During the coronavirus pandemic, the federal government has taken significant actions to try and cushion the hard impacts of the economic crisis.  With over 11 trillion dollars available through a variety of federal assistance programs, federal investigators and prosecutors have identified several cases where these funds have been fraudulently obtained.

One way the federal government has responded to the economic challenges of the COVID crisis is through the Paycheck Protection Plan. The purpose of the PPP loan program is to allow small businesses to stay open during this unprecedented financial crisis and continue paying wages to employees. An Arkansas woman was indicted by a grand jury for allegedly requesting fraudulent PPP loans.³ She obtained nearly $2 million in PPP loans for two of her companies that were no longer in good standing with the Arkansas Secretary of State. Two days after receiving PPP funds, she made an $8,000 payment on her student loan debt.

A Los Angeles man has also been reported misappropriating PPP loans totaling $9 million. Andrew Marnell allegedly transferred millions of obtained funds to his brokerage account in order to engage in stock trading. Additionally, Marnell also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at the Bellagio Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. Marnell was charged with bank fraud and faces up to 30 years in prison.⁴

Besides attempting to spot and stop abuse of the federal programs connected to the crisis, federal investigators have also been active in attempting to identify and curtail crimes where consumer fears about COVID have been exploited. A federal grand jury indicted Huu Tieu for alleged mail fraud for introducing a misbranded drug into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud.⁵ Tieu is the CEO of Golden Sunrise Pharmaceutical Inc., which since April had been selling a package of herbal mixtures that he claimed could treat COVID-19. On his website and Facebook pages, Tieu falsely claimed his dietary supplement was the first in the country to have been approved by the FDA to treat COVID-19.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Kentucky filed a lawsuit to shut down six websites and a Facebook page that were attempting to “pre-register” consumers for a then-nonexistent COVID-19 vaccine in exchange for $100 worth of Bitcoin.⁶ Luke John Flint, the man responsible for running the sites, has not yet been criminally charged, but agreed to sign a civil injunction shutting down those sites. At the time, there was no known vaccine. Flint is not a licensed medical professional, nor is he registered with the FDA to distribute the currently available vaccines for COVID-19.

In an attempt to keep the economy afloat and businesses solvent during the COVID health crisis, the government fast-tracked its economic aid. This made it easier for people to misrepresent intentionally and unintentionally to receive government assistance.  Others have used this public health crisis and the fears associated with it to scam people and businesses. If you have been a victim of a COVID-related scam, you should contact the National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721 or Justice.gov/DisasterComplaintForm. If you are approached by law enforcement or others about disaster assistance you have obtained, you should consult an experienced criminal defense lawyer about the ramifications of cooperating with officials under your unique circumstances.

__________

¹https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/press-release/file/1263416/download

²https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-man-charged-with-with-billing-for-fraudulent-test-claims.html

³https://www.justice.gov/usao-edar/pr/little-rock-woman-charged-covid-relief-fraud

⁴https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/west-la-man-charged-fraudulently-obtaining-about-9-million-covid-relief-loans-some#:~:text=LOS%20ANGELES%20%E2%80%93%20A%20resident%20of,excursions%20to%20Las%20Vegas%20and

⁵https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/tulare-county-man-indicted-falsely-marketing-herbal-mixtures-fda-approved-treatment

⁶https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdky/pr/us-attorney-s-office-shuts-down-multiple-websites-claiming-offer-preorders-covid-19

⁷https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/covid-19-pfizer-biontech-etr.html#:~:text=On%20December%2011%2C%202020,of%20COVID%2D19.

⁸https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/moderna-covid-19-vaccine

In recent years, there has been a surge in popularity in the use of vaping devices for the consumption of tobacco and marijuana. E-cigarettes or “vapes” come in many shapes and styles, but they generally consist of a battery that heats liquid containing nicotine or marijuana to produce vapor. The liquid is commonly contained in pre-filled cartridges or pods that attach to the battery and heating element. Vaping has been touted as a safer and healthier alternative to smoking cigarettes because it doesn’t involve inhaling the burnt tobacco or other carcinogens and chemicals contained in cigarettes.  However, there has recently been a surge in lung illnesses associated with vaping that has caused alarm across the country.

Federal data shows that there have been 1,888 cases in the US of vaping-related lung illness.^[1] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there have been 37 deaths confirmed in 24 states. According to the FDA, patients have reported a gradual start of symptoms, including breathing difficulty, shortness of breath, and/or chest pain before hospitalization. Some cases reported mild to moderate gastrointestinal illness including vomiting and diarrhea, or other symptoms such as fevers or fatigue.^[2]

Although these numbers may be small in comparison to those associated with the damage inflicted by traditional smoking, they have been enough to catch the attention of Washington D.C. President Donald Trump is expected to finalize plans with the FDA in the upcoming week to ban all flavored vaping products, with the exception of tobacco and menthol flavors.^[3] While the impetus for putting this plan into action may have been related to the widespread media reports about the vaping illnesses, it’s possible the intended target of the flavor regulation is to curb the explosion of youth vaping.

Based on the preliminary research regarding the culprit causing the harm, it is not clear the new FDA regulations on flavor restrictions will have any effect on preventing the vaping lung illnesses.^[4]  Data on the affected individuals shows the illness has been associated with those using vaping devices containing marijuana/THC. These THC-containing cartridges are also coming from black market sources, as opposed to legal marijuana dispensaries.

The FDA has hypothesized that Vitamin E acetate, which is used as a thickening agent in these black market products, may be what is causing the harm. The FDA has opened a criminal investigation alongside the Drug Enforcement Agency to track down anyone manufacturing illicit and adulterated vaping products. While the FDA appears to be enacting policy only prohibiting the usage of flavors, certain states have taken more aggressive approaches.  Massachusetts enacted a four-month ban on all vaping products. Juul, one of the most well-known vaping manufacturers, has already restricted its sales to only the flavors of tobacco, menthol, and mint.

While the recent outbreak of lung illness has been primarily linked to black market THC products, the publicity these cases have received has led to regulation by the federal government as well as some state governments. As of now, Louisiana has not enacted any form of a ban on vaping products. It remains to be seen how effective the new FDA regulations will be at curbing youth vaping or this new illness and whether they may become more expansive in the future.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/09/07/what-we-know-about-mysterious-vaping-linked-illnesses-deaths/

[2] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/lung-illnesses-associated-use-vaping-products

[3] https://www.axios.com/trump-ban-flavored-vaping-products-4830652d-af8d-4c84-81b0-2174e9ad3344.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twsocialshare&utm_campaign=organic

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/09/07/what-we-know-about-mysterious-vaping-linked-illnesses-deaths/

Distracted driving is something that many of us have found ourselves guilty of at one point in time. There are numerous sources of distraction that can take our attention away from the road, such as talking on the phone, texting, adjusting the radio, using a GPS, applying makeup, eating, dealing with unruly kids in the backseat, etc. Regardless of the type of distraction, anything that takes our focus away from driving increases our chances of being involved in an accident. This article will take a look at the effects of distracted driving and analyze Louisiana’s laws regarding cell phone use.

The latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows there were 3,477 people killed and an estimated additional 391,000 injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers in 2015.[1] This means that 10% of all fatal crashes in 2015 were related to distracted driving. Additionally, 15% of crashes resulted in injuries and 14% of all crashes reported to police involved distracted drivers. And 9% of drivers, ages 15 to 19 years old involved in fatal crashes were reported as distracted at the time of the crash. This age group has the largest proportion of drivers who were distracted at the time of a fatal crash.

The subset of distracted driving that has received the most attention in recent years is cell phone usage; as a result, you’ll find many ad campaigns trying to bring awareness to fatal accidents caused by someone in the middle of sending a text message. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers texting the most dangerous distraction. Sending or reading a text takes your eyes off the road for 5 seconds; at 55 mph, that’s like driving the length of an entire football field with your eyes closed.[2]  More than one-third of people surveyed admit to reading a text or email while driving in the past 30 days, and more than one-quarter admit to sending a text or email.[3]

Although texting while driving has been getting the most attention recently, studies show that people talking on a cell phone are involved in more crashes than those texting. In 2010, an estimated minimum of 160,000 crashes involved texting or emailing, compared to 1.1 million crashes involving talking on cell phones.[4]  

One study indicated crash risk was two to six times greater when drivers were using a cell phone compared to when they were not distracted.[5] The NHTSA estimates that at any point during the day, 9% of drivers are using cell phones.[6] In 2016, the National Occupant Protection Use Survey found that handheld cell phone use continued to be higher among female drivers than male drivers; it also found that handheld cell phone use continued to be highest among 16- to 24-year-old drivers, and lowest among drivers 70 and older.[7] However, one study showed a bit of good news, a sign that awareness campaigns about cell phone use may be working: the percentage of passenger vehicle driver handheld cell phone use decreased from 3.8 percent in 2015 to 3.3 percent in 2016.[8]

Now that you know the extent of the danger involving cell phone usage while driving, here are the laws the state of Louisiana has enacted to combat this distraction:

1. Anyone with a learner’s permit may not talk on the phone at any time unless its use is for emergency purposes.[9]  
2. For all other drivers, you may legally talk on your cell phone even if you are not using a hands-free device unless you are in a school zone.[10]  If you are driving in a school zone, you may not engage in a call.
3. It is illegal for any driver in Louisiana to write, read, or send a text message while driving; it is also illegal to access, read, or post to a social networking site.[11]  Under this statute, you will not be found in violation if you are reading, selecting, or entering a phone number or name in your phone; it is also not a violation if you are navigating using a GPS.
4. In addition to being considered a moving violation, the penalties for texting/using social media or using a phone while in a school zone are the following:
   1. Up to $500 for a first offense
   2. Up to $1,000 for each subsequent offense
   3. If involved in a crash at the time, double the standard offense

In today’s world, distractions are all too common while driving. However, no matter how good of a driver or multitasker you think you are, it’s smart to minimize distractions as much as possible and devote your attention to the road so that you (or someone else) don’t become one of these statistics.

[1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812381

[2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving

[3] https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/Documents/DistractedDrivingDocuments/Cognitive-Distraction-White-Paper.pdf?ver=2018-03-09-130423-967

[4] https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/Documents/DistractedDrivingDocuments/Cognitive-Distraction-White-Paper.pdf?ver=2018-03-09-130423-967

[5] https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/distracted-driving/qanda

[6] https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/Documents/DistractedDrivingDocuments/Cognitive-Distraction-White-Paper.pdf?ver=2018-03-09-130423-967

[7] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812426

[8] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812426

[9] http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=630882

[10] http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=918939

[11] http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=630881

Uber, Lyft, and other ride-sharing services have become widely used in recent years. As a cheaper and more user-friendly alternative to taxi cabs, Uber has become the go-to service for a trip to the airport or a ride home when you’ve had a few drinks. The vast majority of Uber rides will result in arriving at your destination without incident. But what happens if your Uber driver gets into a wreck and you suffer an injury?

Uber and Lyft provide its drivers with third-party liability coverage up to at least $1 million per accident.¹ This means that if your Uber/Lyft driver is at fault, this insurance will cover liability for any damages to a third party such as the passenger. Uber also provides uninsured or underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage to its drivers. This covers any passenger in the vehicle when another driver is at fault, but that driver doesn’t have sufficient insurance coverage for your injuries. This coverage also applies to hit-and-runs where the at-fault driver is never identified.

So, if you are injured during an accident where your driver is at fault in Louisiana, both Uber and Lyft have a policy through the James River Insurance Company that covers your injuries for up to $1 million.² It is important that you contact a lawyer to ensure the proper party is sued.³ You don’t necessarily sue just the at-fault driver. Your lawyer would also send a letter to Uber and your driver instructing them to preserve evidence, requiring them to save all data or information related to your ride.

When another driver is at fault, you would first determine if the other driver’s insurance policy can cover your damages. If your injuries are serious and the other driver’s policy cannot cover the medical costs, then Uber and Lyft both have policies through the James River Insurance Company that could cover you up to $1 million.

If you get into a wreck while in an Uber, here are some recommended steps to follow that will assist your injury claims:

•     Call 911 and take pictures of the wreck, including the license plates of all vehicles involved.
•     Take down the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of any potential witnesses to the              crash.
•     Write down the name of your Uber driver and the other driver.
•     Take screenshots on your phone of the Uber ride and receipt.
•     Finally, if you are injured or incur any medical bills, hire an attorney to handle your personal injury        claims.

We understand it might be intimidating to take legal action against a large corporate entity like Uber, but you are not alone. With the help of legal assistance, people hurt by negligent drivers have been successful in recovering damages from Uber and other rideshare companies.

[1]https://www.uber.com/drive/insurance/ https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013080548-Insurance-Policy

[2]https://www.uber.com/newsroom/an-update-on-insurance/

[3]http://time.com/money/4851877/my-uber-got-into-a-wreck-can-i-sue/

Louisiana holds the unfortunate title of having the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world.¹  Being the number one incarcerator takes a toll on the state’s resources; Louisiana spent $625 million on adult corrections in 2017.²  With the hope of shedding that ranking and its associated costs, the Louisiana legislature passed a sweeping criminal justice reform package, which Governor John Bel Edwards signed into law.  The amended criminal laws aim to decrease our prison population and government spending, primarily by:

• Reducing sentences and probationary periods for certain crimes
• Easing eligibility requirements for drug court, reentry programs, probation, or suspension of sentence
• Reducing sentencing enhancements for habitual offenders
• Changing the calculation of “good time” credit for prisoners

Sentencing Guidelines

The justice reform package changed the sentencing guidelines for many non-violent felonies.³  Several of the maximum sentences were reduced and some mandatory minimum sentences were eliminated.  A few examples:

• The mandatory minimum sentence for “Felon in possession of a firearm” was reduced from 10 years to 5 years.⁴
• “Money laundering” more than $100,000 was reduced from a 5 – 99 year sentence to 2 – 50 years.⁵
• The maximum sentence for “Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle” was reduced from 10 years to 2 years.⁶
• Simple arson no longer has a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years, with a new sentencing range of 0 – 15 years.⁷

Louisiana’s “Theft” statute bases the severity of punishment on the value of the property stolen. The new law adjusted the dollar value ranges, making some of the penalties more lenient.⁸  For example, a theft under $750 formerly resulted in a zero to six month sentence (misdemeanor) and anything more than that amount was a felony.  Now, the misdemeanor/theft threshold has been raised to $1,000.  Other similar statutes that use this dollar amount threshold followed the same pattern: issuing worthless checks⁹, residential contractor fraud10, access device fraud11, and organized retail theft12, to name a few.

Probation, “Good Time,” and Parole

The changes to the criminal code expanded the ability of judges to suspend a sentence for certain crimes, placing the defendant on probation rather than in prison.13  Defendants charged with drug-related crimes are now eligible for substance abuse probation programs.  Also, entry into the drug division probation program was expanded to permit defendants charged with a crime of violence, as long as the crime was not against a family member or dating partner and does not carry a maximum sentence over 10 years.

Inmates will now earn “good time” more easily, which is a way for them to earn credit toward an earlier release from prison.  For non-violent and non-sex offenses, the new changes increase “good time” to a rate of 13 days for every 7 served, or an extra 130 days annually shaved off their sentence.  Certain inmates can reduce their prison time by participating in educational programs, drug programs, and work programs.

The new law changes the time the defendant must serve prior to becoming eligible for parole. Now, for non-violent crimes and non-sex offense crimes, defendants are parole eligible once 25 percent of their sentence has been served, including those sentenced as a non violent habitual offender.  Upon a first conviction for a crime of violence, a defendant with no prior sex crime convictions will be eligible for parole once 65 percent of the sentence is served.

Sentencing Enhancements for Habitual Offenders

Due to Louisiana’s habitual offender statute, a defendant convicted of a felony can receive a significantly enhanced sentence if they have a prior felony conviction.  Those enhancements are no longer quite as harsh.14  The mandatory minimum sentences have been reduced.  Also, for certain felonies, the “cleansing period” has been shortened from 10 years to 5 years.  The “cleansing period” means that after a certain amount of time has passed, prosecutors can no longer use a defendant’s previous convictions against him.

Conclusion

This article is merely a brief overview of what Louisiana’s criminal justice reform package entails.  The changes made to our criminal statutes were vast, but also highly specific depending on the crime. The date when certain aspects begin to take effect and to whom they apply will also vary person to person.  If you believe these changes may affect the charges you or a loved one face, or if they may affect your sentence or probation, do not hesitate to contact the Cazayoux Ewing Law Firm.  As former federal prosecutors, these experienced attorneys understand the nuances of the changes to our criminal law and will provide you with a tailored analysis of your situation.

[1] http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/louisiana_incarceration_rate.html

[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/16/louisiana-has-the-highest-incarceration-rate-in-th/

[3] Act 281/S.B. 220, 2017 Regular Session – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1051860

[4] (La. R.S. 14:95.1) – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78740

[5] (La. R.S. 14:230) – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78382

[6] (La. R.S. 14:68.4) – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78631

[7] (La. R.S. 14:52) – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78556

[8] (La. R.S. 14:67) – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78605

[9]  (La. R.S. 14:71) – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78645

[10] (La. R.S. 14:202.1) – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=508538

[11] (La. R.S. 14:70.4) – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78642

[12] (La. R.S. 14:67.25) – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=451833

[13] Act 280/S.B. 139, 2017 Regular Session – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1051859

[14] Act 282/S.B. 221, 2017 Regular Session – http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1051861

Silicon Valley’s amazing technology has made our lives easier. Voice assistants like Amazon’s Alexa can tell us the weather, play our favorite music on command, and add grocery items to our shopping lists. With the tap of a button, we can catch a ride using the Uber app. Countless other products offer similar conveniences and provide greater simplicity to our lives. However, this added convenience comes with strings attached.

By using these products, we generate vast amounts of data. These giant tech companies store that information to improve their products (and their targeted advertising). This data is increasingly entering the crosshairs of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes. By putting enough pieces of your digital footprint together, law enforcement can generate a pretty complete picture of a person’s life.

Law enforcement is relying more and more on digital evidence because of how enlightening (or incriminating) this information can be. Warrants for a cell phone search are commonplace in today’s world, but as Silicon Valley develops newer products, law enforcement sees additional opportunities to gather evidence.

Recently, police in Arkansas turned their sights on an Amazon Echo smart speaker found in a murder suspect’s home. The Amazon Echo has a built-in microphone that is always listening, waiting for the user to issue a command. According to Amazon, the speaker only starts recording once it hears “Alexa.” Amazon stores the recorded commands or questions that follow in a database to improve its voice-recognition accuracy.

Police issued Amazon a search warrant for any data the speaker may have recorded on the night of the murder. Since a judge signed off on the warrant, Amazon became the last line of defense against turning over the data. Amazon refused to grant the request, citing the privacy concerns of its customers.

The murder suspect ultimately granted Amazon his consent to provide the data, moving the resolution of this legal showdown to another day. While Amazon was likely more concerned about future customer’s fear of losing their privacy, the takeaway is that this data may be easily obtainable if the company possessing it complies with the request.

The focus of this case was past data already recorded and stored, but something to consider is the possibility of tapping into the Amazon Echo’s microphone in real time. Law enforcement can obtain judicial authorization for a wiretap of a suspect’s electronic communications. Any internet-connected smart device with a microphone can theoretically be remotely activated without the user knowing, creating a bugging device. On a scarier note, hackers have demonstrated the ability to do this with ease. The average citizen probably has nothing to worry about, but public figures, politicians, journalists, etc. may want to weigh whether the convenience of these devices is worth the privacy risks they pose.

Another recent target of law enforcement has been data generated by Uber riders and drivers. Just as in the Amazon case, a judge approved the subpoena for these records. The likely trend will be that judges grant these requests with regularity. One can imagine these records being requested in a divorce or custody proceeding, revealing a spouse’s habitual Uber rides from the bar or to his or her paramour’s house.

Technology will continue to progress and tech companies will continue to vacuum up more and more data about our daily lives. It’s possible we may never be able to delete that data, or only with varying degrees of difficulty. When enjoying the conveniences of Silicon Valley technology, it must always be assumed a detailed trail will be left behind.

Original post: Louisiana Record on March 10, 2017 by Michael Abella

LAFAYETTE – A Lafayette Parish resident alleges she was injured in a motor vehicle accident with a federal employee.

Crystal Gerard filed a complaint on March 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division against the United States of America alleging that the government entity failed to perform its obligations.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Jan. 29, 2015, she filed a Federal Tort Claim Act claim against defendant due to an injury she allegedly sustained in a vehicular accident caused by Robert Bannon, an employee of defendant’s Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. As a result of the accident, she alleges she has suffered physical and mental pain, lost wages and medical expenses.

The plaintiff holds United States of America responsible because on Sept. 26, 2016, the Office of the General Counsel for the Department of Agriculture allegedly denied to pay her claim.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against defendant in an amount which is just and reasonable in the premises, plus interest, all costs of these proceedings and all other relief that may be just and equitable. She is represented by Donald J. Cazayoux Jr. and J. Lane Ewing Jr. of Cazayoux Ewing LLC in Baton Rouge and Yul D. Lorio and Kevin P. Tauzin of Tauzin & Lorio, Attorney at Law in Lafayette.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division Case number 6:17-cv-00348

Recent storms in Louisiana have led to severe flooding and widespread devastation. The area has been named a federal disaster area, as thousands of homeowners are stranded in the waters with nowhere to go. However, residents of East Baton Rouge, Tangipahoa, Livingston, and St. Helena parishes may be able to acquire temporary housing and other benefits from FEMA.

There are currently no Disaster Recovery Centers open, as efforts are focusing on search and rescue operations, but you can apply for the numerous forms of federal assistance available at https://www.disasterassistance.gov/. You may also call FEMA directly at (800) 621-3362.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Justice Department officials in Baton Rouge last week. The meeting was possibly to discuss ways for police and the communities they serve, according to former U.S. Attorney Don Cazayoux, of the Cazayoux Ewing Law Firm.

Cazayoux says that the Attorney General may be trying to understand the way communities are policed in light of Baton Rouge’s recent police tragedies. On July 5th, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police officers while numerous bystanders filmed the incident. Days later, on the 17th, three Baton Rouge police officers were killed by a shooter. With similar events in St. Paul and Dallas, July has been a tense month for the relationship between police and minority communities.

Cazayoux believes that these issues were a primary topic of discussion during the AG’s visit. Learn more about Mr. Cazayoux’s input here.