VoteKansas.org

The movement by U.S. food corporations toward more humane treatment of animals experienced a whopper of a shift Wednesday when Burger King announced that all of its eggs and pork will come from cage-free chickens and pigs by 2017.

The decision by the world's second-biggest fast-food restaurant raises the bar ...

ST. LOUIS (AP) — St. Louis police have issued arrest warrants for the father and paternal grandmother of a 5-year-old boy taken from a hospital where he was on a heart transplant waiting list.

The department issued a statement Wednesday saying it had issued felony warrants for kidnapping, interfering with ...

DNA testing of arrestees violates the Fourth Amendment, applying a balancing test. King v. State, 2012 Md. LEXIS 211 (April 24, 2012):

Although previously we upheld the constitutionality of the Act, as applied to convicted felons, in State v. Raines, 383 Md. 1, 857 A.2d 19 (2004), the present case presents an extension of the statute, not present in Raines. Thus, we evaluate here rights given to, and withdrawn from, citizens who have been arrested, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the totality of the circumstances balancing test, see Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S. Ct. 587, 151 L. Ed. 2d (2001), we conclude, on the facts of this case, that King, who was arrested, but not convicted, at the time of his first compelled DNA collection, generally has a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches that is not outweighed by the State's purported interest in assuring proper identification of him as to the crimes for which he was charged at the time. The State (through local law enforcement), prior to obtaining a DNA sample from King following his arrest on the assault charges, identified King accurately and confidently through photographs and fingerprints. It had no legitimate need for a DNA sample in order to be confident who it arrested or to convict him on the first-or second-degree assault charges. Therefore, there was no probable cause or individualized suspicion supporting obtention of the DNA sample collection for those charges. We conclude that the portions of the DNA Act authorizing collection of a DNA sample from a mere arrestee is unconstitutional as applied to King. Although we have some trepidation as to the facial constitutionality of the DNA Act, as to arrestees generally, we cannot exclude the possibility that there may be, in some circumstances, a need for the State to obtain a DNA sample to identify an arrestee accurately.

Arrest outside the threshold of the home led to invalid protective sweep of the house. The officers failed to articulate any facts or reason to justify going in the house. United States v. Barsoum, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56218 (M.D. Fla. April 5, 2012):

Against these standards, the government offers nothing to suggest the Defendant or anyone in the residence (his family) likely posed a danger to the agents, and certainly nothing that a reasonably prudent officer would accept. Instead, the main reason the government seemingly gives is that the agents took the Defendant inside to avoid the rainy morning and to offer him the opportunity to put on some clothes and shoes. Frankly, I find another reason is more obvious. As Agent Zdrojewski admitted, he wanted to secure the Defendant's consent to search his house. Indeed, he specifically chose that location for the Defendant's arrest, as opposed to the pharmacy, to increase his odds that he could search the residence.11 Because I find the government has failed to meet its burden under Buie, I find the agents' entry into the Defendant's house and their subsequent protective sweep illegal.

11 I do not suggest that this tactic is illegal; on the contrary, the approach is commonplace. But as Payton and Buie make clear, an arrest warrant and a search warrant are not synonymous. Without a search warrant, the government must present an exception to the warrant requirement.

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the length of a stop where the stop was lengthened by the wait for the owner of the car to come to the scene. Defense counsel also was not ineffective for not challenge the stop where the car was indisputably speeding. Owens v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56416 (M.D. Pa. April 23, 2012).*

The same pro se defendant’s motion to suppress was denied where he never, after being invited to do so, said what it was he was trying to suppress. United States v. Goodrich, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56472 (W.D. Mo. April 23, 2012),* R&R 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56470 (W.D. Mo. April 11, 2012).*

Pro se defendant’s claim that a search warrant could not issue without a criminal complaint also being issued is denied as without any legal basis. United States v. Goodrich, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56470 (W.D. Mo. April 23, 2012).*

HANFORD, California (AP) — A nondescript building in the heart of California's dairy country has become the focus of intense scrutiny after mad cow disease was discovered in a dead dairy cow.

The finding, announced Tuesday, is the first new case of the disease in the U.S. since 2006 — ...

LOS ANGELES — We saw his face a bloody, pulpy mess. And in 1992, when the four Los Angeles Police officers who beat him after a traffic stop were acquitted, it touched off anger that affected an entire generation. Now, 20 years later, this is the face of Rodney King, and ...

“Quilter raises a hodgepodge of constitutional arguments in support of his motion to suppress.” [Meaning: The court is going to deny them as misguided at best.] As to entry of the hotel room, it was justified by the exigent circumstance of officer safety where one person in the room on a bed wouldn’t show his hands right away. “Entry therefore became a matter of officer safety. Since law enforcement officers must be permitted to secure environments for their own protection, Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100 (1990), this situation justified entry for that limited purpose.” United States v. Quilter, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56393 (D. Vt. April 23, 2012)*:

The Second Circuit has adopted a non-exhaustive list of six factors to determine existence of exigent circumstances:

(1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged; (2) whether the suspect "is reasonably believed to be armed"; (3) "a clear showing of probable cause ... to believe that the suspect committed the crime"; (4) "strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered"; (5) "a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended"; and (6) the peaceful circumstances of the entry.

United States v. Reed, 572 F.2d 412, 424 (2d Cir. 1978) (quoting Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1970)).

In a high crime area, officers observed defendant dropping a cell phone and car keys into brush. That was reasonable suspicion. They did not violate the Fourth Amendment by pressing the key fob to find the car. United States v. Cowan, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6051 (8th Cir. March 23, 2012). United States v. Figures, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55641 (D. Neb. April 20, 2012).*

Motion for return of property under Rule 41(g) was denied without prejudice where the
claimant likely had no property interest in the place where it was seized. He needed to show more and still can. United States v. Return of Property of Fawcett, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55620 (N.D. Ohio April 20, 2012)*:

In this matter, Mr. Fawcett has not yet shown a sufficient property interest in the jewelry listed in his Declaration. The Defendant avers the jewelry, consisting largely of vintage watches, was taken from a residence in which, at the time of the exercise of the warrant, Mr. Fawcett no longer had any property interest and in which he no longer resided. Mr. Fawcett has yet to offer any evidence to demonstrate his lawful possession of the jewelry listed in his Declaration. Further, Mr. Fawcett has failed to specify with any certainty the items he seeks to have returned. Instead, the description offered in his Declaration is generic by type (watch), and brand (Rolex), and general year (vintage 1978).

by Greg Palast – Special for Buzzflash at Truthout

The Justice Department went big game hunting and bagged a teeny-weeny scapegoat.  More like a scape-kid, really.

Today, Justice arrested former BP engineer Kurt Mix for destroying evidence in the Deepwater Horizon blow-out.

I once ran a Justice Department racketeering case and damned if I would have 'cuffed some poor schmuck like Mix––especially when there's hot, smoking guns showing greater crimes by BP higher ups.

Last week, I released evidence we uncovered that BP top executives concealed evidence of a prior blow-out.  Had they not covered up the 2008 blow-out in then Caspian Sea, then the Deepwater Horizon probably would not have blown out two years later in 2010. [Watch the film and read the stories.]

I urge you to read the affidavit of FBI agent Barbara O'Donnell which the government filed in arresting Mix.  His crime is deleting texts from his phone indicating that the blown-out Macondo well was gushing over 15,000 barrels of oil a day, not 5,000 as BP told the public and government.  If true, it's a crime, destruction of evidence.  But Mix is a minnow.  What about the sharks?  The texts were obviously sent to someone (named only "SUPERVISOR" by the FBI).  If "Supervisor" knew, then undoubtedly so did BP managers higher up.  Presumably, even CEO Tony Hayward would have gotten the message on his racing yacht.

Destruction of evidence is not nice, but concealment of evidence and fraud by corporate bigs, is the bigger crime.  I hope, I assume, I demand that we find out what Supervisor's supervisors knew and when they knew it––and didn't tell us.

And far, far, far more important:  when is the Justice Department going to go after the greater wrongdoing? Let's begin with the cover-up before the spill that the drilling methods used on the Deepwater Horizon had led to a blow-out nearly two years earlier.

Let's face it:  to go after the bigger crime means going after the entire industry.  The earlier blow-out was concealed by BP as well as its partners Exxon and Chevron and, by the US State Department under Condoleezza Rice.  [If you want to get that story, please check out Part II:  BP Covered Up Prior Oil Spill at Ecowatch.org.]

One point in Mr. Mix's defense.  During my investigation of the Deepwater Horizon, I found that employees who provide evidence against BP find their careers floating face down in the Gulf.

BP and other oil companies punish troublemakers by writing "NRB" on their record.  That means "Not Required Back"––and the worker is banned from the offshore rigs.  No doubt, Mr. Mix thought long and hard about what would happen to his career if his texts came to light.  Not an excuse for crime, but it's a fact.  It's the guys on top putting on this kind of pressure that should be doing the perp walk:  the Big Bad BP Wolves, not their mixxed-up scapegoat.

****

Re-prints permitted with credit to Greg Palast

Greg Palast is the author of Vultures’ Picnic, which centers on his investigation of BP, bribery and corruption in the oil industry. Palast's, reports can be seen on BBC-TV and Britain’s Channel 4.

You can read Vultures' Picnic, "Chapter 1: Goldfinger," or download it, at no charge: click here.

Subscribe to Palast's Newsletter and podcasts.
Follow Palast on Facebook and Twitter.

GregPalast.com

ShareThis

BLT: Does Gant prohibit search incident in DUI cases? D.C. Appeals Court Weighs Warrantless Car Searches:

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard arguments this morning on when it's still lawful for local police to search a car without a warrant after making a lawful arrest.

The U.S. Supreme Court tried to limit those types of searches in its 2009 decision in Arizona v. Gant. The high court did carve out some exceptions, though, which included searches where police have "reason to believe" they might find evidence of the crime.

Almost all the precedent since Gant says yes.

WebProneNews: Judge: Your Tweets Aren’t Yours, And Even Your Deleted Tweets Can Be Obtained Without A Warrant; #OWS protestor loses motion to quash subpoena by Josh Wolford:

“While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet.”

That’s the crux of a decision from New York Criminal Court judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. Not only that, but when you tweet, you’re giving Twitter the right to distribute all of you information however they please.

Interior Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar on Tuesday blasted the "world of fairy tales" that he thinks most Republicans and some oil and gas industry leaders live in, arguing that the Obama administration remains committed to domestic fossil fuels and any claims to the contrary are patently false.

"There is this ...

The owners of Detroit's aging Ambassador Bridge - the privately owned span that has a monopoly on commercial truck traffic linking Detroit and Windsor, Ontario - are taking their fight to the people, seeking a ballot question on whether state officials can go ahead with a second, publicly financed bridge.