Colorado became the first state in the nation to legally declare that the colorimetric field tests used by law enforcement agencies aren’t making the grade. House Bill 26-1020 was passed by Colorado lawmakers and signed into law by Governor Jared Polis to address the false positive rates for illegal drugs being returned by the presumptive field drug tests. The new Colorado law no longer permits a positive result from the test kits, by itself, to serve as the basis for an arrest. Instead, police officers can issue a summons.
It also requires trial courts, before accepting a plea deal on a drug possession charge (including for level 4 drug felony possession and lower) to advise the defendant that, due to the error rates of colorimetric field tests, the evidence is inadmissible, and that they can request confirmation of the result through an accredited forensic laboratory test. The hope is that the new law cuts down on wrongful drug arrests. It boasts a Boulder County district attorney among its loudest proponents.
More often than not, police departments will equip their officers with colorimetric field tests to use during roadside drug tests and other incidents where there’s a need to identify a substance. Kits contain pouches filled with reagents that, when mixed with illegal drugs like fentanyl, will cause the chemicals to turn a certain color. Use of these kits has led to countless arrests, as well as contested readings in correctional facilities.
As recent studies have revealed, that might not be in the best interests of the criminal justice system. While manufacturers of kits cite a 4% error rate, other research suggests that mistakes occur in nearly 40% of tests indicating the presence of illicit substances. The problem is that the pouches can also show positive results when other, non-illegal substances are detected. Certain compounds can elicit the same condemning colors as narcotics. This has included the chocolate chip cookies testing as THC and, in the case that spurred Coloradans to change the law, a grandmother who had her Ritalin pills identified as cocaine instead.
Since a false positive can lead to a wrongful conviction on a drug charge, it’s not surprising that many are alarmed at the potential violations of the Fourth Amendment. So why do so many law enforcement agencies depend on a test that appears to be inherently flawed?
As is often the case with government entities that don’t have unlimited funds at their disposal, colorimetric field drug tests are popular because they’re cheap. Each test usually costs under $10 per use and provides instantaneous results. While portable digital scanning devices have proven far more accurate than colorimetric tests, high-end versions can cost as much as $80,000. Even lower-end models command as much as $24,000, hence the reluctance of many jurisdictions to opt for an upgrade.
To make matters worse, confirming the presence of a controlled substance at a verified testing laboratory is both time-consuming and expensive. In Colorado, the state testing lab was so overwhelmed that district attorneys often wouldn’t send samples for verification unless the case had a firm trial date. For the accused who couldn’t afford bail, it meant being detained until the results exonerated them.
Being given a summons for a substance that’s not actually an illegal drug isn’t optimal, but it’s preferable to being tossed in jail over a mistake. While Colorado has been lauded for its trailblazing approach, some complain that it took too long to get to this point. In fact, one colorimetric field test company’s packaging bears a disclaimer noting that all results gleaned from its products “MUST BE CONFIRMED” by an approved analytical laboratory.
The post Colorado Passes Law Addressing Questionable Accuracy of Colorimetric Field Drug Tests appeared first on .
]]>Is it an effective deterrent, a medically sound option, or a violation of a prisoner’s constitutional rights? The debate over surgical castration, which was legalized by the state of Louisiana in 2024, will likely reach new heights, as it was part of a sentence handed down this week.
On April 6, 2026, Zachary Dewayne Doolittle pled guilty in the Louisiana state court to several charges involving sex crimes involving a minor, including first-degree rape of a child under the age of 13. As a result of a court order spurred by Louisiana’s new surgical castration law, Doolittle was forced to make what had to be a very difficult choice: an additional three to five years added to his sentence, or the removal of his testicles. Since we’re writing about this, you can probably figure out which sanction Doolittle went with.
While the heinousness of Doolittle’s offenses can’t be understated, questions about the effectiveness of castration in reducing sexual recidivism rates and its constitutionality in the face of Eighth Amendment protections are likely to flare anew. Is this practice the ultimate invasion of privacy?
Along with Governor Jeff Landry, Louisiana lawmakers released a raft of laws in 2024 designed to address criminal justice in the state. In addition to being the first state to allow the possibility of surgical castration for certain rapists, the state legislature added options for carrying out the death penalty, essentially eliminated the opportunity for parole for new convictions, limited the effectiveness of “good behavior” in shortening sentences, and instituted harsher penalties for certain crimes.
While legal sexual castration is making its first appearance in the United States, chemical castration has already been in use as a potential deterrent option. Drugs like medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) can be ordered as treatment by a court for aggravated sex offenses. It can also be taken voluntarily.
The surgical castration law received support from both Republicans and Democrats. It only applies to aggravated sex crimes that involve a victim under the age of 13. In addition, the sex offender must be over the age of 16. If the court rules that the law should be applied in a case, the defendant is presented with the option of having an additional three to five years added to their sentence (which cannot be reduced in any way) or having their gonads removed (testicles for males, ovaries for females). Application of the law is also contingent on a court-ordered “medical expert” determining that the defendant is a suitable candidate to receive the surgical procedure.
Critics of Louisiana’s new law have been vocal, calling it a “barbaric” practice and noting that it’s legal in only a few other places (Madagascar, a part of Nigeria, and the Czech Republic). There’s very little research on the effectiveness of sexual castration for those guilty of sex abuse, as any data has been culled from patients who volunteered for the procedure. There is also uncertainty about whether testosterone levels, which affect a male’s sex drive, are higher in those convicted of sexual abuse offenses.
Arguments have been made that the mental health of those committing sexual offenses plays as big or an even larger part in the threat to public safety. There are also concerns over the vagueness of exactly what qualifications are required in the court’s “medical expert.”
Forcing a prisoner to decide whether to sacrifice time or body parts has also been accused of being cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t give a specific definition of what constitutes “cruel and unusual” sanctions. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was any practice that was “repugnant to the conscience of mankind,” which remains open to interpretation at any given time. It seems possible that, at some point, the law’s constitutionality will be challenged by a defense attorney or a human rights organization.
It’s unlikely many will shed a tear for Doolittle’s predicament, as he faced charges of first-degree rape of a family member under the age of 13, molestation of a juvenile, and promoting/advertising/producing pornography involving juveniles. He could have faced life in prison or even the death penalty for the first-degree rape, so perhaps agreeing to the surgical castration process aided his plea bargain. Regardless, he’ll be 85 after serving his full sentence, so it’s uncertain how much of an ongoing threat he’ll be if he makes it to his release date.
The post Louisiana Man Convicted of Child Rape Opts for Surgical Castration appeared first on .
]]>When you come home from abroad, CBP can ask for more than your passport—it may want to look through your phone, your photos, and your social media. What officers can actually do with your devices (and whether you can successfully sue them for it) currently depends heavily on which part of the country you’re entering.
Normally, the Fourth Amendment means law enforcement officers need a warrant based on probable cause before searching things like the data on your phone. The border search exception is a judge‑made rule that relaxes those requirements at the U.S. border and at places treated like the border (such as international airports) so customs and immigration officers can screen people and goods entering the country.
For years, courts have allowed routine searches of luggage and vehicles at the border without a warrant or individualized suspicion because the government has a special interest in controlling entry. Customs and Border Protection argues that electronic devices are covered by the same rule, but as phones and laptops now hold huge amounts of sensitive information, judges have increasingly questioned whether those traditional border standards should apply equally to digital searches.
Since 2018, CBP’s policy has been to split device searches into basic and advanced searches, with sufficient suspicion or a national security concern required only for the latter. CBP is allowed to manually look through your phone or laptop without getting a warrant or having specific reasons to suspect you, while CBP officers can run “forensic” searches (using special tools to copy or analyze large amounts of data) when they have reasonable suspicion of a law violation or a national security concern.
That framework is relatively generous to the government and, in some ways, more permissive than what several federal courts now accept, creating a patchwork of rules about when CBP agents may search a phone and whether searches can look only for contraband or for broader evidence of crime.
Below is a quick survey of how courts across the country differ on the contentious issue.
In the Ninth Circuit (which covers the West Coast and several western states), courts have treated forensic device searches as especially intrusive and require reasonable suspicion to justify them. They still allow manual, on‑the‑spot inspection of a phone without individualized suspicion, but tightly limit the purpose of any device search (manual or forensic) to looking for digital contraband, such as child‑exploitation material or other content that is illegal to possess at all. That means officers generally can’t search your phone just to look for broad evidence of crime, like old texts about a past drug deal; for a deep, forensic search, agents need a reasonable basis to think the device actually contains illegal content, and even a quick manual check is supposed to stay focused on that kind of contraband.
In the First Circuit (covering Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island), courts have taken a more government‑friendly approach: border agents don’t need a warrant or probable cause to search electronic devices; basic searches can be done without any individualized suspicion; and even more intensive searches need no more than reasonable suspicion. Unlike in the Ninth Circuit, officers are not limited to looking for contraband; they may search devices for evidence of a wide range of border‑related offenses, such as immigration fraud or smuggling, even when the material on the device is legal to possess but might serve as evidence of those crimes.
In the Fourth Circuit (covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina), the rules sit somewhere between the Ninth and First Circuits. Courts there require individualized, reasonable suspicion for a deep, forensic device search, but they usually allow quick manual checks without any particularized reason. Officers can look for evidence of an ongoing border‑related issue, like active smuggling or a current immigration problem, and courts have been more skeptical when agents try to use border searches to dig up general evidence of unrelated past or future crimes.
In the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, Vermont), a recent decision from a federal trial court in New York took a much more skeptical view of border phone searches, treating forensic searches as unusually intrusive, saying they should generally require a warrant, and at least insisting on reasonable suspicion. The judge also questioned the use of the border search exception to justify broad evidence‑gathering, whether the search is basic or advanced, and whether the court of appeals has yet fully adopted this approach — though upcoming cases could sharpen the contrast with other regions.
Separately, in 2025, a naturalized U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident–turned plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit in Washington, D.C., challenging CBP’s electronic‑device policy itself as unconstitutional and unlawful under federal administrative law, after agents detained him and searched or tried to search his devices at Houston’s airport. That case asks the court to strike down CBP’s current rules allowing warrantless, suspicionless device searches and is one of several efforts to force clearer, more privacy‑protective limits on how CBP handles digital data at the border for international travelers (including green card holders) under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
For U.S. citizens, these rules translate into broad CBP authority and uneven privacy protections for your phone. How judges later view a search can turn on where you crossed, how deeply agents probed your data, and whether they were targeting political, immigration‑related, or other information. You still have a firm right to re‑enter the United States even if you decline to unlock your device, but standing on that right can mean delays, questioning, and losing access to your phone or laptop for a while. For now, it’s safest to assume CBP may try to access your messages, photos, and apps—and that any real privacy fight will happen later in court, not at the inspection booth.
The post CBP Border Phone Searches Face Patchwork of Rules for Returning U.S. Citizens appeared first on .
]]>U.S. marshals arrested Angela Lipps, 50, of Elizabethton, Tennessee, in July of 2025, on charges related to bank fraud in North Dakota. Facial recognition software linked a woman in surveillance footage of the crimes with photos of Lipps. Months passed before Lipps' attorney could present evidence showing she had been in Tennessee at the time.
Fargo's police chief claims the charges had a stronger basis than the facial recognition alone, but Lipps' attorneys plan to sue. Lipps says that the months in jail caused her to lose everything she had in Tennessee: her home and car, her good name, and even her dog.
In the spring of 2025, law enforcement in Fargo was investigating multiple bank frauds with a suspect who used a false military ID. To identify the suspect, detectives reviewed the surveillance footage using facial recognition software. Fargo Police Chief Dave Zibolski described this as "an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center." It matched the suspect's image with pictures of Angela Lipps, drawn from her driver's license and social media.
Fargo police then sought and received an arrest warrant for Lipps as a "fugitive from justice." In July, they found her in Carter County, on the eastern borders of Tennessee. Lipps, a grandmother of five, states that marshals arrested her "at gunpoint while babysitting four young children." Since she was arrested as a fugitive, Lipps was held without bail. She says that while she was in jail in Tennessee, her court-appointed attorney told her she would have to go to North Dakota to fight the charges.
However, no one brought Lipps to North Dakota until October. The Fargo Police Department claims it was unaware Lipps was in its custody until early December. In mid-December, Lipps' defense attorney Jay Greenwood was finally able to work with her and talk to the police. They provided bank records and receipts showing that Lipps was in Tennessee during the time of the bank fraud in North Dakota.
On Christmas Eve, Lipps' case was dismissed, and she was free — but hundreds of miles from home. Lipps claims that authorities offered her nowhere to go and no clothing safe for the North Dakota winter (FPD disputes both these assertions). Defense attorneys provided Lipps with a hotel room on Christmas, and a local nonprofit leader helped her travel home.
Following the controversy, Police Chief Zibolski has asserted that the AI identification was not the only evidence that led to Angela Lipps' arrest warrant, although he says he cannot discuss it further. He has also stressed that the investigation is "active and ongoing" and that the charges against Lipps could be refiled.
Nonetheless, Attorneys Eric Rice and Dane DeKrey are preparing to file a lawsuit against the Fargo authorities involved in Lipps' arrest. By her own account on her fundraising page, Lipps lost not just her personal assets but her reputation, as well as her physical and mental health. If proven, these losses could mean she has a significant claim for damages on one or more grounds.
However, Lipps' lawsuit could be complex. Her months of imprisonment did not stem from just one AI identification by Fargo police; several state authorities were involved. Police Chief Zibolski points out that the Cass County State's Attorney's Office filed for Lipps' arrest warrant, asserting that there was probable cause to arrest her, and a judge agreed. Why Lipps had to wait so long in jail is a separate matter entirely involving her attempt to contest her extradition to North Dakota. All this complicates the question of who, if anyone, can be held accountable in a lawsuit.
Although she may have spent the longest time in jail for it, Angela Lipps is only one of at least a dozen people in the U.S. who have been arrested due to facial recognition errors. Nijeer Parks spent ten days in a New Jersey jail, and recently, truck driver Jason Killinger sued the Reno, Nevada, police officer who held him for hours over a software misidentification. Critics like the ACLU say that facial recognition software is often more inaccurate for darker-skinned men and women, leading to more mistaken matches and arrests. The Lipps case has drawn serious concern from at least one North Dakota lawmaker, although no state regulations have been proposed yet. Some states and jurisdictions have developed guardrails to prevent false identifications from leading to arrests. Stories like Angela Lipps', and the lawsuits that follow, may help push for more laws and regulations.
The post Grandmother Held Without Bail After AI Software Error: Lawsuit Planned appeared first on .
]]>For decades, federal law has treated many felony convictions as a permanent bar to gun ownership, with almost no realistic way back. Now, the Trump administration is moving to change that, aiming to revive a long‑dormant federal gun rights restoration process and turn it into a sweeping national program that could eventually manage up to a million applications a year.
The Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.) makes it a crime for many people with felony convictions or certain misdemeanor domestic violence offenses to possess firearms. A seldom‑used provision in federal law technically lets the government review requests to restore firearm rights. But in the 90s, Congress cut off the money needed to run that process. In practice, this left most Americans with no real way to legally regain gun ownership after finishing their sentences.
That began to shift after recent Supreme Court Second Amendment cases, which spurred more challenges to lifetime gun bans for nonviolent offenses. In early 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” This order directed the Attorney General to review federal actions that might infringe Second Amendment rights and to recommend a plan that strengthens those rights while still taking public safety into account.
The 2025 executive order told the Attorney General to scrutinize agency rules, enforcement policies, litigation positions, and licensing practices that could burden gun ownership under federal law and state law. It highlighted firearms regulations issued from 2021 to 2025 and a policy called “Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement” (a Biden‑era ATF initiative that made it easier for the agency to revoke or deny gun‑dealer licenses for certain compliance violations, rather than relying on warnings or corrective action alone). Trump’s order also flagged the government’s positions in Second Amendment cases as part of a broader review of how federal agencies handle guns.
Soon after, the U.S. Department of Justice created a Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force. According to the Attorney General’s memorandum, the task force is meant to use litigation and policy to safeguard Second Amendment rights. It includes senior officials from the DOJ, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Civil Division, the Criminal Division, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF in particular plays a central role in implementing any new rules related to restoring gun rights, since it’s the principal law enforcement agency dealing with firearms.
In 2025, the DOJ issued a proposed rule to build a formal process for people barred from gun ownership under federal law to seek relief. The proposal would allow felons and other prohibited purchasers to apply to the Department for individualized review, including screening, waiting periods, and case‑by‑case eligibility decisions.
Under that framework, the DOJ anticipates up to one million applications annually once the system is fully operational. The agency plans to staff as many as 50 full‑time employees and create an online portal, charging a modest application fee. The new rule identifies presumptively disqualifying crimes, such as certain violent or sex offenses, and suggests a ten‑year waiting period after serious felony convictions and five years for other offenses.
This process is different from pardons or broader civil rights restoration. Some early applicants had also asked for clemency, but this new route runs separately and looks only at whether someone should legally be allowed to have guns again, without erasing the underlying conviction.
Even though a final rule isn’t in place yet, the DOJ has started granting relief in individual cases. Earlier this year, it listed 22 people in the Federal Register whose gun rights were restored after felony convictions, indictments, or other disqualifying events, offering an early look at how the revamped system might work. Their records range from nonviolent drug and fraud offenses to politically charged cases, and several had previously sued the department over the decades‑long shutdown of the old relief process.
The Trump administration has drawn criticism for restoring gun rights in some of the more controversial cases. For example, actor and director Mel Gibson has a prior domestic violence conviction, but the DOJ still approved his application. Internal disputes within the Justice Department’s pardon office over his case have since surfaced in court filings, raising broader questions about how law enforcement agencies weigh public safety, eligibility standards, and fairness when deciding who should be allowed to have guns again. Another example is Arizona state senator Jake Hoffman, who is charged in Arizona’s “fake elector” case and remained under state indictment when his application was approved.
For gun‑rights groups, the new rule (and the larger push for federal firearm rights restoration) just reins in a system that went too far, permanently disarming people over old, nonviolent cases and shortchanging Second Amendment rights. In their view, the DOJ is finally catching up to the Supreme Court’s recent decisions and giving law‑abiding people who have done their time a real second chance.
Advocates for gun‑violence prevention see something very different. They warn that restoring firearm rights on a large scale could put guns back in the hands of people who are still dangerous, especially in domestic violence situations or other high‑risk settings. Those groups are pressing the Justice Department and ATF to keep the eligibility rules tight in the final rule, to lean on state law, and to work closely with local law enforcement.
Public comments so far suggest broad support for having some kind of way back, but deep disagreement about how wide that door should open. As the Department moves toward a final rule, people with disqualifying convictions or other federal bars will need to watch the details closely — and may want legal advice before deciding whether to apply for restoration of their gun rights.
The post What Is the Federal Gun Rights Restoration Program? appeared first on .
]]>A 40-year-old teacher in Gainesville, Georgia, was killed on March 6 in a classic toilet paper prank turned deadly. North Hall High School teacher and coach Jason Hughes died after being accidentally struck by a vehicle driven by Jayden Ryan Wallace, who was attempting to drive away after “rolling” the exterior of Hughes’ home in toilet paper.
According to the Hall County Sheriff’s Office, 18-year-old Wallace, who was driving the pickup truck that struck Hughes, was charged with first-degree vehicular homicide. He was also charged with reckless driving, criminal trespass, and littering on private property. Law enforcement also arrested the four other teenagers with Wallace for criminal trespass and littering.
All suspects have since been released on bond.
Hughes’ family — along with the tight-knit Gainesville community of 43,000 — is now confronting the legal and emotional fallout of this heartbreaking accident.
On the evening of March 6, five of Hughes’ students TP’ed the exterior of the math teacher’s home, a prank described as “rolling.” Hughes' wife, Laura, stated that Hughes was expecting the teens and was playfully waiting to “catch” the pranksters.
Hughes came out of his home as the students were leaving in two vehicles. It was raining, and he tripped and fell in front of the vehicle Wallace was driving. Wallace inadvertently struck and ran over Hughes. Wallace and two others contacted emergency responders and tried to help Hughes, but he died later at the hospital.
Georgia defines homicide by vehicle (what other states label as vehicular manslaughter) as causing the death of another person through operating a motor vehicle. Depending on the circumstances of the death, Georgia categorizes vehicular homicide charges in two degrees:
Vehicular homicide does not require intent. This means that it does not matter that Wallace did not intend to kill or harm Hughes. Instead, prosecutors must prove that Wallace was somehow negligent or reckless when operating the vehicle.
If convicted of first-degree vehicular homicide, Wallace could face between three and 15 years in prison. Because he is 18, he will be tried as an adult.
Hughes’ family described him as a passionate teacher and coach who loved his students. He also reportedly led Bible studies for coaching staff, served as a mentor for students, and participated in a community service program.
According to the New York Times, Hughes’ wife, Laura, does not want the teens prosecuted for any crimes related to Hughes’ death. Hughes’ family “supports getting the charges dropped for all involved,” she said in a statement. “This is a terrible tragedy, and our family is determined to prevent a separate tragedy from occurring, ruining the lives of these students. This would be counter to Jason’s lifelong dedication of investing in the lives of these children,” she continued.
Crimes are considered offenses against the state, not just the individual. This gives prosecutors the sole authority to file and dismiss charges based on evidence — regardless of the family's wishes. While a prosecutor may consider a family’s requests, they ultimately have the discretion to prosecute or drop charges.
The most common reason a prosecutor will drop charges is due to insufficient evidence. If the evidence is not likely to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a prosecutor may dismiss a case that is unlikely to hold up in court.
Prosecutors may also drop charges if law enforcement commits procedural errors, such as unlawful searches or improper questioning.
Regardless of how the legal process unfolds, the circumstances of Hughes’ death will leave a lasting impact on the teens involved. While the family is determined to honor Hughes’ legacy with compassion rather than punitiveness, the outcome may hinge on whether the state believes it can prove the elements of first‑degree vehicular homicide in court.
The post Teen Charged With Vehicular Homicide After Tragic Prank Gone Wrong appeared first on .
]]>Many people assume that if they’re “defending themselves,” pulling out a gun is automatically allowed. But across the U.S., self‑defense is a limited legal justification, not a free pass: the moment your actions look more like sending a threat than stopping an imminent, serious one, you can slide from lawful defense into a criminal charge for brandishing a weapon or assault, sometimes without ever firing a shot.
When someone reaches for a gun in a tense moment, the law has to make a split-second judgment after the fact: was that a reasonable act of self-defense, or “brandishing a firearm”? In many jurisdictions, that line is thin, fact‑dependent, and far less intuitive than many gun owners think.
“Brandishing” is usually shorthand for unlawfully displaying a weapon in a threatening manner. Federal law defines it as making the presence of a firearm known “in order to intimidate” another person, whether or not they can see the gun itself.
States don’t always use the word “brandish” in their statutes, but they often criminalize the same conduct under labels like “assault with a deadly weapon,” “menacing,” or “disorderly conduct.”
The common thread is the message your actions send: if a reasonable person would see your movement with a gun as a threat rather than a safety measure, prosecutors may see a crime.
Self‑defense law focuses on whether you reasonably believed you faced an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and whether your response was necessary to stop that threat. In many states, that same standard applies to the display of a firearm (not just shooting it) as a defensive display to deter an attack.
“Stand‑your‑ground” and “castle doctrine” rules can expand when the use of deadly force is allowed by removing any duty to retreat from places you are lawfully allowed to be. In practical terms, that can make some people more willing to reach for a gun early in a confrontation, assuming the law will back them. But even in strong stand‑your‑ground states, prosecutors can and do charge people with aggravated assault or brandishing if they decide the threat was not serious enough to justify pulling a gun. The absence of a duty to retreat does not erase the requirement that the fear of harm be reasonable, specific, and imminent.
The same gesture (lifting a shirt to reveal a handgun) can be a crime or lawful self‑defense, depending on context. In a parking‑lot argument, it may be brandishing; when an aggressor advances after clear warnings, it may be a justified defensive display. Courts focus on words, distance, escalation, and whether a serious threat was imminent.
In states that allow open carry, just having a gun visible (in a holster on your belt or slung over your shoulder) is often lawful by itself. The line gets crossed when you move from mere possession to conduct that reasonably looks like a threat: waving the gun, touching or unholstering it during a confrontation, or making statements that link the weapon to a demand.
Then there’s “printing”: shorthand in the concealed carry world for when the outline of a concealed firearm shows through clothing, like a grip or slide that makes a visible bump under a T‑shirt. “Printing” isn’t a formal legal term, and most statutes don’t mention it at all.
Brandishing statutes usually require an intentional, threatening display, so incidental printing alone is generally not charged as brandishing. The legal risk comes if someone argues you intentionally exposed or highlighted the gun to intimidate, in which case a prosecutor may try to frame that as brandishing or improper exhibition under local law. But generally, the law cares more about whether you are using the gun as leverage in an interaction than about whether a careful observer could guess that you are carrying concealed weapons.
The consequences of misjudging the line can be severe once law enforcement and prosecutors get involved. In some states, brandishing can be a misdemeanor with mandatory jail time; in others, the same behavior is charged as felony assault with a deadly weapon. A conviction can mean years in prison, a permanent criminal record, and the loss of your right to possess firearms at all.
Civil liability can follow too. If someone alleges you caused a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm when you displayed a gun, they may pursue money damages even if no shot was fired. And because “intent” is often inferred from circumstances, your own belief that you were acting defensively is not always enough to avoid a conviction.
Takeaways for Gun Owners
For gun owners trying to stay on the right side of the law, the safest habits are simple. Don’t pull a gun to win an argument; keep it holstered unless there’s an imminent, serious threat. When it’s safe, set clear verbal boundaries first. Learn your state’s self-defense laws, and seek training on defensive display versus criminal brandishing.
If you have displayed or drawn a gun in a confrontation (even if no one was hurt) it is wise to consult a local criminal defense attorney familiar with self‑defense and firearms law. They can explain how your state defines brandishing, what defenses may be available, and how your actions are likely to be viewed by police, prosecutors, and juries.
The post Flashing a Gun: Self-Defense or ‘Brandishing’? appeared first on .
]]>A North Carolina mother was recently found alive and well after she “disappeared” 24 years ago. Michele Hundley Smith vanished in December 2001, never returning home from a Christmas shopping trip to K-Mart.
The Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office worked for 20 years to find Smith, with help from neighboring police departments and the NC State Bureau of Investigation. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also aided in the missing person investigation.
This missing persons case had a seemingly happy ending in February 2026 when local law enforcement met with Smith after receiving a tip regarding her whereabouts. But during this meeting, Smith asked officers to keep her location undisclosed.
Smith’s family, including her cousin and daughter who led the search for her, was notified that she was found safe. But, they were also informed that Smith didn’t want any contact with them. Despite the emotional toll on the family, police won’t force a once-lost-now-found adult to contact their loved ones.
This case has raised questions about the legal consequences of running away from your life. Do adults have the right to disappear, even when those who love them are left searching for answers?
Most missing persons reports — for both adults and children — start with the local police. Unlike what you see on TV and movies, there is no waiting period to report an adult missing. The longer an adult with a physical or mental illness is missing, the greater the safety risk.
Once an agency receives a missing persons report, it is responsible for investigating and tracking the case. In most cases, local law enforcement partners with federal agencies, such as the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Agencies also submit records of missing persons to the National DNA Index System (NDIS) and the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs).
Investigators review missing persons reports to assess for foul play and determine if the disappearance seems voluntary or involuntary. They attempt to locate the missing person in several ways, including:
According to NCIC’s 2024 year‑end report, more than 59,000 adults remained actively listed as missing nationwide.
Technically, yes. The act of "going missing" isn't a crime in itself. But depending on the situation, there may be legal ramifications for an adult voluntary disappearance. For example, an adult with no children, pets, debts, or pending criminal cases may be able to go incognito with no repercussions. But many adults do have responsibilities under the law, such as:
Abandoning these responsibilities can trigger very real consequences under family and criminal laws.
As discussed above, voluntarily going missing from your current life isn’t illegal — adults generally have the right to go off the grid. But these situations often involve acts of deception, which can lead to criminal charges, including:
Penalties for these charges above range from misdemeanor to felonies, depending on the scale of the deception or financial loss. Adult runaways can also face legal fallout in civil court.
Smith’s story of disappearance is not unique. Several missing adult cases have been resolved when individuals simply resurfaced years later. Just a couple of other examples of adult runaways include Wisconsin man Ryan Borgwardt, who staged his own disappearance and drowning death in an attempt to start a new life in Europe, and Jody Roberts, who was found in 1997 in Alaska with a new name and a new family.
Borgwardt was charged with a misdemeanor (obstructing an officer) and sentenced to 89 days in jail. He was also ordered to pay $30,000 to cover the costs of his missing person investigation.
Jody Roberts (now Jane Dee) was not charged with a crime relating to her voluntary disappearance. This may be because she claimed to have no memory of her life as Jody Roberts. In the first days after her 1985 disappearance from Tacoma, Washington, Roberts was found wandering a shopping mall in Aurora, Colorado. Roberts asked mall security for help, claiming she didn’t know her name or how she got there.
Professionals in a Colorado mental health institution attempted to restore her memories, even using sodium amytal, known as “truth serum,” to help Roberts remember who she was. Her healthcare providers diagnosed her with disassociative amnesia, which can be caused by severe psychological stress or trauma.
Sometimes, walking out the door and starting a new life sounds tempting. Adults who willingly disappear do so for several reasons. Crippling debt, overwhelming stress, or a romantic crisis — just to name a few — can make “disappearing” a tempting option. But while adults are free to leave their lives behind, it doesn’t always come without legal and emotional consequences.
The post When Missing Adults Don’t Want To Be Found: The Legal Fallout of a Staged Disappearance appeared first on .
]]>While air travel is a modern marvel, sitting in a smallish seat with limited legroom among hundreds of other people in a narrow metal tube for hours on end can be trying. It’s decidedly less fun when one of your fellow passengers decides to vent their displeasure in no uncertain terms.
That’s not exactly a revelation for the travellers on Etihad Airways Flight EY-5 on February 13, 2026. That’s because fellow passenger Sophiyaa Sahu allegedly spent close to 30 minutes of the 15-hour flight heading to Washington Dulles International Airport screaming expletives and physically assaulting two flight crew members. Although she calmed down after her tirade, the 40-year-old was taken into custody by law enforcement after arrival.
In a probable cause affidavit filed by an FBI Special Agent in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Sahu admits giving a “public speech” to the rest of the cabin but denies striking anyone. However, her account clashes with written statements provided by several passengers who claim to have witnessed her assaults.
Her future travel plans may be limited. In addition to assault charges, she faces up to 20 years in a federal prison for violating the law protecting flight crews from being attacked or interfering with their duties.
While the flight from Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) isn’t as long as the 19-hour slog between New York and Singapore, the 15 hours required for the trip is no quick ride on a puddle-jumper commuter flight either. A prolonged period crammed into an airline seat can fray anyone’s nerves, but losing your cool while in flight is not a great idea.
Any disruption in-flight can cause a disaster, and both the 9/11 attacks and a rise in aviation-related terrorist activity led to increases in safety and security measures. Air travellers can expect more thorough pre-flight boarding measures and enhanced penalties for those who intimidate, assault, or interfere with members of a plane’s flight crew. Purchasing a plane ticket is akin to entering into a contract with the carrier, with passengers expected to follow the rules as any reasonable person would.
According to the affidavit, Sahu may have skipped over reading the fine print. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, comparable in size and range to the Airbus A-350, was almost halfway through the scheduled flight when things went awry. A flight attendant was providing food and beverage service from a cart when Sahu began raising her voice at him. He asked her to calm down, but she kept yelling. When the flight attendant turned to move the cart away from her and up the aisle, Sahu allegedly kicked him in the hip area with her combat-style boots.
The attendant turned back around and attempted to verbally de-escalate the situation, at which point Sahu stood on her seat and screamed obscenities that included referring to the flight crew as “whores” and “motherf**kers.” After the attendant retrieved the flight manager, Sahu allegedly pushed the manager’s shoulder several times and slapped away her hand. The flight manager was prepared to use a restraint kit, but Sahu calmed down and remained in her seat for the rest of the flight. Upon landing, she was taken into custody.
In her discussions with the FBI agent, Sahu didn’t deny yelling at the flight crew (and everyone else), but insisted she didn’t strike anyone. The affidavit notes that several of her fellow passengers provided written statements indicating that she absolutely did. However, any federal assault charges might be the least of Sahu’s worries.
49 U.S.C. § 46504 specifies that, in addition to assault and intimidation, interfering with the duties of a flight crew member is a federal offense. There’s little to no question that Sahu’s behavior interrupted the food and beverage service being provided by the flight attendant. It’s a federal code with teeth, as Sahu faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted. That’s a long time to go between trips to the duty-free shop.
The post Mile-High Drama in the Unfriendly Skies as Passenger Is Arrested for Assaulting Flight Attendants appeared first on .
]]>A recent drug bust during a routine traffic stop in Upland, CA (near Los Angeles) by local law enforcement and a K9 unit seized 66 pounds of cocaine from a hidden compartment in a vehicle. While a cocaine seizure of this size may seem unique, it is a snapshot of a much larger surge happening across the nation.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has stated that after 2015, the amount of cocaine seizures has increased dramatically — a shift they have not seen occur with other drugs. They have also seen a similar increase in cocaine-related deaths. But why has cocaine made such a powerful comeback?
The 2025 World Drug Report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) shows that global cocaine production is soaring, reaching an all-time high in 2023. This reflects a decade-long upward trend driven by expanded cocaine cultivation and improved processing methods. The report highlights how cocaine trafficking networks have grown more sophisticated, with record cocaine seizures and major increases in availability across the globe.
This stark increase traces back to Colombia, where the end of aerial fumigation, the 2016 peace deal with the guerrilla group FARC, and a flawed crop‑substitution program created what researchers call “a perfect storm for coca’s resurgence.” This combination of factors prompted coca (the plant used to make cocaine) cultivation and potential output to more than triple by 2022.
As this expanded supply flowed into the U.S. and Europe, cocaine prices fell, and demand rose. And so did cocaine‑related deaths in the U.S.
Cocaine is highly addictive. The drug increases dopamine levels, a chemical messenger linked to pleasure and reward. A cocaine high can cause intense feelings of euphoria, energy, and alertness. Users often experience a sharp crash as they come off the drug.
This is why many cocaine users are repeat customers — meaning it is common for people to want to use cocaine again and again after they first experience its effects. With the growing cocaine supply making it more widely available, more users are finding it easier to keep using the drug. In turn, this creates new demand.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 28% of overdose deaths in 2023 involved cocaine. This equates to almost 30,000 deaths. These numbers rival the 35,000 methamphetamine-related overdose deaths for the same year.
Statistics from the CDC also reflect that drug overdose deaths disproportionately affect people of color, reporting increases in deaths across almost all racial and ethnic populations except non-Hispanic white people, who saw an 8% decrease.
The UNODC notes that it is becoming increasingly common for drug traffickers and street dealers to adulterate (mix) cocaine with synthetic opioids like fentanyl. This increases potency and, in turn, profit.
Because cocaine is a stimulant and fentanyl is a powerful nervous system depressant, this can create a deadly combination. Ingesting cocaine cut with fentanyl dramatically increases the risk of a fatal overdose. Many cocaine users are unaware that the drug they are purchasing and using is not pure cocaine.
The “cocaine boom” refers to the dramatic increase in illegal cocaine production and trade that began in the mid to late 1970s and peaked during the 1980s. This significant expansion of the cocaine trade was the result of sophisticated drug traffickers who smuggled cocaine into the United States from Latin America.
Colombian drug cartels (namely Pablo Escobar and the Medellín cartel) fueled the cocaine supply to U.S. markets, distributing to Miami, other parts of South Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, and California.
This explosion in cocaine use was a precursor to the crack cocaine epidemic and the U.S. government-sponsored “war on drugs.” In major cities like New York City, Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the cost of one crack cocaine dose was as little as $2.50 ($8 adjusted for inflation).
According to the DEA’s 2024 Annual Cocaine Report, Colombian cocaine still comprises the majority of the cocaine supply in the U.S.
Experts suggest the best way to curb the growing cocaine market is by applying supply-side pressure — especially in Colombia. Making it more difficult to produce cocaine will make it less desirable (and less profitable) for manufacturers to keep producing it. The end goal is to reduce cocaine availability and ultimately, overdose deaths.
The post America’s Cocaine Comeback: What’s Driving the Deadly Surge appeared first on .
]]>