Late ACCA predicate cannot salvage sentencing enhancement

Summary: ACLU of Rhode Island urges Cumberland to end Flock contract Eva Pizzarelli seeks $750,000 for false arrest and malicious prosecution Federal lawsuit filed in U.S. district court alleges misidentification The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island is imploring the town of Cumberland to end its contract with Flock Safety based on allegations in a federal lawsuit accusing the police of using a photo pulled from the license plate reader to wrongfully arrest and prosecute a woman. The ACLU is calling on Cumberland leaders to cancel the town's contract with Flock and the use of their automated license plate readers based on concerns raised in the complaint that the cameras have been used to take photos not just of license plates but of people inside the vehicle, the organization said in a press release on Aug. 7. The incident, it says, highlights that “contrary to routine police claims that the ALPRs only take photos of license plates, in this case, the camera was also capable of taking pictures of drivers and passengers.” “These cameras are concerning enough when used just as license plate readers, but their danger is exponentially increased when expanded to take photos of people as well. Just as disturbing is the fact that no mention was made about this capability when the cameras were approved for purchase in 2024,” Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of RI, said in a letter to the Town Council. The ACLU is calling, too, for full disclosure to the public about how the cameras are being used and when they began being used to capture photos of people inside vehicles, as well as “whether and when this previously unreported surveillance expansion beyond license plate data was ever shared publicly.” Cumberland Mayor Jeffrey Mutter said in an email as he was traveling back from South Carolina that the town is “taking the matter seriously and have been paying attention to actions of other communities here in Rhode Island.” “I also have concerns about instances in other states that have been reported recently,” Mutter said in an email. A spokesperson for Flock Safety did not immediately respond to an email inquiry. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in June on behalf of Eva Pizzarelli and alleges that she was wrongfully arrested and prosecuted by Cumberland police after she was misidentified by an officer using Flock photos. According to the claims, Officer Jack Halloran was patroling Broad Street on March 26, 2025, when he saw a gray Volkswagen fail to signal a turn. Halloran tried to stop the car, but instead it fled into Attleboro, Massachusetts, at a high speed. Halloran stopped the pursuit minutes later and reported that he had a “clear view” of the driver, a “white, middle-aged woman, with red hair.” Sgt. Brandon Correia tracked down that the car was registered to a 73-year-old disabled veteran from South Kingstown, the complaint says. Correia reviewed people associated with the car and searched the Facebook account of one potential user. Correia then reviewed that individual’s "friends" and located a photograph of a White woman with red hair, leading him to the profile of Pizzarelli, who at the time of that photo, had red hair. Correia forwarded the profile to Halloran, who confirmed that Pizzarelli was the driver, the suit says. Correia reported that he had secured footage from a Flock camera and concluded that the driver in the footage “matches” Pizzarelli’s driver’s license photo. Halloran wrote up a complaint charging Pizzarelli with reckless driving and eluding police and other traffic offenses, the suit says. On April 8, 2025, the East Providence police stopped Pizzarelli for an alleged traffic violation and took her into custody after learning there was a warrant for her arrest out of Cumberland, the suit says. Pizzarelli was taken to Cumberland, where she was questioned and denied any involvement or knowledge of the incident in March. During questioning, Halloran stated, “Now that I see you in person, I am 1,000% sure it was you,” Pizzarelli alleges in the suit. Halloran noted that it was Pizzarelli’s birthday, sarcastically stating, “Happy Birthday,” while she was being held for more than six hours before being charged and released. Pizzarelli was prosecuted and temporarily had her license suspended before the charges were dismissed, the suit says. Pizzarelli is seeking $750,000 in damages for claims that include malicious prosecutions, false arrest and negligence. The town denied the claims in its response in court and argues that the officers are shielded by qualified immunity. This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: "RI woman says Flock camera misidentified her, leading to arrest" Reporting by Katie Mulvaney, Providence Journal / The Providence Journal

Summary: Supreme Court struck down Trump v. Barbara birthright citizenship policy Justice Samuel Alito dissented against broad citizenship for birth tourists Trump signed executive orders targeting birth tourism and visa restrictions When the U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of broad citizenship rights for babies born in the United States, one of the most conservative justices complained that the decision was so sweeping it would even cover so-called birth tourists. Women "who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth" would be able to get automatic citizenship for their children, Samuel Alito wrote, dissenting from the 6-3 ruling that invalidated President Donald Trump's first attempt to curtail U.S. birthright citizenship. Undeterred by the court's ruling, Trump tried again on Thursday, signing two executive orders largely aimed at birth tourism. That part of Trump's action, which is certain to face legal challenges, is likely doomed, legal experts said. It targets a category of people that legal experts said the Supreme Court already addressed. "These children are citizens based on their birth on U.S. soil," said University of Virginia law professor Amanda ​Frost, who studies birthright citizenship. "Illegal conduct by their parent can have no bearing on their status." The Republican president has for years threatened to tighten birthright citizenship as part of his restrictive immigration agenda. On the first day of his second term in January 2025, Trump issued a sweeping order that targeted immigrants in the country illegally or even temporarily on a legal basis, including those on work visas or students. The court's June 30 ruling striking it down, in a case called Trump v. Barbara, held that the policy violated language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that confers citizenship ​to those born in the United States who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." To curtail birth tourism, one of Trump's new orders directs federal agencies not to recognize a child's citizenship if either parent is "engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship." A second executive order seeks to bar visas for foreigners suspected of birth tourism, although it was unclear how it would be enforced. Federal regulation currently bars using temporary visas for the purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a newborn. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump renewed his criticism of the ruling and said that "people are building businesses around" birth tourism, suggesting that "hundreds of thousands" are wrongly benefiting. Some analyses cite smaller numbers, with Penn State University scholars estimating 5,000 to 10,000 births each year from 2014 to 2024. Besides birth tourism, Trump's new directive also seeks to expand historical exceptions to automatic birthright citizenship, which include children of diplomatic representatives such as ambassadors and hostile foreign troops occupying U.S. territory. The order would widen the categories to include foreign government employees and those deemed foreign terrorists. SCHOLARS DIVIDED Scholars were divided over whether courts might allow some of these expansions. Expanding the category of diplomats is potentially legal, depending on how it is done, said Frost, "though that requires giving those people significant immunity from U.S. law." University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo, who worked as a Justice Department official during Republican George W. Bush's ​presidency, said that the order's attempt to define foreign enemy forces on U.S. soil as including terrorist organizations "will eventually pass constitutional muster." Others said certain expansions may stretch too far. "Japanese immigrants to the U.S. were deemed enemy aliens during World War II," said University of Michigan law professor Sam Erman. "Under the administration's rule, their U.S.-born children could have been denied citizenship." The legality of the various provisions could also depend on how agencies implement them. Some of the terms are elastic, such as the definition of an "alien enemy," or the "purpose" of a stay, said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. This creates "huge zones of discretion that allow officials of the U.S. government to deny visas or admission based on suspicions or a need to vet further," Motomura said. COURT RULING The Supreme Court in June struck down Trump's prior order, even though the administration argued that automatic birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and birth tourism. "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community," Chief Justice Roberts wrote, adding that the authors ​of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in the land. "We keep that promise today," Roberts wrote. Alito did not mince words in his dissent. "In my judgment, the court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future," he wrote. He faulted the court for ruling that "even a child born to a mother who is here for only a brief time is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment." Such a view yields "grotesque results," Alito said. "While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen," he said. White House aides defended the orders on Thursday. "There's absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court's opinions on the subject,” White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf said. Yoo disagreed. "I do not see any exception to birthright, as defined by the court in Barbara, that would include parents who fraudulently violated federal law to give birth to children on American territory," he said. Rachel Rosenbloom, an immigration law professor at Northeastern University, said she would be surprised if the order's new exclusions survived a legal challenge, calling them "clearly unconstitutional." "This order seems like a desperate measure by a president who is having a hard time accepting that he just suffered a significant loss at the Supreme Court," Rosenbloom said. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Amy Stevens and Sanjeev Miglani)

Summary: U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis rejects WMATA dismissal Rashawn Williams trapped six days in Glenmont station area of refuge WMATA employees ignored clear signs of distress from Williams A breakdown of basic safety procedures inside a Maryland Metro train station allowed a man with Down syndrome to wander into a dark emergency exit corridor and become trapped there for six days, alone with no food or water, according to a federal lawsuit filed by the man’s family that a judge has ruled can continue toward trial. Rashawn Williams, 33, survived the 2023 ordeal but has grown fearful of the dark, has trouble sleeping, and is prone to unprovoked outbursts, according to the suit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The authority’s recent effort to dismiss the suit, arguing among other claims that Williams had become a “trespasser,” was rejected in a 10-page memorandum issued on Aug. 4 by U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis. “A modicum of basic communication with Williams to ensure he left the station safely can hardly be considered ‘burdensome’ to WMATA,” Xinis wrote. Williams, who is described by his family’s attorneys as nonverbal and in need of 24-hour supervision, had made his way alone to the station the night of Oct. 20, 2023, after slipping away from his caregiver hours earlier. At the station, the lawsuit alleges, he walked to a kiosk “where he stood waiting for assistance.” He did not receive any, according to the lawsuit, because the employee there was on a personal call. “WMATA employees ignored Williams’ clear signs of distress,” Xinis wrote. Williams eventually wandered through a door that locked behind him into an “Area of Refuge”, or AOR, which was supposed to be checked daily. By then, police and his family were frantically searching large areas for him. On day 5, according to the lawsuit, Williams’ father, Jimmy Hall, began the painful process of expanding his search to dumpsters and wooded areas. The next day, a police officer searching the Glenmont station for Williams spotted the emergency exit, was led through it by a station manager, and suddenly found Williams. “Evidently, no Metro personnel inspected the AOR on the night Williams became trapped, or for six days thereafter,” the judge wrote, adding the italics for emphasis. “Williams had no light, water, food or toilet facilities. Montgomery County Police Department found Williams severely dehydrated and undernourished, ‘covered’ in his own urine and feces, with bugs nesting in his hair.” A WMATA spokesperson said the authority does not comment on ongoing litigation. “The federal court’s opinion should be a wake-up call to WMATA, which has apparently learned nothing from what happened to Rashawn,” one of the attorneys, Timothy Maloney, told The Washington Post on Aug. 6. “As long as WMATA denies responsibility for disabled patrons like Rashawn, more tragedies are likely in the future.” The lawsuit also names WeAchieve, the nonprofit agency responsible for monitoring Williams, as a defendant. WeAchieve did not file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but in an earlier filing, the agency generally denied allegations of negligence or intentional misconduct and blamed WMATA for any injuries allegedly sustained by Williams, according to court records. Officials at WeAchieve and their outside attorney did not respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, was filed by Williams’s father and stepmother, his legal guardians. Around 2022, Williams’ father said, a fire at the group home led to his son and others to be relocated to suites at a Residence Inn on the eastern edge of Montgomery County. While there on Oct. 20, 2023, at about 6:20 p.m., Williams indicated to his caregiver — who was supervising three other people with disabilities — that he needed to use the bathroom, according to the lawsuit. While the caregiver went to get a key, Williams walked away, rode an elevator to the lobby, passed the front desk, and walked to a bus stop, according to the lawsuit. He boarded a bus. Police were called at 6:41 p.m. Williams’s parents were notified by WeAchieve at 7:39 p.m., the lawsuit states, and they quickly joined the search. At some point that night, Williams got off the bus and rode at least one Metro train for several hours. Shortly after midnight, a train he was on pulled into the Glenmont station to stop its service for the night, according to the lawsuit. A WMATA employee found Williams, who did not understand the train was out of service, and told him to get off but offered no further help, according to the suit. Williams remained on the platform, visibly confused, and later approached the kiosk, according to station video cited by the lawsuit. He then made his way through the emergency exit door and into a second room near a stairway and ladder to the street, according to the suit. It was in that spot where the police officer found him. In her opinion, Xinis cited WMATA directives as described in the suit. “Per WMATA’s written policies, personnel must inspect the AOR daily,” she wrote, “and must not take personal calls at the expense of assisting passengers.” In asking for the complaint to be dismissed, WMATA attorneys argued that at some point at the station, Williams stopped being a Metro user, which affected their duties owed to him. “Plaintiffs further fail to establish that Rashawn Williams was anything other than a trespasser when he reentered the station after service ended, that WMATA assumed an open-ended duty of care through brief employee interactions, or that WMATA denied him access to a public benefit by way of his disability,” they wrote. Xinis did not agree. That Williams, she wrote in her opinion, “found himself in a room that WMATA calls an ‘area of refuge’ further suggests that passengers may very well have occasion to enter the room in an emergency. This is quite likely why Metro personnel are required to inspect the area every day.”