Over five years after a deadly Louisiana State University fraternity hazing incident, a federal jury awards the parents of then 18-year-old Maxwell Gruver $6.1 million.¹ Gruver Family Attorney Don Cazayoux says, “[T]he verdict sends a strong message to hazers and would-be hazers.”¹

Max Gruver’s 2017 death was the result of a hazing ritual in which older fraternity brothers directed a series of Greek life-related questions at freshmen “pledges” including Max, punishing wrong answers with forced consumption of 190-proof liquor. Shortly after the hazing event, Max became unconscious and remained on a couch in the fraternity house for ten hours before being brought to the hospital. Upon arrival at the hospital, Max’s blood alcohol concentration was still .495 – over ten hours after the hazing had ended.¹ The cause of Max’s death was officially deemed acute alcohol intoxication with aspiration.

Last week’s verdict against defendant Ryan Isto, a fraternity brother, marked the final case following settlements against other defendants, including Phi Delta Theta fraternity and LSU since late 2017.² Max’s parents, Stephen and Rae Ann Gruver, have directed a portion of all settlement funds toward the Max Gruver Foundation, the pair’s nonprofit entity that spreads awareness and shapes public policy to prevent the dangers of hazing.³

The Gruver family’s hope is that the highly publicized verdict will prompt strengthening anti-hazing laws and will send a powerful message to young people who may be on the brink of life-altering decisions. The attorneys at Cazayoux Ewing Law Firm agree the latest verdict will be monumental in supporting their foundation’s mission.

“This is going to give the Gruvers another tool in their arsenal during their campaign to stop hazing,” explained Cazayoux.¹

When asked about what message this sends to current and future fraternity and sorority members, Cazayoux put it plainly: “The first message is, don’t do it [hazing] because you could hurt someone, you could kill someone.”²

In 2018, thanks to the advocacy efforts of the Gruver family, Louisiana Legislature passed the Max Gruver Act, officially making hazing a felony.⁴

[1]https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/family-of-lsu-fraternity-pledge-who-died-after-chugging-190-proof-liquor-in-hazing-ritual-gets-6-1-million-verdict/

[2]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lsu-fraternity-pledges-family-awarded-61m-hazing-related-death-rcna74894?fbclid=IwAR1WSfUK1_wgd4EXqAhDX3jfifv-V7q9_5iiAANXWXzr8BVS7uR0KPkxEho

[3]https://www.maxgruverfoundation.com/mission

[4]https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=79979

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

As a member of the National Association of Former United States Attorneys, we are proud to stand by the below statement made by the organization’s board of directors addressing the killing of George Floyd.

We are members of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Former United States Attorneys (NAFUSA). NAFUSA is a bipartisan group of more than 300 former United States Attorneys that was established in 1979 to protect and support the mission of United States Attorneys and to improve the administration of justice within the federal courts.

There can be no question that the horrific treatment and death of George Floyd is far outside the bounds of any civilized society. The police officer who suffocated Mr. Floyd and those officers who stood by and did not protect him have all been charged criminally. We firmly believe that all criminal defendants deserve the presumption of innocence; however, the video depiction of the events of that day makes it difficult to imagine any excuse for these officers.

Providing justice for Mr. Floyd and his family cannot be the end of the matter – it must be a beginning. Many African-Americans are exhausted from their long suffering and unfair treatment by those in society who see only their color and not their character. Racist and unlawful acts of violence against black men and women while in the custody of police officers must be exposed, challenged and prosecuted. It is untenable that a large part of our population fears physical harm and death from an encounter with law enforcement. Intimidation and fear imposed by any police officer on any person of color must end.

As former federal prosecutors, we recognize the challenges that police officers face as they protect our local communities. The overwhelming number of law enforcement officers are fair-minded and serve the public admirably. But many Americans, ourselves included, recognize that in the United States today justice is denied to far too many of our citizens. Any abuse or excessive force by law enforcement cannot be tolerated, because it is illegal and undermines the trust and faith we have in the administration of justice.

Our road to complete justice will be long and difficult, but the hallmark of America is its strong and compassionate people. We will never forget George Floyd and the injustice he suffered, and as former United States Attorneys, we are committed to achieving through the rule of law, and with compassion, a just society for all Americans.

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

Since the world embraced computers, connected via the internet, and converted mass amounts of sensitive data into digital form, several problems have arisen.  Hacking, identity theft, and manipulation of digital data plague businesses, consumers, and governments daily. It’s very difficult to trust and verify the identity of someone you’re conducting business with on another continent, that you’ll receive what they claim to be selling, and that your payment will get there securely and quickly.  

These problems slow commerce down and create costs, usually in the form of lawyers or other middle men doing the verification leg-work.  Blockchain technology helps eliminate concerns about hacking and trust, greatly reducing transaction costs and processing times.

Even if Bitcoin fizzles out tomorrow, the underlying blockchain technology is not only here to stay, but primed to grow exponentially…and soon.  You can look at Bitcoin like Myspace, one of the first social media platforms. Even though Myspace failed, the concept of social media lives on in countless other manifestations.  Many pundits believe blockchain technology will be “the next Internet.”

Smart Contracts

A “smart contract” is a commonly discussed application for blockchain technology.  A smart contract is automatically executed when certain predefined conditions occur (if X does Y, then execute Z).  Smart contracts theoretically allow individuals or companies to craft contracts with highly detailed conditions, but without the need for a legal document written by a lawyer.

Currently, if parties to a contract either don’t perform or don’t pay, the aggrieved party must sue the breaching party to get paid or get their money back.  This all costs time and money, even if the contract is honored.

The blockchain replaces lawyers and courts in a smart contract.  Let’s say I create a smart contract with the following conditions: I want 5 bushels of apples at a price of $200 delivered in 5 days.  Johnny Appleseed accepts and our smart contract becomes part of the blockchain, with its precise terms fixed and recorded across thousands of other computers.  Upon acceptance, $200 would automatically be deducted from my account, but not yet given to Johnny. If the apples arrive on the 5th day, that $200 automatically transfers to Johnny.  If Johnny fails to deliver on the 5th day, I automatically get my $200 back.

Additional conditions could also be built in, such as automatically giving me $10 from Johnny’s account if he fails to deliver by Day 5, charging either party $5 for backing out before Day 5, automatically refunding my account the price of however many apples he shorts me, etc.

The bitcoin blockchain does not have the capability to incorporate smart contracts; bitcoin was designed to only process payment transactions.  The second-most valuable cryptocurrency is called Ethereum; its blockchain was designed for monetary transactions, as well as smart contracts. Ethereum’s added functionality may give it an edge in the long run over bitcoin.

Research by Accenture estimates that investment banks alone could save up to $12 billion per year using blockchain and smart contracts for financial transactions.[1]  There will be many practical and legal kinks to work out before smart contracts gain widespread use, but businesses and consumers will certainly jump at the opportunity to avoid dealing with contract lawyers and the judicial system once a viable alternative presents itself.

Other Uses

Major players in the global food supply chain are poised to adopt blockchain, with IBM announcing a collaboration with several grocery chains and food suppliers such as Walmart, Kroger, Dole, and Tyson Foods.[2]  The goal is to streamline the entire process by securely and transparently tracking goods at every step, from the farmer to the store shelf.  Blockchain will reduce inefficiencies with ordering, shipping, and billing; most importantly, it will increase food safety by tracing sources of contamination, helping to quickly stem the spread of illness.

Coca Cola and the U.S. State Department are launching a project using blockchain’s digital ledger technology to create a secure registry for workers that will help fight the use of forced labor worldwide.[3]

Practically every industry is now analyzing how blockchain technology can reduce inefficiencies and establish trust through verification in a secure and transparent manner.  Blockchain has the potential to revamp even historically bureaucratic fields, such as healthcare, real estate, automotive/land title work, insurance, and the judicial system.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2017/11/21/smart-contracts-on-the-blockchain-can-businesses-reap-the-benefits/#6d23a8461074

[2] http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/53013.wss

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-blockchain-coca-cola-labor/coca-cola-u-s-state-dept-to-use-blockchain-to-combat-forced-labor-idUSKCN1GS2PY

Black Market + Money Laundering

An attractive feature of bitcoin is that while every transaction is transparent and public, the parties involved are anonymous.  If Party A transfers 3 bitcoin to Party B, they would only be identified by their bitcoin address or “public key.” A user’s “private key” serves as their signature or password and remains hidden.  However, no personally identifying information is necessary to complete the transaction.

Bitcoin was initially adopted by true believers of blockchain technology’s potential, but also by a less savory bunch.  Bitcoin’s anonymity and lack of regulation was enticing for criminals and those looking to fly under government radar.  Thus, bitcoin’s early days saw it become the lifeblood of the digital black market.  For several years, a criminal marketplace known as the Silk Road flourished on the “dark web.”  Before it was shut down in 2013, one could purchase illegal drugs, guns, child pornography, and even hire hit men.  During this time, 30% of all bitcoin transactions took place on the dark web, but now that number is down to 1%. Bitcoin was initially cheap and relatively stable, but this past year’s catapult to nearly $20,000 and subsequent volatility has led the criminal element to adopt other cryptocurrencies.  When the FBI shut down the Silk Road, they seized what is now worth $1.2 billion worth of bitcoin.

Increased government regulation is also making bitcoin less appealing for criminal transactions.  Most popular bitcoin exchanges now require identifying information to create accounts in order to comply with IRS regulations.  Although the public key may just be numbers without personal information, law enforcement has now developed methods of identifying users if necessary.

While criminal transactions using bitcoin have dropped, it is still an attractive option for money launderers.  New research shows bitcoin has led to a large upswing in money laundering.  Now that bitcoin is more mainstream, a growing number of real estate purchases are being made with bitcoin, offering ripe opportunities to convert illicit funds into legitimate assets and cash.  However, the law surrounding money laundering and bitcoin is still being settled, including whether it is subject to the same federal banking regulations as traditional currency.

Valuation 

Numerous factors make bitcoin an extremely risky investment.  Bitcoin was created out of thin air by computer code. Bitcoin has no underlying value, other than what people are willing to pay for it.  Its valuation isn’t tied to performance like a company’s stock price, but simply by the whims of market demand.

 Bitcoin’s recent roller coaster price changes have caught the attention of government regulators.  The wild west of bitcoin will likely soon be tamed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The uncertainty about future regulation and its effects will continue to fuel bitcoin’s volatility.

Another major issue for volatility are the exchanges where bitcoin is bought and sold.  One of the most popular, Coinbase, has experienced severe growing pains since demand ballooned so quickly.  At the height of the recent bitcoin boom, the Coinbase exchange crashed several times due to the volume of trading occurring.  With huge price swings occurring by the minute, the inability to sell for hours at a time caused many to lose thousands of dollars.

Competition

Bitcoin was the trailblazer of the cryptocurrency world, but there are now thousands of other cryptocurrencies and blockchain platforms.  Bitcoin also only serves a specific function – transferring money. Bitcoin cannot be rewritten now to include added functionality that other cryptocurrencies have added, like “smart contracts.”  This inflexibility may hurt bitcoin in the long run.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2018/03/21/how-new-ruling-will-curb-crypto-bitcoin-bubble/#699f9e42ae2b

http://fortune.com/2017/12/22/coinbase-bitcoin-crash/

Baton Rouge, La.,  August 16, 2018 – Today, the parents of Maxwell (Max) Gruver, the Louisiana State University (LSU) freshman who tragically died from alcohol poisoning as a result of hazing in 2017, filed a federal lawsuit against LSU, the local and national chapters of Phi Delta Theta, the housing corporation that owns Phi Delta Theta’s fraternity house at LSU, and members of the fraternity.  Max’s parents allege the hazing ritual that caused his death would never have taken place if LSU or Phi Delta Theta had responded appropriately to numerous complaints of hazing at Phi Delta Theta’s chapter at LSU in the years before Max’s death.

The Gruver family alleges in their lawsuit that LSU’s and Phi Delta Theta’s failure to end the tradition of hazing at the chapter was driven by a broken model of self-governance and outdated gender stereotypes about young men engaging in masculine rites of passage — in direct violation of Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination.  According to the family’s Complaint, because of LSU’s policy and practice of treating the hazing of male students less seriously than the hazing of female students, males participating in Greek Life face serious and substantial risks of injury and death, while female students pledging sororities do not.  LSU’s policy and practice meant that a sorority accused of hazing its pledges by making them sing songs and do sit-ups and putting whipped cream, syrup and eggs in their hair was given “Total Probation” by LSU – the most severe sanction LSU can impose, short of rescinding its recognition of the sorority – while Phi Delt’s chapter, which admitted to hazing in 2016, was only placed on interim suspension for a month.

“We refuse to accept that the events that caused Max’s death can be explained away as ‘boys being boys,’” said Mr. and Mrs. Gruver in a statement.  “That notion is deeply offensive and wrong-headed. LSU and Phi Delt knew dangerous hazing was taking place at Phi Delt’s LSU chapter for years, yet they continued to allow the chapter and its members to investigate and police themselves. This inaction allowed dangerous hazing traditions at the chapter to persist.  We’ve lost Max as result of those hazing traditions, and his loss has created a devastating impact that reaches not just us, but Max’s siblings, family, friends, and all who knew him.  Until institutions and national fraternities begin treating the hazing of young men as the serious offense that is, with real consequences for members and local chapters that engage in it, hazing and other dangerous misconduct at fraternities will continue.  And each year, more families like ours will have to suffer through these horrific tragedies.”

“Every year, and for decades, young men have died or suffered traumatic injuries pledging fraternities that are dangerous, yet glowingly promoted with false and misleading information by the partnerships between fraternities and universities,” said Douglas Fierberg, legal counsel for the Gruver family.  “A central purpose of this lawsuit is to compel LSU, Phi Delta Theta and other universities to eliminate dangerous hazing traditions, end the killing of young men, and stop lying to students and families who have the right to know information that may save lives.”

To learn more about this case and the Gruver’s fight to stop hazing, please visit The Max Gruver Foundation.

You’ve likely heard Bitcoin discussed on the news recently.  At one point, Bitcoin skyrocketed to $19,000 in a matter of weeks, only to plummet in value shortly thereafter (it’s valued around $8,000 as of 4/18/18).  It’s not unheard of for its value to fluctuate 20-30% daily. Bitcoin will likely remain a highly volatile investment as the general public, Wall Street, and world governments come to terms with it.  So what exactly is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin was invented in 2009 to be a new, purely digital currency (known as a cryptocurrency).  Satoshi Nakamoto developed bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system allowing online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.[1]  Satoshi Nakamoto’s true identity is a mystery, as this name is widely believed to be a pseudonym.  Whoever Nakamoto is, he or she is a billionaire. When bitcoin’s value surged to $19,000, this anonymous owner of 980,000 bitcoins was worth $19.4 billion.[2]

What differentiates bitcoin from traditional currency is its decentralized design.  It is not created and distributed by a central authority, in the way the US Federal Reserve and other central banks mint and control their currencies.  The bitcoin system is maintained by an open network of computers spread around the world.[3]  Central banks can manipulate their currency’s value relative to others by controlling its supply.  Since Bitcoin isn’t controlled by a single entity, its value cannot be manipulated by fluctuations in supply.  The supply of bitcoin is tightly regulated by its underlying algorithm, only releasing a few bitcoin each hour.  People can “mine” bitcoin by using specialized computers to solve highly complex mathematical equations, which verify and authenticate each bitcoin transaction.  Bitcoin is the reward for performing this service, a self-sustaining incentive helping maintain the integrity of the bitcoin system.

The mechanism for recording each bitcoin transaction is also very unique.  A financial institution or bank maintains a ledger of all their client’s transaction records, likely stored on a centralized computer server.  However, every single bitcoin transaction is stored publicly on a massive, decentralized, and continuously updating digital ledger – collectively known as the “blockchain.”  After each encrypted transaction is authenticated (in the “mining” process), the record of that transaction is added to a “block” – which is comprised of other authenticated transactions bundled together.  That “block” is then added to the end of the existing “chain.”

As the “blockchain” continues building upon itself, you can’t go back and edit blocks in the chain to alter previous transactions.[4]  Tampering with the blockchain is nearly impossible.  To alter the target transaction, you’d have to change every single transaction that followed as well.  

There are certainly some problems bitcoin’s facing (discussed in The Downside of Bitcoin), but regardless of its success or failure, “blockchain” technology has immense potential (discussed in The Future of Blockchain).

[1] Bitcoin Whitepaper, https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[2] https://qz.com/1159188/bitcoin-price-approaches-20000-making-satoshi-nakamoto-worth-19-4-billion/

[3] https://www.coindesk.com/information/what-is-bitcoin/

[4] https://www.cnet.com/news/blockchain-explained-builds-trust-when-you-need-it-most/

Keeping pace with technological changes, the Supreme Court ruled on June 22, 2018 that the government is now required to issue a warrant to obtain cell phone records containing cell phone tower location data, including other types of digital data that provides a detailed look at a person’s private life. However, the Court carved out specific exceptions, including bomb threats, child abductions, and other incidences when inaction could result in irreparable harm.  

The Fourth Amendment allows law enforcement to retrieve necessary records, including but not limited to, location data, cell phone records, bank records, etc. when probable cause is shown. The new ruling may slow down law enforcement’s capacity to turn over cases due to the new litigation required to access such records; however, the Court’s ruling is a significant victory for privacy rights advocates. Read more on the matter here.