut of $122 million comes from adding the $47 million cut in salaries and another $75 million cut from construction costs. The ATF did not request any construction money in its 2024 budget, so boasting that this a cut is laughable. Just like with the FBI, judging salaries and expenses in an apples-to-apples comparison yields a much more modest cut.

Any sort of fiscal discipline should be welcomed, of course. But it's not like Republicans are dedicated to pruning federal law enforcement agencies across the board.

"The Drug Enforcement Administration was an outlier in the bill, as it would receive a modest funding bump," writes Eric Katz at Government Executive. The bill would fund the DEA with $2.57 billion; when accounting for revenue from diversion control programs, Republicans say the department would receive "$42.4 million more" than it did in 2023.

The bill also directs not only the DEA but also the FBI to prioritize the policing of fentanyl. The FBI is directed "to allocate the maximum amount of resources" to target the "trafficking" of fentanyl and other opioids. There's no sign of any recognition that prohibition is exactly why fentanyl has proliferated in the first place and that harm reduction measures would be much safer and more effective than a law enforcement solution.

In fact, Republicans openly state in their press release that the cuts are not intended to save taxpayers money, noting that the bill "right-siz[es] agencies and programs and redirects that funding to combat fentanyl and counter the People's Republic of China."

Clearly, when the federal government consistently spends much more than it takes in, there is room to cut and an imperative to do so. It's unfortunate, then, that Republican lawmakers are bragging about plans to cut $200 billion over 10 years—1 percent of the anticipated federal debt accrued in that time—and it's even more disturbing to know that they're fudging the numbers to even get that much.

The post Republicans Use Fuzzy Math To Claim Large FBI, ATF Cuts in Budget Bill appeared first on Reason.com.

In July 2021, Florida deputies arrested a man for shooting down their drone. Last week, a judge sentenced him to four years in federal prison, but not for destruction of property: He was sentenced merely for possession of a firearm as a felon.

According to a criminal complaint filed by an agent with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, deputies with the Lake County Sheriff's Office responded to reports of a possible burglary at a large commercial property in Mount Dora, Florida. Upon arrival, they found a front entry gate that had been "damaged by impact," as well as "unsecured doors on some of the buildings at the facility."

Thinking there could still be intruders present on the 10-acre site, deputies flew an unmanned aerial vehicle over the property to check it out. As it flew, however, they heard two gunshots ring out and saw the drone "slowly spinning downward and emitting smoke" before it "crashed onto the metal roof of an outbuilding, became suspended on a rain gutter, and caught fire."

Deputies investigated the source of the gunshots and encountered Wendell Goney, who lived nearby. Goney first denied shooting the drone but admitted to it after learning the craft was equipped with cameras. Goney claimed this was the first time he had ever shot at a drone, but he told deputies that he had been "harassed" by people flying them over his property. He said he had bought a .22 caliber rifle to put a stop to it and hadn't known that this particular drone belonged to law enforcement.

When deputies asked, Goney admitted that he was a convicted felon and therefore ineligible to own a firearm under federal law. They arrested Goney, who gave them permission to search his house and told them exactly where to find the rifle.

The criminal complaint noted that Goney "has approximately 23 prior felony convictions. He has been sentenced to more than a year in state prison on multiple occasions, including 1997, 2007, 2009, and 2013." His offenses included forgery, burglary, and multiple instances of grand theft, including the theft of a rifle in 1995. Most recently, he was sentenced in 2013 to two years and eight months in prison on charges including simple battery, aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer, and possession of cocaine.

Goney pled guilty in October 2023. Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Presnell sentenced Goney to four years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release during which he would have to participate in both drug and mental health treatment programs. He would also be required to pay more than $29,000 in restitution to the Lake County Sheriff's Office to replace the drone.

While Goney was initially charged with both destruction of law enforcement property and possession of a firearm, prosecutors dropped the former charge in exchange for his plea. Noting in their sentencing memo that federal guidelines "call for a recommended sentencing range of between 77–96 months," prosecutors asked for "a sentence at the low end of the applicable sentencing guidelines—77 months." The memo noted that "such a sentence would be slightly more than twice the length of the longest of the prison sentences the defendant has served to date."

But is that a just sentence? Goney's previous longest sentence was two years and eight months for crimes involving assaulting other people, including police; in this case, on the other hand, Goney's only aggressive act was toward an unmanned flying drone, and his only charged offense was possessing a gun without the government's permission.

While it seems sensible to bar felons from owning guns—especially those with such unsavory records as Goney's—the act presents uncomfortable questions of both liberty and constitutionality.

For one, the federal ban on firearm ownership necessarily sweeps up people who have committed nonviolent offenses, even those not involving firearms. In 1995, Bryan Range fraudulently obtained $2,458 in welfare benefits; when caught, Range repaid the money, paid a small fine, and served three years of probation. But under federal law, Range also lost the right to own a firearm as a result of his state misdemeanor conviction. In June 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that Range's ban violated the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms.

Unlike Range, Goney's prior convictions did involve the use of violence. But who is supposed to be protected by keeping Goney from owning a firearm? At the time of his arrest, Goney had not been in trouble with the law for several years, and his only act of aggression was aimed at a drone he thought was "harassing" him.

The original criminal complaint notes that Goney is a felon and "has never had his civil rights restored by executive clemency following these felony convictions." Indeed, the only way for Goney to legally regain his Second Amendment right to own a firearm is through a pardon by the governor.

People convicted of crimes—even felonies, even those involving violence—do not cease to be citizens, or human beings, as a result of their sentences. Once their sentences have been served, they should have the ability to regain the rights they've lost—including the rights to vote, to hold public office, and to serve on juries. The right to bear arms is just as essential.

The post Florida Man Sentenced to 4 Years in Federal Prison After Shooting Down a Drone appeared first on Reason.com.

On March 5, San Franciscans will have the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that would decide whether or not to make them into guinea pigs for surveillance experiments by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD).

Proposition E purports to streamline the SFPD, with sections on community engagement, recordkeeping, and the department's vehicle pursuit and use of force policies. But its portion on department use of surveillance technology is troubling.

Under an existing ordinance passed in 2019, the SFPD may only use "surveillance technologies"—like surveillance cameras, automatic license plate readers, or cell site simulators—that have been approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the city and county legislative body. The process requires that the SFPD, like any other city or county agency, submit a policy to the board for approval before using any new technology. The 2019 ordinance also banned the use of facial recognition technology.

But Prop E adds a clause stipulating that the SFPD "may acquire and/or use a Surveillance Technology so long as it submits a Surveillance Technology Policy to the Board of Supervisors for approval by ordinance within one year of the use or acquisition, and may continue to use that Surveillance Technology after the end of that year unless the Board adopts an ordinance that disapproves the Policy."

In other words, the SFPD could roll out an unapproved method of surveillance, and it would have free rein to operate within the city for up to a year before ever having to ask city officials for permission. And until the city passes a statute that specifically forbids it—that is, forbidding a technology that is by that point already in use—then the SFPD can keep using it indefinitely.

"Let's say the SFPD decides they want to buy a bunch of data on people's geolocation from data brokers—they could do that," says Saira Hussain, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "They could use drones that are flying at all times above the city. They could use the robot dogs that were piloted at the border. These are all surveillance technologies that the police doesn't necessarily have right now, and they could acquire it and use it, effectively without any sort of accountability, under this proposition."

If those scenarios sound implausible, it's worth noting that they've already happened: As Hussain notes, the Department of Homeland Security recently tested robot dogs to help patrol the U.S./Mexico border. And in 2012, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department enlisted civilian aircraft to fly over Compton and surveil the entire area.

Not to mention, federal agencies already routinely purchase people's cell phone geolocation information and internet metadata without a warrant.

In a sense, Prop E would make San Franciscans into guinea pigs, on whom the SFPD can experiment with all manner of surveillance technology. If that sounds hyperbolic, a member of Mayor London Breed's staff told the board of supervisors in November 2023 that Prop E "authorizes the department to have a one-year pilot period to experiment, to work through new technology to see how they work."

The San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee's description of the proposition notes that it would "authorize the SFPD to use drones and install surveillance cameras without Commission or Board approval, including those with facial recognition technology."

The ACLU of Northern California calls Prop E "a dangerous and misleading proposal that knocks down three pillars of police reform: oversight, accountability, and transparency." Matthew Guariglia, senior policy analyst at the EFF, wrote that under Prop E, police could "expose already marginalized and over-surveilled communities to a new and less accountable generation of surveillance technologies."

Despite these concerns, Prop E has its share of support. Breed defended the proposal, saying "it's about making sure that our police department, like any other police department around the country, can use 21st century technology." By January, groups supporting Prop E had raised more than $1 million—ten times the amount raised by opponents and considerably more than has been raised for any other proposal on the March ballot.

It also seems to be popular among the public: A January survey released by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce found that 61 percent of San Franciscans favored Prop E, with only 37 percent opposed. (One possible explanation: The same survey found that 69 percent of those polled feel that crime has gotten worse. Recent data indicates that violent crime rose during 2023 even as it declined nationally, and while the rate of property crime fell, state and national rates fell faster.)

San Francisco is no stranger to potentially abusive surveillance practices. In 2022, the board of supervisors passed an ordinance that would allow the SFPD to request and receive real-time access to citizens' private security camera feeds. While city officials like Breed and newly-appointed District Attorney Brooke Jenkins touted that the ordinance would help crack down on smash-and-grab shoplifting rings, a recent city report detailed that in the third quarter of 2023, the vast majority of requests were for narcotics investigations.

The post Proposition E Would Make It Easier for Police To Surveil San Francisco appeared first on Reason.com.

Last week, a rookie Tennessee police officer died in the line of duty. But while the loss of the officer is tragic, evidence suggests that his death—as well as the death of a woman in his custody—was a result of his negligence.

Meigs County Deputy Robert "R. J." Leonard, who had just joined the sheriff's office fresh out of the academy in December, responded to a call of a disturbance Wednesday night. According to reports, a man and woman were fighting on a bridge, and Leonard arrested the woman around 10 p.m. According to Meigs County District Attorney Russell Johnson, the arrest was Leonard's first since joining the force.

After handcuffing the suspect—later identified as Tabitha Smith—and placing her in the back seat, Leonard radioed in that he was transporting her to jail. But on the way, according to Johnson, the deputy apparently sent his wife a text that read simply, "Arrest."

"His wife texted back and said, 'That's good' or 'That's great,'" said Sheriff Austin Garrett of nearby Hamilton County. But at that time, Leonard apparently drove the wrong way down a Blythe Ferry boat ramp and into the Tennessee River. At the same time Leonard texted his wife, dispatchers say they received a garbled radio message from him, with the only discernible word being "water."

The following day, a patrol vehicle was removed from the Tennessee River, from which the bodies of Leonard and Smith were later recovered.

While Leonard's death is tragic, leaving behind not only his wife but three children, all too little attention was paid to the woman who died, handcuffed, in his custody. Chief Deputy Brian Malone fought back tears as he announced Leonard's death, referring to Leonard as "part of our family," while only referring to Smith—herself a mother of two—as "the other victim."

The report filed on the events by Los Angeles' ABC7 features the headline, "Bodies of missing Tennessee deputy and woman who had been detained recovered, officials say." But that was changed from the original headline, "Tennessee deputy found dead after making first arrest, patrol vehicle recovered from river." While this reflects an earlier time when less information was available, that article still featured the detail that dispatchers had lost communication with Leonard right as he was texting his wife and that "the deputy, a native of New York, appeared to be texting and radioing while driving in a poorly lit area he was unfamiliar with."

Indeed, a report on Chattanooga's ABC9 noted that the crash "raises questions over safety on Blythe Ferry boat ramps," but the segment still shows that the road leading to the boat ramp in question featured three "rumble strips"—bumps in the road meant to alert drivers to upcoming danger—and three yellow signs warning that "road ends."

Unfortunately, Smith is just one of countless people to die in police custody. In 2014, Congress passed the Death in Custody Reporting Act, which requires the federal government to collect and analyze data on the number of inmates who die each year in state, local, or federal custody. But a report published last year by the Leadership Conference Education Fund and the Project on Government Oversight found that the government "has yet to collect reliable data, let alone produce the required study." Citing data from the Government Accountability Office, the report notes that "in 2021 alone, the government potentially undercounted deaths in custody by nearly 1,000 compared to other public data sources."

Leonard's crash was almost certainly an accident, driving down a dark road in an unfamiliar area at night. But preliminary evidence suggests a degree of negligence, both by texting while driving and failing to heed multiple posted signs. While Leonard's death was a tragedy, it is necessary to note that his negligence also caused the death of a woman in his custody.

The post Tennessee Deputy Dies While Texting and Driving, Killing Suspect in the Back Seat appeared first on Reason.com.