VoteKansas.org

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military intends to tell Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales Friday he faces 17 counts of murder and six counts of attempted murder, along with other charges, in connection with a shooting rampage in two southern Afghanistan villages that shocked Americans back home and further roiled ...

Romney, feeling confident of winning the GOP nomination, is beginning to lay the groundwork for his general election case against Obama. One of the areas of attack will obviously be Obamacare. Romney argues in favor of states being able to "experiment" and implement healthcare legislation that best fits each individual state's needs, rather than an over-reaching, big government mess. He cites his own experience as governor of Massachusetts:

Obviously, Romney's Massachusetts health care plan, "Romneycare," has been his major weak point in his quest for the GOP nomination. But as the campaign moves against Obama, his argument strengthens. While conservatives do not agree with the principles of Romneycare, we can agree with the principles of federalism and allowing every state to choose a different path.

The other argument falling Romney's way in the Obamcare/Romneycare debate is that the legislators and the citizens overwhelmingly approved of the health care law, and polls indicate that Massachusetts residents still favor the law by a 2-1 margin. Contrast this with Obamacare, a law that required back-room deals and political maneuvering to pass the congress and has received consistent public opposition.

Romney Cites Federalism, Promises to Repeal Obamacare originally appeared on About.com Conservative Politics: U.S. on Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 at 20:47:03.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The parents of an unarmed black teenager who was shot to death by a neighborhood watch volunteer say they are not satisfied that the Sanford police chief is temporarily stepping down.

Tracy and Sybrina Martin told hundreds of supporters at a rally Thursday that they want ...

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A defrocked Philadelphia priest pleaded guilty Thursday to a sex-abuse charge, just days before a landmark priest abuse trial is set to start.

Edward Avery, 69, pleaded guilty to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and conspiracy to endanger the welfare of a child. He immediately was sentenced to 2½ ...

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nice Internal Revenue Service refund check that many families eagerly await this time of year is down slightly from 2011 but still not too shabby: an average of about $3,000.

Through March 10, the IRS had issued 59.2 million refund checks totaling $174.4 billion, Douglas ...

Defendant was stopped at the Omaha bus terminal apparently because he showed an interest in what the police were doing with bags on the bus. [Note: Every criminal defense lawyer does too. Does that give reasonable suspicion? Not here.] The government conceded there was no reasonable suspicion, but it argued that defendant consented. The District Court’s finding of no consent was supported by the evidence, and lifting defendant’s pant leg was without reasonable suspicion. Meth was found and suppressed. United States v. Aquino, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5970 (8th Cir. March 22, 2012)*:

The government contends the dispositive issue in this case is whether Aquino's compliance with Lutter's request to pull the bottom portion of his pant leg tight against his body was a consensual act which gave rise to reasonable suspicion when Lutter noticed the concealed bulge, in turn justifying a subsequent investigatory detention. We disagree. This case turns not on Aquino's last act before being handcuffed, but rather Lutter's first act after placing Aquino in handcuffs, which was to lift Aquino's pant leg to reveal the concealed bulge. Under the circumstances involved in this case, Lutter violated the Fourth Amendment when he searched underneath an article of Aquino's clothing without his consent and without probable cause to do so, instead of performing a pat down to confirm whether the concealed bulge was a weapon.

You might not thing this is related to NAIS but it is. Corporate America, and the World, is trying to take down everyone by taking control. With Monstersanto this involves them using their big lawyers to attack innocent farmers and get settlements because the farmers can’t afford to fight for their rights in court. Chick-fil-a is doing this to Eat More Kale. Don’t let the big bad corp’s take over the world. Fight back by eating more kale! Or at least by backing the exposition of greed that this defiant dude is filming. Check out this Kickstarter project.

What is Kickstarter you may ask? It’s a great way of backing projects you believe in. Kickstarter is a way of raising funds to do interesting things. A means of bringing together people to make stuff happen. Kickstarting a project gives funds to produce something, if, and only if, the project is fully funded by backers like you. You can donate a dollar, $25, $100 or all the way up to $10,000. Give what you feel comfortable giving to the projects you want to support.

ATLANTA (AP) — Nearly half of first marriages break up within 20 years, a new government study has found. With those odds, one might wonder: Would we be better off living together first?

The new research, part of a marriage survey of 22,000 men and women, suggests times have changed ...

HARTFORD, Conn. — Murray Lender, who helped turn his father's small Connecticut bakery into a national company credited for introducing bagels to many Americans, has died in Florida. He was 81.

Lender, perhaps best known from promoting Lender's Bagels in TV commercials, died Wednesday at a hospital in Miami from complications ...

Dog sniff outside the defendant’s house in a multi-family unit was reasonable under Place and Caballes, and Jardines is rejected. United States v. Anthony, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38123 (D. N.J. March 20, 2012):

This is the type of distinction the Florida Supreme Court found in Jardines v. State, 73 So.3d 34 (Fla. 2011). The Court reasoned that even though the revelation of possession of contraband could not invade a privacy interest, the canine sniff outside a home "will invariably entail a degree of public opprobrium, humiliation and embarrassment for the resident, for such dramatic government activity in the eyes of many-neighbors, passers-by, and the public at large-will be viewed as an official accusation of crime." Id. at 36. The Court added that if police can conduct suspicionless sniff tests, there was nothing to prevent discriminatory or irrational use of the procedure. Id.

However, neither reason for distinguishing Caballes is persuasive as applied to the present facts. First, the Florida Court's conclusion that sniffs "will invariably entail a degree of public opprobrium, humiliation and embarrassment for the resident" is less applicable to the facts of this case, in which the sniff occurred away from the plain view of the general public inside a common area of a multi-family residence with the permission of the owner. Nothing in the record suggests anyone but the landlord was privy to the presence of police activity, much less aware of the particular apartment being sniffed. Similarly, this Court is not asked to determine whether police presence with a dog on the curtilage of a home without permission involves some intrusion into privacy not present in Caballes or Place. Instead, this situation involves police presence in a common area with express permission to be there.

Defendant’s confusing account of his travel plans was reasonable suspicion. The trial court’s findings of consent to the search was clearly supported by the record. Defendant was unhandcuffed and sitting in the police car during the search. A dog alert made that irrelevant. Thus, a challenge to the search was frivolous. Defendant did not show how his failure to testify at the suppression hearing would have changed anything in light of the video, not that IAC claims can be raised on direct appeal anyway. United States v. Penlton, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5888 (7th Cir. March 21, 2012) (unpublished)*; United States v. Harris, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5878 (7th Cir. March 21, 2012) (unpublished).*

Plaintiff state prisoner failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim that he was unreasonably removed from his cell during a suicide threat. “Insofar as Brown contends that his seizure during this incident was unreasonable, even assuming that a prisoner has any Fourth Amendment right not to be seized and transported from one place to another within a state prison facility, there is no record evidence that this particular seizure was not justified by the same legitimate interest in safety and security.” Brown v. Graham, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5825 (2d Cir. March 21, 2012) (unpublished).*

NEW YORK — Rush Limbaugh's opponents are starting a radio campaign against him Thursday, seizing upon the radio star's attack of a Georgetown law student as a "slut" to make a long-term effort aimed at weakening his business.

The liberal Media Matters for America is using a past campaign against Glenn ...

Defendant was stopped for not dimming his headlights, and he was without a DL. The officers’ search incident of defendant’s car violated Gant, even though the defendant and his passenger weren’t handcuffed and were standing at the rear of the car, they were outnumbered. The government’s argument that Long justified a protective weapons search of the car was also rejected. United States v. McCraney, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5818, 2012 FED App. 0081P (6th Cir. March 21, 2012):

Here, McCraney and Ammons were not handcuffed or secured in the back of a patrol car. They were standing, however, behind the Buick as instructed, two or three feet from the rear bumper, with three officers standing around them, while the other two officers on the scene conducted the search of the passenger compartment. Ricker testified that he stood approximately eight feet from McCraney, and watched him closely while the search was conducted. The officers outnumbered the detainees and, although not formally arrested, handcuffed or secured in a patrol car, the district court did not err in finding that the officers could not reasonably believe McCraney and Ammons were "within reaching distance" of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. Given the narrowed scope of the exception in light of Gant, the search may not be justified as a search incident to arrest.