If you talk to any investigator working in child protection, he or she would tell you it is a mentally, emotionally and physically exhausting job, because of the nature of often horrifying crimes they are constantly investigating, the fact that the lives of child victims are at stake, and the often frustrating wait times involved in getting access to and finding the perpetrators of these crimes because they work through the darkest corners of the dark web.
But they would also tell you that every time you manage to find one more potential predator, and possibly save another child, it makes it all worth it. This is National Child Abuse Prevention Month, so success during this month is even sweeter. Working in tandem with local, state and international law enforcement, agents from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) had a slew of wins over the past week and the beginning of this one in bringing arrests and helping secure indictments in child sex abuse and child exploitation cases.
Biometrica wraps up some of the cases that made the news:
Oregon Man Charged After Stalking And Exploiting Australian Minor
Jorge Rosales, of Beaverton, Oregon, has been charged with federal child exploitation crimes after using various social media applications, including Snapchat and TikTok, to stalk and sexually exploit a minor victim from Australia.
On April 23, Rosales was charged with sexually exploiting children, distributing and possessing child pornography, cyberstalking, and enticing a minor online.
According to court documents, in April 2021, a special agent from HSI received an investigative referral from INTERPOL and the Australian Federal Police related to the sexual exploitation of a then-nine-year-old victim in Australia.
In 2016 or 2017 Rosales began communicating with the minor victim using Musical.ly, a social media application now known as TikTok. Rosales claimed he was a 36-year-old male named Alex.
Over a period of months, Rosales engaged the minor in a series of progressively more sexually explicit conversations even after the minor told him she was nine years old.
Rosales sent the minor sexually explicit photos and videos to demonstrate how she could engage in various sex acts.
These materials included photos and videos of older men having sex with toddlers and young girls.
Rosales encouraged the victim to produce and send him sexually explicit photos and videos of herself. When the victim declined, he threatened to turn her friends and family against her, and, sent her photos of animals beaten until injured. Eventually, the minor victim sent naked photos of herself to Rosales.
Rosales later began communicating with the minor victim using Snapchat, wherein he would send her videos of himself masturbating.
He claimed he could see where the victim lived on Snap Map, a Snapchat feature where users can see the location of various Snaps, and threatened to come get her if she didn’t continue sending him explicit photos.
These threats prompted the victim to send Rosales additional naked photos and videos, which she produced at his request.
Australian investigators obtained and sent to HSI the TikTok subscriber record for the first account Rosales used to communicate with the minor victim.
This record included IP addresses later matched to Rosales’ mobile phone and Beaverton residence.
Investigators from HSI searched the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s CyberTipline Reports and found 13 reports connected to Rosales’ mobile phone and home internet connection.
Rosales was arrested on April 21, 2021, and made his initial appearance in federal court today before U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta.
Texas Man Gets 10 Years For Possession Of Child Pornography
Timothy Lynn Vandeventer, who was found to be in possession of 110,000 images of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) pornography was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.
Vandeventer pled guilty to the offence in November 2020.
According to court documents, HSI special agents learned that Vandeventer was downloading CSAM from the internet to an IP address at his residence in Alvarado, Texas.
Vandeventer purchased child pornography on the internet through a website advertising CSAM, downloading it to his laptop and external hard drives to ease access to the illicit content.
Vandeventer also printed images of the illegal sexual exploitation materials for his viewing.
HSI Honolulu Assists Military Law Enforcement In Undercover Op Targeting Child Predators
In O’ahu, Hawaii, two active duty soldiers and one active duty marine were arrested for using online platforms to solicit sex from agents posing as children.
The military members also sent explicit photographs of themselves and asked for explicit photographs in return. Each was arrested when they tried to meet up with the undercover agents. They face charges relating to the solicitation of minors.
The undercover operation, Operation Keiki Shield, was conducted as part of the Hawaii Department of the Attorney General’s Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force and included agents from HSI Honolulu, NCIS, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, the Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division, and the Coast Guard Investigative Service.
Reno Man Indicted For Receiving, Possessing Child Pornography
Ryan Thomas Eley, of Reno, was taken into federal custody for receiving and possessing child sexual abuse material after making his initial court appearance on last Monday.
Eley received and possessed USB flash drives, an external hard drive, and a cell phone that contained images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Eley with one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography.
If convicted, Eley faces a maximum statutory sentence of 20 years in prison.
Four out of every five small and medium-sized (SME) companies in the world suffer from counterfeits and brand abuse on the internet, a study by the anti-piracy and brand protection company Smart Protection found. The trend among cybercriminals now is to focus on SMEs that are usually more vulnerable than large companies, according to the study.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) introduced World Intellectual Property Day in 2000 as an annual event to raise awareness about the role IP plays in encouraging innovation and in supporting economic, social and cultural development.
SMEs account for 90% of all companies worldwide and 70% of global employment, WIPO Director General Daren Tang said in a video message on April 26, 2021, describing them as the “unsung heroes” of the global economy and an engine for growth in a post-pandemic world. Tang, who took office as WIPO’s director general in October 2020, has made supporting smaller businesses a priority, according to a post in World Intellectual Property Review.
Did You Know? 43% of #CyberSecurity attacks are aimed at #SmallBiz, but only 14% of small businesses are prepared to defend themselves. Help is on the way— stay tuned for our April 26 announcement!
Image Source: Screengrab from the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center’s Twitter handle
But, it’s not just SMEs, of course, who need IP protection and knowledge. IP theft in the form of counterfeit goods, trade secret theft, and pirated software costs the U.S. economy $225-$600 billion, a post on Legal Jobs said citing the Intellectual Property Commission estimates. That amounts to about 1% to 3% of the U.S.’s GDP, IP crimes statistics show, the post added. The average cost of a data breach in the U.S. is $8.64 million, while the average cost of defending a patent lawsuit exceeds $3 million.
So today, on World Intellectual Property Day, we give you an overview of IP theft, what it is, how it is defined by law enforcement in the U.S. and how they deal with it, and what they do to combat it.
What Is IP Theft? Why Protect IP At All?
To begin with, the FBI defines IP theft as one that: “Involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions— known as “intellectual property”—which can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software.” On its part, the FBI specifically focuses on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’s health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts.
Why is it important to protect IP? The simple answer is if a climate of innovation has to prosper, then it matters. “Without protection of ideas, businesses and individuals would not reap the full benefits of their inventions and would focus less on research and development. Similarly, artists would not be fully compensated for their creations and cultural vitality would suffer as a result,” says STOPfakes.gov, a one-stop shop for U.S. government tools and resources on intellectual property rights (IPR).
IPR protection and enforcement are critical to the success of U.S. businesses, including SMEs, and to the U.S. economy as a whole. IP intensive industries employ more than 55.7 million Americans, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates, while the Small Business Administration estimates that SMEs alone employ half of Americans and account for 65% of new jobs, the STOPfakes.gov website says (Karen Mills, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), speech at ‘‘Jobs on Main Street, Customers Around the World’’ event hosted by USTR 01/21/10). While IP theft can pose a risk to any sector, those most commonly affected are: Manufacturing, consumer goods, technology, software, and biotechnology, including pharmaceuticals.
As a business, how do you prevent falling victim to IP thefts? In brief, step one would be to protect your IP, in the U.S. and in other countries where you may be doing business or sourcing from, according to STOPfakes.gov. Most IP rights are territorial. For instance a U.S. patent or trademark only provides protection in the United States. To be able to enforce your IP rights in other countries, you need to secure protection of that IP in those countries, often through registration. Next, you need to inventory your IP. Take a hard look and see what may qualify as requiring a patent, trademark, copyright or trade secret status. If you need help, check out this IPR online module from STOPfakes.gov.
Once you have an inventory, you can decide and review what you need to protect at home and abroad. Do some research on whether foreign export markets or sourcing locations you work with have signed patent or trademark agreements with the United States, and check if companies similar to yours have experienced IP problems abroad. Finally, you will need to do a cost/benefit analysis to figure out what kind of IP protection makes sense for your business.
How Do Law Enforcement Agencies Fight IP Theft?
The Department of Justice (DOJ), the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (NIPRCC), and the FBI jointly work on combatting these types of crimes. There are several operations that have been undertaken by the three agencies in the fight against IP theft. Here’s a quick look at some of them:
Operation Chain Reaction
This is an initiative by NIPRCC and targets counterfeit goods entering the supply chains of the Department of Defense (DoD) and other U.S. government agencies. It started in 2011 to combat the proliferation of counterfeit goods into the DoD and federal government supply chains. Chain Reaction was the first time NIPRCC participants collectively addressed the problem of counterfeit and misbranded items entering the federal supply chain. It combines the effort of 16 agencies, including Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Customs and Border Protection.
Operation Apothecary
Also an NIPRCC initiative, this targets the constantly-growing threat of online, or Internet, crime. This operation focuses on the use of the net as a primary means of communication and ordering of pharmaceuticals. Criminals, posing as legitimate pharmaceutical providers, advertise prescription grade drugs and/or inexpensive alternatives without requiring a valid prescription. The consumer purchases the pharmaceutical believing that the product advertised is legitimate. Often, the consumer is actually purchasing a counterfeit or unapproved version of the drug, which has often been manufactured in unsanitary conditions, or not subjected to any safeguards or quality control regimes.
Operation Engine Newity
This focuses on dealing with the issue of counterfeits in specific industries: Automotive, aerospace, rail, and heavy industry related components. These counterfeits are illegally imported and distributed throughout the country. “These counterfeit components represent a grave threat to public safety due to the critical nature of transportation-related applications and can include such components as airbags, brake pads, steering rods, and bearings. The faulty operation of these devices alone can cause bodily harm such as a counterfeit airbag, but in some cases can result in a catastrophic accident like an air crash or major train derailment,” the FBI website says.
On April 22, five years to the day since eight members of the Rhoden family were shot and killed in four different locations in Pike County, Edward “Jake” Wagner pleaded guilty to the murders as emotional scenes engulfed the Pike County Courtroom.
Among those killed on that fateful day was the mother of Wagner’s child. It was only when Wagner was asked how he pleaded, in this murder, that he paused. After pleading guilty to the previous seven in routine fashion, when asked about the murder of Hanna Mea Rhoden, Wagner hesitated, his Adam’s apple bobbed, his face grew red, and he held back tears, The Columbus Dispatch reported.
In all, Wagner faced 23 charges and he pled guilty to all of them. The charges included eight counts of aggravated murder, conspiracy, aggravated burglary and tampering with evidence among others.
To each charge, Wagner looked at the judge and said: “I am guilty, your honor.”
Wagner’s elder brother and his parents are still accused of the same charges, and he has agreed to testify against them.
Law enforcement stated, during the course of the hearing, that the killings were pre-planned and carefully executed in order to eliminate anyone who may get in the way of Wagner securing custody of his child.
In exchange for his guilty plea, Wagner will not face the death penalty. However, it was pre-agreed that he would be sentenced to eight consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole, plus more than 100 years for the sentences on all the other charges.
Wagner, who is now 28, will die in prison, something that his lawyers said their client understood.
The dramatic events took place on a day when this hearing was not even publicly listed on the court’s docket until the last moment.
While Wagner reportedly began the hearing with a smile, and had a fixed gaze at those who were addressing the court, when he was given a chance to speak, he looked at the Rhoden family and said: “I am deeply and very sorry.”
While members of the Rhoden family did not immediately react, Pike County Prosecutor Rob Junk said, “This has been a long time coming. They’re happy to get some justice, especially on this particular day.”
George Wagner III and Angela Wagner, Jake’s parents, and also George Wagner IV, are the others charged in the case. The four were arrested in 2018 in the Scioto County village of South Webster to where they had returned, after time spent away in Alaska in the aftermath of the murders.
At the time of the arrests, which happened without incident, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, said “we promised the victims’ families that the day would come when this case would be solved, and today is that day. Their alleged plan was sophisticated, but not sophisticated enough for our team of investigators and prosecutors.”
While Jake Wagner is the only one of the four to have pleaded guilty, in doing so, he ensured that none of the others would face the death penalty, should they be convicted.
Special Prosecutor Angela Canepa revealed that Wagner had been cooperating with law enforcement for a time and information he provided led to the recovery of the guns used in the executions and also the vehicles the suspects used in the crimes.
Canepa also stated that Wagner had confessed to personally committing five of the eight murders.
The reason Edward was the primary suspect from the time that ominous 911 call was made on April 22, 2016, marking the first of a series of killings that would shock Ohio and the rest of the nation, was because he had a child with Hanna Rhoden.
Prosecutors have maintained that custody of this child was at the centre everything that happened that fateful day. Just a few days before she, and seven other members of her family were killed, Hanna had given birth to her second child, which also Wagner believed to be his.
The victims in the slayings were Christopher Rhoden Sr., his cousin Gary Rhoden, and Christopher’s ex-wife Dana Manley Rhoden. Christopher and Dana’s children, Frankie Rhoden, Christopher Rhoden Jr. and Hanna Rhoden, Frankie’s fiancée Hannah Gilley was also killed and Kenneth Rhoden was found shot in his camper miles away from the original location of the killings where three campers were located.
The investigation of the killings, one of the most exhaustive and comprehensive in Ohio history, involved more than 1,000 tips, hundreds of people interviewed and dozens of search warrants.
In the course of this, Canepa, who was hired to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office in 2013, quit in May 2020, but was reinstated to the case just months after.
Imagine flying an airplane with nothing but a magnetic compass to guide you. Sounds impossible? But that was, in reality, the only navigation tool aviators once had to guide them on flights, making early aviation a risky business. Pilots had to fly 200-500 feet above ground so that they could actually see roads and railways below, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says on the history of aviation. Night landings had to be made by the light of bonfires. Fatal accidents, sadly, were routine. All this was after World War I, by when some technical advancement had already taken place.
Then in 1925, the Air Mail Act allowed the creation of a profitable commercial airline industry, and four major domestic players dominated commercial travel for most of the 20th century: United, American, Eastern, and Transcontinental and Western Air (TWA). But, as air travel increased, so did the need to focus on safety. Some airport operators began providing an early form of air traffic control (ATC) based on visual signals. Early controllers stood on the field and waved flags to communicate with pilots. Industry leaders began to believe that for the airplane to reach its full potential, federal action to maintain safety and standards were necessary. And so, the Air Commerce Act was passed in 1926.
This landmark legislation charged the Secretary of Commerce with fostering air commerce, issuing and enforcing air traffic rules, licensing pilots, certifying aircraft, establishing airways, and operating and maintaining aids to air navigation. Several other pieces of legislation were passed over the years, including the likes of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, the Federal Aviation Act, and the Airport and Airway Development Act. For more on the history of the FAA and aviation safety, click here.
“Between 2001 and 2007, aviation witnessed one of its safest periods for scheduled air carriers,” the FAA says on its website, adding that there were only 11 fatal accidents in total across those years, not counting one major event from that period, of course (more on that in the next para). Fatal accidents became rare events with only .01 accidents per 100,000 flight hours or .018 accidents per 100,000 departures, the FAA added.
An event from the 21st century, though, that had a deep impact on aviation safety came in 2001. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, for the first time in U.S. aviation history, the FAA put a ground stop on all traffic. “In the overnight hours of September 11, members of FAA’s Flight Standards Service developed an initial lead identifying the names of potential hijackers and provided those names to the FBI. The tragic events of this day radically changed the FAA,” it says on its website.
On November 19, 2001, the president signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which among other provisions, established a new agency responsible for aviation security – the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), within the Department of Transportation (DOT). FAA remained responsible for aviation security until Feb. 13, 2002, when TSA took over those responsibilities. But, the FAA is still responsible for certain aspects of aviation safety within the DOT. Here’s an overview of those, and the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), Investigative Tracking System (ITS).
Overview Of The System
Aviation safety does not necessarily only mean preventing accidents in the sky. Neither does it only mean dealing with hijacking and terrorism. It also includes conducting background checks of those involved in the industry, to prevent any internal risks.
Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology;
Developing and operating a system of air traffic control and navigation for both civil and military aircraft;
Developing and carrying out programs to control aircraft noise and other environmental effects of civil aviation; and
Regulating U.S. commercial space transportation
And one of the programs that it uses to fulfil those duties, is the ITS. The ITS records, tracks, and reports on investigations pertaining to security background checks and clearances on employees, contractors and other individuals with access to FAA facilities, systems or information, as well as internal administrative investigations relative to inappropriate conduct and associated disciplinary actions and tort claims against FAA. also supports the FAA’s mandate to investigate the actual or probable violation by pilots, aircraft owners, or aircraft mechanics of civil and criminal laws regulating controlled substances. Within FAA, the Office of the Assistant Administrator for Security and Hazardous Materials has the lead responsibility for managing ITS and all related investigatory activities.
The ITS system contains Personally Identifiable Information (PII) pertaining to the following categories of individuals, consisting of current or former employees and contractors (many of whom work in safety sensitive positions), other individuals with access to FAA facilities, systems or information, individuals involved in tort claims against FAA, and members of the public who are subjects of investigations regarding the actual or probable violation of civil and criminal laws regulating controlled substances:
current and former applicants for FAA employment;
current and former FAA employees;
individuals considered for access to classified information or restricted areas and/or security determinations such as current and former contractors, employees of contractors, experts, instructors, and consultants to federal programs;
individuals involved in tort claims against the FAA;
employees, grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors, and applicants for FAA-funded programs; and
other individuals who are of interest to the FAA, law enforcement, or other agencies investigating personnel or safety-related complaints.
What Kind Of PII Data Does The FAA Enter Into ITS?
PII is collected and entered into ITS in two major ways: by manual data entry and by automated agency downloads. Manually-entered PII consists of the following information which is collected from the individuals through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) e-QIP (Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing), the Standard Form 85p Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions or the DOT Form 1681 Identification Card/Credential Application when they apply for jobs at FAA or request a FAA identification badge:
name,
date of birth,
place of birth,
social security number (SSN),
employment status,
organizational and employment affiliations,
foreign national status,
results of background checks,
home mailing address, and home and work phone number(s).
Downloaded PII consists of results of investigations and inquiries conducted by the FAA Office of the Assistant Administrator for Security and Hazardous Materials and the FAA Security and Hazardous Materials Divisions in regional offices and designated FAA centers; information received in various formats as the result of investigations conducted by Federal, State, local, and foreign investigative or law enforcement agencies, which relate to the mission and function of the Assistant Administrator for Security and Hazardous Materials and field offices; and information received in various formats as the result of investigations conducted by authorized personnel of the FAA, other Federal agencies, and State and local drug enforcement agencies regarding the actual or probable violation by pilots, aircraft owners, or aircraft mechanics of civil and criminal laws regulating controlled substances.
Downloaded PII is received via regular downloads from the following internal and external Federal agency databases, as necessary to directly support FAA’s personnel and other security investigative efforts:
Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS) maintained by the Department of Interior (DOI) and accessed via DOT’s FPPS Web Printing system;
Personnel Investigations Processing System maintained by Office of Personnel Management (PIPS/OPM);
FAA Medical Certification System, called MedXPress, maintained by FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI);
National Driver Registry (NDR) maintained by DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA);
FAA Aviation Safety – Flight Standards Service Airmen and Aircraft Registry database ; and
Identification Management System (IDMS) maintained by FAA ASH internally (expected in future).
Why does the ITS need this information? To facilitate the FAA’s security programs and its mission to promote civil aviation safety, the website says. The PII within ITS is used to maintain the categories of records listed above, as well as for uses associated with the following programs: Access to Classified Information, and the National Industrial Security Program.
For more on another example of how PII is typically used in background screenings and monitoring, you can also take a look at Biometrica’s FAQ page, under the question: Could you elaborate on the continuous monitoring aspect?
How Does The ITS Use Information, And Keep It Secure?
The ITS is a web-based application system and an on-line repository of sensitive, unclassified information that can be accessed only by authorized FAA users in ASH (personnel security specialists, internal investigators, system administrators) and AHR (human resource specialists). The information is used to do the following, the website says:
Monitor the status of a wide range of FAA personnel security investigations, including current employees as well as applicants, contract employees, and any other individuals with access to FAA facilities, systems, or information.
Track internal investigations involving the following types of allegations: alleged employee misconduct, alleged criminal activity by airmen and other FAA certificate holders, unapproved aircraft parts, counterfeit certificates, falsification of official documents, security violations, property theft, and other investigative services as requested by other FAA organizational elements.
Check the records of airmen (commercial and private pilots) contained in the FAA Airmen and Aircraft Registry database against a “Driving Under the Influence (DUI)/Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)” module within ITS. This module is designed to assist the FAA in matching airmen who have recently completed their medical exams to the National Driver Register’s (NDR) list of individuals who have a DUI or DWI conviction or administrative action.
Track the assignment of correspondence through a “control assignments” module in ITS. This module assists FAA in tracking and responding to complaints received about individuals through the FAA Administrator Hotline (1-866-835-5322), FAA Safety hotline (1-866-835-5322), or from the DOT Office of the Inspector General; or through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act requests from individuals interested in and/or subject to investigations; or through other controlled correspondence related to those individuals.
Track support provided to law enforcement agencies regarding certificated airmen or aircraft via a “Law Enforcement (LE) support” module in ITS. This module assists FAA with monitoring and documenting the sharing of pertinent investigatory information with those authorized individuals at the Federal, State, tribal, local and foreign levels. In addition, ITS is used to grant and monitor access to Classified and National Security Information for authorized individuals.
Of course, with information comes accountability. The ITS also has a number of security measures and safeguards in place to protect the PII that it stores. According to the DOT website, those include:
The ITS records are stored in approved security file cabinets and containers, in file folders, on lists and forms, and in computer storage media.
Access to and use of these records is limited to those persons whose official duties require such access and use.
Computer processing of information is conducted according to established FAA computer security regulations.
A risk assessment of the FAA computer facility that has physical controls used to process this system of records has been performed and any weaknesses resolved .
All users have signed a system “rules of behavior” document.
Paper records generated by ITS are retained in accordance with the current version of FAA Order 1350.15, Records Organization, Transfer and Destruction Standards, which provides a retention period of approximately 5 years. Click here to know more. The ITS is a system of records subject to the Privacy Act and uses information only in accordance with the Privacy Act System of Records Notices: DOT/FAA 815, Investigative Record System, the website says.
Over the last two decades, aviation deaths have been falling dramatically, a Reuters article said citing the Aviation Safety Network (ASN). America has not had a fatal U.S. passenger airline crash since February 2009, the article added. The total number of crashes globally also declined over 50% in 2020, with a sharp decline in flights due to the covid-19 pandemic, the same article said, citing a Dutch consulting firm.
Still, a reminder from recent times of how important every step of the process is in an industry like aviation is the story of MH 370, the Malaysian Airlines flight that vanished in 2014. One of the theories put forth was that the pilot in command, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, ran amok and possibly due to his mental state at that time. Even a year after MH370, there was the case of the Germanwings Airbus that was deliberately crashed into the French Alps on March 24, 2015. The co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, had waited for the pilot to use the bathroom and then locked him out. Lubitz had a record of depression.
On April 21, the Manhattan District Attorney announced initiatives that would change the way cases with regards to prostitution and unlicensed massage would be prosecuted in the jurisdiction.
District Attorney Cyrus R Vance Jr., who heads one of the most high profile law enforcement offices in the United States, asked the courts to dismiss 914 open cases involving prostitution and unlicensed massage, and 5,080 cases of loitering for the purposes of prostitution.
Some of these cases dates back to the 1970s and 1980s.
According to a press release from the Manhattan DA’s office, the moves are aimed at “preventing unnecessary future contacts with the criminal justice system, eliminating the collateral consequences associated with having a prostitution case or conviction, and empowering New Yorkers to interact with law enforcement without fear of arrest or deportation.”
To put it more simply, Manhattan law enforcement is now recognizing the fact that many of those trafficked into the sex trade, either as sex workers or workers in unlicensed massage parlors, were traditional targets of prosecution.
However, in many cases, these individuals did not choose their profession, or have a choice in breaking existing law.
Even with that being the case, individuals arrested and prosecuted under these laws suffered after, as it became difficult for them to find employment in other spheres with a criminal record to their name.
In announcing the latest initiatives, the Manhattan DA’s office also clarified that there would be no change in how law enforcement viewed those who solicited paid sex, or those who trafficked people for sex, or those who profited from prostitution or allied activities.
“Over the last decade we’ve learned from those with lived experience, and from our own experience on the ground: criminally prosecuting prostitution does not make us safer, and too often, achieves the opposite result by further marginalizing vulnerable New Yorkers,” said District Attorney Vance. “For years, rather than seeking criminal convictions, my office has reformed its practice to offer services to individuals arrested for prostitution. Now, we will decline to prosecute these arrests outright, providing services and supports solely on a voluntary basis. By vacating warrants, dismissing cases, and erasing convictions for these charges, we are completing a paradigm shift in our approach.”
The action also gives closure to the “loitering for the purposes of prostitution law” also known as “walking while trans.” This law, which came into place in 1976 at a time when New York was attempting to clean up its image as a city of crime and sin, was repealed in February 2021.
“With today’s dismissals, we also close the book on Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution, known as the ‘Walking While Trans’ for its decades of discriminatory enforcement, unfairly targeting members of the LGBTQ+ community,” said Vance. “I was proud to support the repeal of this bill, and thank Senator Brad Hoylman, Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, and the many, many survivors and advocates who fought to put an end to this practice.”
Vance also thanked Abigail Swenstein of the Legal Aid Society’s Exploitation Intervention Project, for her role.
“We thank the DA’s office, and most notably, the prosecutors in the human trafficking unit, who have listened to and acted on the knowledge gained from speaking to advocates and most importantly, survivors and those with lived experience as sex workers,” Swenstein said. “However, this policy should not supplant the need to pass legislation that would fully decriminalize sex work and provide for criminal record relief for people convicted of prostitution offense.”
Manhattan is not the first region to adopt such an approach. Already, Baltimore and Philadelphia have put in place provisions through which they have declined to prosecute sex workers.
A 2020 study titled The Harmful Consequences Of Sex Work Criminalization On Health And Rights, conducted by the Sex Works and Allies Network in conjunction with Yale Global Health Justice Partnership, noted that “Many people in the sex sector are caught in cycles of surveillance and criminalization for lower-level “quality of life” offenses, including but not limited to prostitution offenses. Street-based sex workers, for instance, are often targeted for arrest under trespassing, loitering, and vagrancy laws. This revolving door of criminal legal system involvement has short- and long-term destabilizing and disempowering effects on sex workers and their communities.”
The study found that the criminalization of sex workers exacerbated ongoing race and gender discrimination and raised barriers to housing, public benefits, and other social supports.
Critically, the study observed: “There is no evidence that criminalizing sex work deters those who may sell or buy sex. Instead, the evidence shows that criminalization, whether full or partial (the latter only targets buyers), makes sex work more dangerous; drives sex workers into more isolated locations; impedes the use of safety and harm reduction strategies; makes it more risky to report violence and abuse from clients, managers, and law enforcement; and increases risk of exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.”
The ACLU also has strong opinions on the subject. In October 2020, an ACLU report recommended the decriminalization of “all consensual sex work, including prostitution, among adults.” The report recommended the elimination of unwanted police presence among the sex work community and called for supporting sex workers and listening to the recommendations of community organizers who lead sex work decriminalization groups and grassroots organizations.
As of April, 2021, Congress is considering several different pieces of legislation which address hate crimes. Many of them focus on hate crimes directly. Others have a different focus, but also take on the subject of hate crimes. Here is a look at some notable examples which could become law this year.
If made law this would create a U.S. commission on hate crimes to study and make recommendations on the prevention of hate crimes. This bill has been introduced in the House, and has bipartisan support, including almost 150 cosponsors.
H.R.1843 – To facilitate the expedited review of COVID-19 hate crimes
If made law this would facilitate an expedited review of Covid-19 based hate crimes. It has been introduced to the House and has more than 175 cosponsors so far. This is a House equivalent of S. 728 and S.937.
S.728 – To facilitate the expedited review of COVID-19 hate crimes
If made law this would facilitate an expedited review of Covid-19 based hate crimes. It has been introduced to the Senate and has 15 cosponsors so far. This is a Senate equivalent of H.R. 1843.
The “Emmett Till Antilynching Act” defines lynching as a hate crime. It has been introduced in the House and has more than 150 cosponsors so far, including bipartisan support.
“David’s Law” or the “David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2021” specifies up to 10 years in prison for causing bodily injury using a firearm, fire, or an explosive device because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. It also specifies up to life in prison if death results, or if the crime involves kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse. It also specifies up to life in prison if the crime involves an attempt to kill, kidnap, or commit aggravated sexual abuse.
H.R.350– Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021
The “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021” has more than 200 cosponsors so far, including bipartisan support. As the title indicates, this focuses the issue of domestic terrorism. It would also address the nexus between hate crimes and domestic terrorism. This is the companion bill to S. 963.
S.963– Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2021
Like H.R.350, this would establish offices within several different government departments to combat domestic terrorism. It would also address the nexus between hate crimes and domestic terrorism. This is the companion bill to H.R.350.
The “Justice Act” has been introduced in the House and has more than 125 cosponsors so far.
The official title of this bill is “To improve and reform policing practices, accountability and transparency.” Short titles as introduced for portions of this bill include:
“Breonna Taylor Notification Act of 2021”
“George Floyd and Walter Scott Notification Act”
“Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2021” and
“National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2021”
H.R.1111 – Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2021
The “Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2021” would establish this department in the executive branch, dedicated to peacebuilding, peacemaking, and the study and promotion of conditions conducive to both domestic and international peace and a culture of peace. Addressing hate in various circumstances would be part of the department’s responsibilities.
H.R.1201– International Human Rights Defense Act of 2021
The “International Human Rights Defense Act of 2021” would establish a Special Envoy for the human rights of LGBTQI peoples in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of the Department of State. It would also address hate crimes.
This has been introduced to the Senate and has more than 40 cosponsors so far. It would direct the Attorney General to appoint an employee or officer at the Department of Justice whose sole responsibility would be to expedite review of Covid-19 hate crimes and reports of such crimes. It would also require the Attorney General to issue guidance for law enforcement on how to establish online reporting of hate crimes and make online reporting available in multiple languages. It would also require establishing guidance on eliminating racially discriminatory language in describing Covid-19. On April 14, 2021, Senators voted 92-6 to proceed to debate on the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.
UPDATE: This bill passed the Senate shortly after the original publication of this article on April 22 in a 94 to 1 vote with only Sen. Hawley opposing it.
The long title of this bill is “To provide incentives for hate crime reporting, provide grants for State-run hate crime hotlines, and establish additional penalties for individuals convicted under the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.” This bill has bipartisan support. It would strengthen penalties and address issues with reporting hate crimes by increasing incentives for reporting, and funding state hotlines for reporting. This bill has more than 25 cosponsors so far, including bipartisan support.
S.1086 – A bill to provide incentives for hate crime reporting, provide grants for State-run hate crime hotlines, and establish alternative sentencing for individuals convicted under the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
This is the companion bill to H.R.2383. It also has bipartisan support.
H.R.2416 – To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the causation element in the Federal hate crime statute, and for other purposes.
This bill has more than 25 cosponsors so far. It would help clarify language in current hate crime legislation. Specifically, it would help clarify the elements one needs to prove in court to convict one of a hate crime.
H.R.2536 – To provide relief for victims of hate crimes, advance the safety and well-being of immigrants and refugees, and fund improved law enforcement and prosecution official training.
This would focus on training for law enforcement and prosecutors to help victims of hate crimes. It has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R.2539 – To direct the Secretary of Education to make grants for hate crime prevention and prejudice reduction education, and for other purposes.
This would help with funding the effort to reduce hate crimes. It has been referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
H.R.2541 – To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to establish grants to reduce the incidence of hate crimes, and for other purposes.
This would help with funding the effort to reduce hate crimes. It has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
S.1235 – A bill to establish a United States Commission on Hate Crimes to study and make recommendations on the prevention of the commission of hate crimes, and for other purposes.
This is the most recent of several bills proposed to create a commission to study this matter. It has been referred to the Senate Judiciary committee. This article was last updated on April 22, 2021. For the most up to date information see https://www.congress.gov/. If you liked this article, you may also be interested in our previous article about pending legislation concerning crime, prison, and law enforcement, which also touches on proposed hate crime laws.
It took just a little over 10 hours of deliberations for the jurors in the trial of former policeman Derek Chauvin to bring an end to a courtroom drama that has gripped the world for the past three weeks.
There were emotional scenes outside the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis, and tears of joy and relief in countless rooms across this polarized nation as the jury of five men and seven women found Chauvin, 45, guilty on all counts — of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
In contrast to the reactions outside, there appeared to be little reaction from a masked Chauvin as he heard the guilty verdict, had his bail revoked, spoke briefly with his lawyer, and put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed and taken away, reportedly to a facility in Stillwater, Minnesota, about 25 miles east of downtown Minneapolis.
This fabricated police story might have become the official account of George Floyd’s death if concerned citizens had not intervened and recorded the police. pic.twitter.com/9XOD5TkK3B
The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death “without intent” while committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault. Third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm. The maximum prison term for second-degree murder is 40 years.
The third-degree murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd’s death by “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.” The maximum sentence for third-degree murder is up to 25 years in prison.
The second-degree manslaughter charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd’s death by “culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm.” The second-degree manslaughter charge comes with a possible maximum of 10 years.
However, it was likely that Chauvin would not get the maximum sentence in each case, as he had no priors. Minnesota sentencing guidelines recommended 12.5 years for each of the murder charges and four years for the manslaughter. In the end it comes down to the judge to decide on the exact sentences for each charge and whether they would be served simultaneously or one after another.
While the charges vary from each other in that some have precise definitions while others were left to the interpretation of the jury, what is common to all is that the prosecutors had to prove that Chauvin was a substantial causation factor in Floyd’s death.
The prosecution made their case through the testimony of five medical experts. While some of them listed mitigating factors such as Floyd’s history of drug use, others were more emphatic. “A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died,” said Dr. Martin Tobin.
The defense contended that Floyd died while being restrained but not as a result of the restraint. “In my opinion, Mr. Floyd had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia, or cardiac arrhythmia, due to his atherosclerosis and hypertensive heart disease … during his restraint and subdual by the police,” said Dr. David Fowler, a former Maryland chief medical examiner.
The second element that was common to all three charges was that the prosecution had to prove that Chauvin used excessive and unreasonable force. This aspect was examined through the testimony of police supervisors and use-of-force experts.
The testimony of Medaria Arradondo, Minneapolis Police Chief, was crystal clear. He said that Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck was “in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy. It is not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics or our values.”
Barry Brodd, a use-of-force expert testifying for the defense thought otherwise. “I felt that Derek Chauvin was justified and was acting with objective reasonableness, following Minneapolis Police Department policy and current standards of law enforcement in his interactions with Mr. Floyd,” said Brodd.
The Floyd family hailed the verdict. Philonise Floyd, one of George Floyd’s younger brothers, said, “I feel relieved today that I finally have the opportunity for hopefully getting some sleep. It was a motion picture,” he was quoted as saying by NPR. “The world saw his life being extinguished and I could do nothing but watch. We have to march. We will have to do this for life. We have to protest because it seems like this is a never-ending cycle.”
Terrence Floyd, another younger brother, who is a bus driver in New York, was equally effusive and visibly emotional. “History is here. This is monumental. I believe because of prayer, we got the verdict we wanted. We said God, we need justice. We need it now. And he answered. I’m going to miss him but now I know he will be in history. What a day to be a Floyd!”
Rodney Floyd, the youngest of the Floyd brothers, spoke only briefly, but his words were no less powerful. “There is no color barrier on this. This is for everyone who has been held down and pinned down.”
U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a statement: “The jury in the state trial of Derek Chauvin has fulfilled its civic duty and rendered a verdict convicting him on all counts. While the state’s prosecution was successful, I know that nothing can fill the void that the loved ones of George Floyd have felt since his death.”
— National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) (@GLFOP) April 20, 2021
The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis released a statement after the verdict was reached. It said: “There are no winners in this case and we respect the jury’s decision. We need the political pandering to stop and the race baiting of elected officials to stop. In addition, we need to stop the divisive comments and we all need to do better to create a Minneapolis we love.”
President Joe Biden had commented on the trial even before the verdict was delivered. “It was a murder in full light of day, and it ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see,” Biden was quoted as saying by the New York Times, observing that the incident had set off nationwide protests. “For so many, it feels like it took all of that for the judicial system to deliver just basic accountability.”
In 2020, just 5,030 of 18,514 law enforcement agencies active in the United States that year provided use-of-force data to the FBI between January and August (we do not have data details as yet for the period post August). In 2019, that number was marginally higher — 5,043 federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies submitted use-of-force data. While the National Use-of-Force Data Collection is a very new program, kicking off on Jan. 1, 2019, one of the problems was that it took almost five years to get it off the ground, from ideation to reality. Right now, the program is completely voluntary — law enforcement agencies send incident reports to the FBI only if they choose to do so. Given the deep polarization and mistrust between law enforcement and some of the communities they serve in the U.S., it is imperative, however, for agencies to speed up the process of adoption, and move down the path of transparency and accountability.
By Kadambari M. Wade
Against the backdrop of the Derek Chauvin trial and a spate of other publicized incidents involving what appears to be an excessive use of force by law enforcement, one of the questions people naturally have is, how prevalent is the use of force among American law enforcement? Is the use of excessive force really as widespread an issue as news reports appear to indicate, or is that because particular incidents are highlighted by the media? Unfortunately, people’s answers appear to depend more on their political affiliations than the data itself.
So, what does the official data say? Regrettably, the answer is complicated. The short answer is that we don’t know — as yet. We do know, however, that we are a long way from getting to a national estimate when it comes to use-of-force data, simply because there isn’t enough participation from law enforcement agencies in the data collection process. In any case, the data, according to the FBI’s Trudy Ford, a section chief in the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), was “not meant to offer insight into a single incident, but rather a comprehensive view of the circumstances, subjects, and officers involved from a nationwide perspective.”
“Police-involved shootings and the use of force have long been topics of national discussion,” Ford told an episode of Inside The FBI last year, “but with recent high profile cases, it has heightened the public’s awareness of this topic. And so, we see this as an opportunity to report information that, from the law enforcement community’s perspective, makes sure that we’re accountable and transparent to the public while telling the entire story. And up until this point, there’s been a lack of data in order to share this from a national perspective.”
An FBI release in July 2020 had stated that in 2019, the inaugural year for which information collected from this use-of-force data was released, 5,043 federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies had submitted use-of-force data to the National Use-of-Force Data Collection. They said the agencies that submitted data between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2019, represented 41% of all federal, state, local, and tribal sworn officers, which allowed them to release this first batch of information.
So, why is there so little official data on the use of force? As strange as it might sound, despite the United States’ long history of friction between an increasingly militarized law enforcement — there’s an excellent read by the conservative and libertarian think-tank, the Federalist Society, on this issue — and various communities dating back to the 1960s, the idea for collecting this data at an official level really only took root in 2015.
In June of that year (see below) it was recommended that the FBI create what would be a National Use-of-Force Data Collection, in the aftermath of a number of high-profile incidents involving the police. Here’s a timeline of events leading up to that July 2020 release.
Key Events in the Development of the National Use-of-Force Data Collection (FBI)
June 3, 2015: The CJIS’s Advisory Policy Board (APB) recommended the FBI develop a new data collection on officer-involved shootings.
Sept. 18, 2015: Representatives from major law enforcement organizations proposed an expansion to the FBI’s efforts, including uses of force that resulted in serious bodily injury.
Dec. 3, 2015: The APB approved a new data collection on law enforcement use of force.
Jan. 27, 2016: The National Use-of-Force Data Collection Task Force, including law enforcement leaders from across the U.S., met to discuss the collection.
July 1, 2017: The data collection pilot study began. The FBI specifically invited law enforcement agencies with a workforce of 750 or more sworn officers to participate in the pilot study, and eventually, 98 agencies took part, including 24 that had a force of more than 750, plus 12 state UCR programs and three Department of Justice agencies. The study concluded on Dec. 31, 2017. On that day, which was the last day of the 6-month study, the average reporting rate of participating agencies was 70.5% for all agencies. The FBI followed up with reminder e-mails, phone calls, and pop-up notifications within the use-of-force portal to prompt agencies to complete their monthly submissions. Three weeks later, the average number of agencies submitting data, or zero reports increased to 89.9%.
Sept. 5, 2018: The Office of Management and Budget gave final approval to begin collecting data.
Jan. 1, 2019: The data collection launched nationwide. All law enforcement agencies were encouraged to participate.
July 27, 2020: The FBI released participation data for National Use-of-Force Data Collection. Agencies reported this data either to their state’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, a designated UCR program for a particular organization (such as with federal agencies), or directly to the FBI.
According to data from the Bureau’s Crime Data Explorer (CDE) for January through August 2020, 5,030 out of 18,514 federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies across the United States participated and provided use-of-force data. The officers employed by these agencies, according to the FBI, represented 42% federal, state, local, and tribal sworn officers in the nation. What is interesting, though, is if you look at how many reports were actually submitted in this Jan to August period, it doesn’t add up to all that much. There were 78 incident reports of use-of-force in January 2020, 60 in February, 80 in March, 65 in April, 85 in May, 62 in June, 58 in July, and 26 in August, for a total of 514 incidents.
How does that make 5,030 agencies reporting? Because from month to month, a number of agencies, and not necessarily the same ones, did report data, but said there were “zero reports” of incidents of use-of-force.
Source: FBI CDE National Use-of-Force Data Collection: Number of federal, state, local, and tribal agencies providing incident reports, zero reports, or no response, January-August 2020.
Here is a comparison with 2019 reports.
Source: FBI CDE National Use-of-Force Data Collection: Number of federal, state, local, and tribal agencies providing incident reports, zero reports, or no response, January-December 2019.
When determining law enforcement participation in the National Use-of-Force Data Collection, the FBI uses a total count of 860,000 sworn police employees, as estimated by the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. This police employee count includes all known and reasonably presumed federal, local, state, tribal, and college and university sworn law enforcement personnel eligible to participate in the National Use-of-Force Data Collection.
According to the FBI, whether or not they publicly release use-of-force data from the Collection really depends on the percentage of agencies contributing data, and this is governed by federal regulations. Regardless of the level of use-of-force data reported, the FBI will periodically release information on agencies that participate in the data collection. The 2019 batch of initial data was therefore released when 40% of the total law enforcement officer population was reached. Additional data will be released at 60% and 80% participation levels.
Do note that while there isn’t comprehensive official data on the use of force, which would be needed to get an idea at the national level of whether there is or isn’t an excessive use of force by American law enforcement, or whether or not that force was warranted, there is comprehensive data on fatal police shootings, but from outside sources, like the Washington Post.
In 2015, in the aftermath of the 2014 Ferguson protests, following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown Jr., an 18-year-old black man, by a 28-year-old white police officer, Darren Wilson, in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri, the Post decided to log every fatal shooting in the line of duty by law enforcement.
Their rather incredible database contains records of every reported fatal shooting in the United States by a police officer in the line of duty since Jan. 1, 2015. It is updated regularly as fatal shootings are reported and as facts emerge about individual cases.
An awe-inspiring 12-month investigation by the Washington Post’s Kimberly Kindy and Kennedy Elliott, published on Dec. 26 of 2015, a year in which 990 people had been shot and killed by police up to that point, had some very fascinating takeaways. Do read the piece if you haven’t already, but here are a few insights from that report:
In three-quarters of these fatal shootings, law enforcement officers were viewed as heroes — they had to take action either because they were under attack or were defending someone who was under attack. The Post found that 28% of individuals that died had been fatally shot while they themselves had been shooting at officers or someone else. In addition, 16% were shot while attacking people with other weapons or using physical force, and 31% were shot while pointing a gun at someone.
Overall, the Post found that in 2015, 9% of shootings involved an unarmed victim, and these were disproportionately black. After adjusting for population, the investigation concluded that unarmed black men were seven times as likely as unarmed whites to die from police gunfire.
Overall, more than half of those killed in 2015 had guns, 16% had knives and 5% tried to hit officers with vehicles. They stated that 3% had toy weapons, “typically replica guns that are indistinguishable from the real thing.”
Worryingly, mental health issues played a role in one quarter of all the shootings.
Equally worrying, perhaps, was the fact that only 6% of shootings were captured on body cameras, not exactly a resounding endorsement for transparency or accountability.
Despite the prominence given to gun deaths, the use of force, even the lethal use of force, is more than an incident involving firearms, as was seen in the case of Derek Chauvin’s knee on George Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds.
So, what exactly is use of force?
A use-of-force incident occurs when a law enforcement officer takes an action that results in someone’s death or serious injury. Use of force incidents also include when a law enforcement officer fires a weapon at or in the direction of someone, even if that person isn’t seriously harmed or killed. Is it warranted?
As the Post investigation detailed above notes, in about 75% of cases of fatal shootings, they possibly were. While that was 2015, just in 2021, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page, 17 law enforcement officers have been shot dead in the line of duty, three have died after having been assaulted, two have been stabbed to death, and seven have been killed by vehicular assault.
Being a law enforcement officer in the United States is one of the most dangerous jobs around, not because of heavy machinery or falling trees, but because you go to work every day thinking someone may assault or kill you. As we had detailed in a separate report here, in 2019, 56,034 law enforcement officers were assaulted while performing their duties, according to assault data collected by the FBI from 9,457 law enforcement agencies that employed 475,848 officers. The year before that, 58,866 officers were assaulted while on duty, but that data was collected from a larger sample size: 11,788 law enforcement agencies that employed 546,247 officers.
The rate of officer assaults was higher in 2019 than in 2018, despite the smaller sample size. In 2019, the rate was 11.8 per 100 sworn officers, compared with 10.8 per 100 sworn officers for 2018. Nearly 80% of those assaults were done using personal weapons, i.e. hands, fists or feet, while 3.8% were done using firearms, 1.9% with knives or other cutting instruments, and 15.1% with other dangerous weapons.
Of all the officers who were assaulted in 2019, 30.4% were responding to disturbance calls, including family quarrels or bar fights, while 17.1% were attempting other arrests, and 12.8% were handling, transporting, or maintaining custody of prisoners. This data was based on data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program on LEOKA (Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted) for 2019. It focuses just on officers who died because of injuries received on duty in felonious incidents, not accidental ones.
What data is collected for the use-of-force collection?
The collection and reporting of data includes any use of force that results in:
The death of a person due to law enforcement use of force.
The serious bodily injury of a person due to law enforcement use of force.
The discharge of a firearm by law enforcement at or in the direction of a person not otherwise resulting in death or serious bodily injury.
For the purpose of this data collection, the definition of serious bodily injury is based in part on Chapter 18 United States Code Section 2246 (4). The term “‘serious bodily injury’ means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.” If agencies experience no qualifying use-of-force incidents within a month, they submit a zero report.
According to the American Gaming Association’s (AGA) Commercial Gaming Revenue Tracker, 2020, the year that life came to a virtual standstill on account of the coronavirus pandemic, marked the first market contraction for the U.S. gaming industry since 2014 and the lowest gaming revenue total since 2003. U.S. commercial gaming revenue totaled $30.0 billion in 2020, down more than 31% year-over-year. Against this backdrop, it was unsurprising that the year also saw fewer Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed by casinos — commercial and tribal — and card clubs than any other year in the recent past.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN’s SAR Stats tells us that for the year 2020, there were a total of 39,480 SARs filed by casinos and card clubs. Of these, 12,891 were entries by tribal authorized casinos, 25,162 by state-licensed casinos, 1,302 by card clubs and 125 by other casino/card clubs.
2020 SARs (Casinos/Card Clubs)
Jan – 4,519
Feb – 4,418
March – 4,067
April – 1,024
May – 352
June – 1,298
July – 3,659
Aug – 3,697
Sept – 4,067
Oct – 4,360
Nov – 3,914
Dec – 4,105
Source: FinCEN SAR Stats
On the plus side, things might be getting back to normal for the gaming industry, if the filing of SARs is an indication of matters. For the first three months of 2021 so far, we’ve had a total of 11,968 SARs filed, of which 174 SARs have been by card clubs, 21 by other casino/card clubs, 7,293 by state-licensed casinos, and 4,480 by tribal authorized casinos.
How does this stack up against previous years? According to FinCEN, between Jan. 1, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2019 — a six-year period — Casinos and Card Clubs in the United States filed 316,119 suspicious activity reports to the enforcement network. This included commercial and tribal casinos. Incidentally, in each of those years, except for 2015, which saw a December spike, the summer months appear to be high activity time for filing SARs in the gaming industry. The highest year in that period was 59,167 SARs filed in 2017, with March 2017 itself accounting for 6,303 SARs filed.
Just to give you an idea of how the gaming industry has upped the ante on filing SARs, in a seven-and-a-half-year period between Jan. 1, 2004, and June 30, 2011, according to a 2012 FinCEN report, “gaming institutions covered by FinCEN’s regulations submitted 74,816 Suspicious Activity Report by Casinos and Card Clubs (SAR-C) filings from 2004 through June 2011.”
Why Do Casinos File SARs?
In 1970, the United States Congress passed the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, now called the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as the first laws to fight money laundering in the United States. It required financial institutions in the U.S. to help government agencies identify and prevent money laundering, with a specific focus on the recording and reporting of cash purchases of things like bank notes, checks, demand drafts etcetera (referred to as negotiable instruments) of more than $10,000, as a daily aggregate amount.
But Casinos Are Not Banks.
True, but they deal with financial transactions. Most casinos are considered non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs) under law. Essentially NBFIs are institutions that aren’t banks or don’t have a banking license but do offer financial services or conduct financial transactions.
According to the IRS, casinos and card clubs licensed to do business as casinos or card clubs by tribal, state or local governments, which have Gross Annual Gaming Revenues (GAGR) of more than $1,000,000 (annual means per year), are financial institutions subject to the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, which is codified in part in what is known as Title 31 of the United States Code (USC). Under this, certain financial institutions and individuals (defined by the Secretary of Treasury) are required to keep records and file reports on certain types of financial transactions. Which basically means they have to follow all reporting procedures under Title 31, or face the consequences of failure to report suspicious activity or a pattern of suspicious activity.
What Does The BSA Require?
The BSA requires that specified businesses, including those in the gaming industry, keep records and file reports that were determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory matters. According to the IRS, “the documents filed by businesses under the BSA requirements are heavily used by law enforcement agencies, both domestic and international to identify, detect and deter money laundering whether it is in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, terrorism, tax evasion or other unlawful activity.”
Suspicious Activity Reports are required for suspicious activities involving $5,000 or more in funds or other assets (single transaction or aggregated). According to the IRS, casinos are also encouraged to report suspicious transactions that are under $5,000, such as the submission by a patron of an identification document the casino suspects is false or altered. If a currency transaction exceeds $10,000 and is suspicious, the institution must electronically file both Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), and Currency Transaction Report (CTR).
What Could Constitute A Suspicious Activity?
These are pretty well defined too. Some things that a patron could do that might be considered suspicious are (and this is not an exhaustive list):
Exchanging many small bills for large ones
Exchanging several monetary instruments, such as traveler’s checks, for one casino check
Regularly conducting currency transactions that are just below $10,000
Purchasing chips and then, after minimal gambling, redeeming the chips for a check
Using other patrons to cash-out chips
Supplying other patrons with cash to purchase chips
Using the casino purely for its financial services
Using identification that appears to be altered or forged
Note: The BSA is sometimes also referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”) or jointly as “BSA/AML.” Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. (See 31 USC 5311-5330 and 31 CFR Chapter X [formerly 31 CFR Part 103]).
On April 19, Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey signed a package of bills into law, with an aim of bettering the criminal justice system to make it more respectful and responsive to victims of sexual assault crimes. Under the seven bill package, victims of sexual assault will be entitled to copies of police reports, be notified when prosecutors are filing charges against their assailants, and receive an information packet explaining their rights, the law, the court process, and available counseling service.
The bills also cover other aspects like periodic training for county prosecutors and assistant prosecutors who handle sex crimes, and training for the police. The goal of the package is also to give victims a chance to seek “restorative justice” should they decide not to report the crime, NJ.com reported, citing Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, a prime sponsor of the legislation. “Far too often, survivors of sexual assault who have the courage to come forward are victimized a second time,” Weinberg said, according to the article.
Murphy said he was “proud” to sign the bills into law, in a statement on April 19, NJ.com said. “It is imperative that we take steps to make sure that survivors in New Jersey know they can seek justice. Giving our law enforcement agencies clear directives and guidance on how to manage sexual assault cases will ensure that these cases are handled with survivors in mind,” the governor added.
Here’s a brief gist of the seven bills that were passed, according to NJ.com, with links to the full text of each bill:
S3070: establishes a three-year “Sexual Violence Restorative Justice Pilot Program” in North, Central and South Jersey to bring survivors and their abusers together to seek collective healing solutions outside the judicial system.
S3071: requires police departments provide a copy of the rape complaint and a form the victim could submit that makes corrections or additions. A county prosecutor’s office staffer will be named to help victims complete the forms.
S3072: mandates that victims get an information packet explaining their rights, the law, the court process and available counseling services. They would also get a phone number to call for updates on their case.
S3073: requires county prosecutors notify victims whether charges will be filed.
S3074: mandates the attorney general to track sexual assault cases and issue an annual report with statistics on how many complaints were filed, prosecuted or led to plea agreements.
S3075: obligates the State Police and local police departments to train sexual violence liaison officers to serve as the in-house experts and primary points of contact on sexual violence cases.
S3076: requires county prosecutors and assistant prosecutors who handle sex crimes undergo periodic training developed by experts in “trauma-informed care and the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
Pending bill S3389: calls for the creation of an independent investigative unit to handle sexual misconduct and harassment complaints involving political campaigns and government. The new investigative team would be overseen by the nonpartisan Election Law Enforcement Commission, the respected state agency that polices campaign finance laws.
Several people’s recommendations have gone into formulating these new laws, including Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, a panel of women involved with New Jersey politics studying harassment and misconduct, and Katie Brennan, a former campaign volunteer on Gov. Phil Murphy’s campaign who accused a senior official of his administration of raping her in 2017.
Brennan filed a complaint then against Albert Alvarez, who served as director for Latino outreach for Phil Murphy’s gubernatorial campaign, alleging that he raped her in an apartment in Jersey City. The Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office and the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute citing a “lack of credible evidence that a crime was committed,” an article in the Hudson Reporter said. Despite Brennan’s repeated pleas to Gov. Phil Murphy’s senior aides, Alvarez remained in his $170,000-a-year state job for months before resigning, a New York Times article from 2019 said.
In May 2020, Brennan settled the lawsuit she filed against the state and the Murphy campaign for $1 million. Of that, she’s donating $600,000 to a charity that she says will allow low-income survivors in Hudson County to seek justice, the Hudson Reporter article added. As part of the settlement, the state will also implement key survivor-centric policy reforms, including allowing state employees who are alleged victims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation to have an advisor or support person accompany them when he or she is interviewed by an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) investigator.
On her part, Weinberg has worked towards finding solutions to the climate of sexual assault that pervades New Jersey politics in the past too. In December 2019, she said she was forming an ad hoc committee to look for ways to change the toxic culture women face in New Jersey’s politics, NJ.com reported back then.
