VoteKansas.org

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sales of new homes fell in March by the largest amount in more than a year, indicating that the U.S. housing market remains under strain despite some modest signs of improvement.

The Commerce Department said Tuesday that sales dropped 7.1 percent in March to a seasonally adjusted ...

SANFORD, Fla. — While George Zimmerman is free on bail, the police chief criticized for not charging him after Trayvon Martin's slaying remains under scrutiny, as city commissioners want to wait for the results of a federal investigation to decide if they will accept Chief Bill Lee's resignation.

It could ...

DETROIT (AP) — Vance Terrell offered encouraging words to his pregnant sister during visits to a western Michigan hospital. It didn't matter that she couldn't see or hear him and would never hold her twin sons.

Christine Bolden, 26, was already brain dead from aneurysms, but doctors kept her on ...

Petitions to watch | Conference of April 27, 2012:

Virginia v. Banks
Docket: 11-1071
Issue(s): Whether the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of a pistol in a coat belonging to a suspect properly arrested for a felony, when the officers took control of the coat solely for the purpose of giving it to the suspect to protect him from the elements, and when the trial court expressly found that the officers acted in good faith, and that the search of the coat was conducted for the officers’ safety and not for the purpose of obtaining evidence of criminal activity.

Have a dozen issue appellate argument this afternoon in a murder case.

The legislature did not clearly overrule the common law that a homeowner may resist an unlawful entry into his home. Defendant was charged with obstruction after struggling with police officers who entered his house. The state carries the burden of showing that the officers entered legally. People v. Moreno, 2012 Mich. LEXIS 463 (April 20, 2012):

In this case, we review whether defendant was properly charged with resisting and obstructing a police officer under MCL 750.81d after defendant struggled with officers who had entered his home unlawfully. To resolve this issue, we must address whether MCL 750.81d abrogates the common-law right to resist illegal police conduct, including unlawful arrests and unlawful entries into constitutionally protected areas. We conclude that the statute did not abrogate this right.

While the Legislature has the authority to modify the common law, it must do so by speaking in "no uncertain terms." Neither the language of MCL 750.81d nor the legislative history of this statute indicates with certainty that the Legislature intended to abrogate the common-law right to resist unlawful arrests or other invasions of private rights. We cannot presume that the Legislature intended to abrogate this right. Therefore, we overrule People v Ventura, 262 Mich App 370, 686 NW2d 748 (2004), to the extent that it held that the Legislature affirmatively chose to modify the traditional common-law rule that a person may resist an unlawful arrest. Because the Court of Appeals in this case relied on Ventura and extended its holding to the context of illegal entries of the home, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this matter to the trial court. On remand, we instruct the trial court to grant defendant's motion to quash the charges on the basis of its ruling that the officers' conduct was unlawful.

. . .

In this case, the Court of Appeals held that "[t]he fact that defendant refused entry to the officers unless they obtained a search warrant is indicative of defendant's knowledge of their status as police officers and that they were engaged in the performance of their official duties." There is no question that defendant knew that the men at his door were police officers. However, the officers wanted to enter defendant's home without a warrant, and one of the officers physically prevented defendant from closing the door to his home. Accordingly, defendant's refusal to allow the officers into his home is not conclusive of whether defendant had reasonable cause to know that the officers were "engaged in the performance of their official duties." Consistently with the common-law rule, we conclude that the prosecution must establish that the officers' actions were lawful.

. . .

IV. CONCLUSION

While the Legislature has the authority to modify the common law, it must do so by speaking in "no uncertain terms." Neither the language of MCL 750.81d nor the legislative history of this statute indicates with certainty that the Legislature intended to abrogate the common-law right to resist unlawful arrests or other unlawful invasions of private rights. We cannot presume that the Legislature intended to abrogate this right. Therefore, we overrule Ventura to the extent that it held that the Legislature affirmatively chose to modify the traditional common-law rule that a person may resist an unlawful arrest.

There is a lot to be said for making the police think twice before a spurious entry into somebody's house, and that's what the common law does.

WASHINGTON — A group of high-tech tycoons wants to mine nearby asteroids, hoping to turn science fiction into real profits.

The mega-million dollar plan is to use commercially built robotic ships to squeeze rocket fuel and valuable minerals like platinum and gold out of the lifeless rocks that routinely whiz ...

America is peaceful. No, really.

Though Hollywood and the news media often portray the nation as a chaotic crucible of gangsters and crime, the U.S. is more "peaceful" now than in the past two decades. So says the United States Peace Index, released Tuesday by the Institute for Economics & ...