VoteKansas.org

Update: Romney adds Mariana Islands to win column along with Guam (9 delegates each)

The initial gauntlet of big nominating contests, in addition to "Super Tuesday," are now in the books. Few thought that an interesting grouping of contests being held from March 10-18 would be all that important, but they are.

Romney should walk away with a victory in Hawaii, also voting this week, and most of the 5 US territories. This shows the clear advantage of running a national campaign with broad appeal over implementing a regional strategy as both Gingrich and Santorum have done. He should also pick up a good chunk of delegates in the south and could even pull off an upset win. More importantly, the Romney wins will all come at a very low cost and he has to do very little to win them, which frees up time for him to spend in contests he is expected to lose.

Santorum is trying to switch gears from being a mid-western, blue-collar, labor union guy to one who appeals to southerners. That is a very difficult task, especially as Santorum has focused on being an "I am one of you" campaigner. He has also lost precious time in Alabama and Mississippi by spending most of his post-Super Tuesday efforts in Kansas. If he stays to offer an acceptance speech in the state, that will leave him just two days to head down south, where he will be playing catch-up to Romney and Newt.

Gingrich has lost almost all of the momentum nationwide, but being from Georgia helps him here. It helps Romney, too. While Romney is clearly viewed as an outsider in the south, so is Santorum. And Newt Gingrich is aiming to take full advantage of the situation and toss a few more southern states in his win column.

A Surprisingly Big Week for GOP Candidates originally appeared on About.com Conservative Politics: U.S. on Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 08:18:28.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The police got an anonymous and unverifiable tip that a suspicious man had a gun in a car. Finally, defendant’s car is stopped parked, and officers see the defendant move a rifle from the trunk of his car to another. This was not reasonable suspicion. Numerous police officers arrived and defendant and others were held at gunpoint, on their knees, and handcuffed. Defendant was Mirandized and incriminated himself. There was no break in the causal chain for the statement. State v. Charpentier, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 264 (La. App. 3d Cir. March 7, 2012).

Dispatch told the officer that there was an active warrant on defendant, and the officer arrested him on the warrant and searched his person. Herring governs, and the good faith exception applies. State v. Brock, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 248 (La. App. 2d Cir. March 7, 2012).

Defendant had no expectation of privacy in his clothes seized from him at the jail on his arrest for a sex offense. The day after his arrest, the clothes went to forensics. What was taken from them was of such limited value in the case, it didn’t matter anyway. People v Woodard, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1700, 2012 NY Slip Op 1694 (3d Dept. March 8, 2012).

WASHINGTON — Birth control that you must take every single day? A more goof-proof option that costs a lot upfront but then works for several years? Or something in between?

A woman's choice may come down to her wallet: The price of birth control varies dramatically.

Just the pill has ...

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A dozen earthquakes in northeastern Ohio were almost certainly induced by injection of gas-drilling wastewater into the earth, state regulators said Friday as they announced a series of tough new rules for drillers.

Among the new regulations: Well operators must submit more comprehensive geological data when requesting ...

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — They never knew Dharun Ravi to say anything bad about gays — but they also never discussed it with him.

That was what seven character witnesses had to say Friday in the trial of Ravi, a former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to ...

ATLANTA — The nation's largest private prison company made an enticing offer to 48 states that went something like this: We will buy your prison now if you agree to keep it mostly full and promise to pay us for running it over the next two decades. Despite a need ...

NEW YORK — The New York Police Department kept secret files on businesses owned by second- and third-generation Americans specifically because they were Muslims, according to newly obtained documents that spell out in the clearest terms yet that police were monitoring people based on religion.

The AP has posted the ...

PITTSBURGH — The University of Pittsburgh psychiatric clinic gunman who killed an employee and shot several others wasn't carrying identification and his fingerprints have yielded no clues to his identity — but the mother of the slain employee said Friday she doesn't believe the gunman knew her son.

The gunman's ...

In a nighttime search case, the safety of children on the premises with a meth lab could be considered by the police and courts in issuing a nighttime search warrant. While all the prior case law deals with officer safety and a nighttime search, here it needed to mean that the children were generally at risk and the warrant happened to be sought at nighttime. That is not a valid reason for a nighttime search warrant. However, the officers were acting in good faith, and this nighttime search would not be suppressed. [Presumably the next one would? The dissenters seem to think not.] State v. Tyson, 2012 Ark. 107, 2012 Ark. LEXIS 124 (March 8, 2012) (4-3):

Additionally, as evidenced by this split opinion, this court cannot unanimously agree in the exact interpretation of the language in Rule 13.2(c)(iii). Therefore, we cannot hold that an officer should have known that the threat of immediate harm to the children inside a trailer with an active methamphetamine lab was not the type of reasonable cause covered by Rule 13.2(c)(iii) to execute the search warrant in hand that had been considered and signed by a judge. Accordingly, we hold that the Leon good-faith exception applies under these circumstances and that the circuit court erred in suppressing the evidence from the nighttime search and seizure.

One curious part of this case is the fact that Arkansas as a rule-made good faith exception that it did not even discuss. So why have it?

Driver’s arrest for reckless driving in a shopping mall parking lot did not support a search incident of the passenger compartment. Canino v. State, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 252 (March 7, 2012).

A controlled buy was probable cause for a search warrant that produced more drugs; § 1983 case fails on the merits. Abreu v. Romero, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4703 (2d Cir. March 7, 2012) (unpublished).*

Officers went to defendant’s place for a knock-and-talk and could smell marijuana coming from around the door. One looked through a gap between the blinds and the window frame. Even if this look was excluded from the application, there would still be probable cause. Also, defendant saw the officers and fled the premises. That added to the probable cause. United States v. Newton, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4871 (5th Cir. March 8, 2012) (unpublished).*

Based on representations from defendant’s wife and all the police officers knew, she had apparent authority to consent to a search of what they believed was the family computer. It was not locked with a password, and she had full access to it. The after-acquired facts were not enough to undermine what they knew at the time. United States v. Schuler, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30512 (D. Kan. March 8, 2012):

The court heard the testimony of Mrs. Schuler and Officer Crawford. The court also heard the testimony of defendant. The court has reviewed the parties' briefs and the applicable law. The court does not believe that Officer Crawford was presented with an ambiguous situation here, nor was he required to make further inquiry. Mrs. Schuler had retrieved her husband's laptop from their home, had it in her possession, and provided it to officers–on and unlocked–explaining that she believed it was used to write the letters and/or that it contained the letters, although she was not able to find them on it. The computer was in her care, custody, and control when she provided it to officers and consented to their search of it.

It is true that police only later learned more facts that would either support or undermine Mrs. Schuler's authority to consent to the search, such as where the laptop was kept; whether Mrs. Schumer had previously been provided a password (or whether any password was actually required); and whether she occasionally used the laptop. However, the critical inquiry is what police knew at the time consent was given. Sanchez, 608 F.3d at 689, n.1 (noting that reasonableness of officer's belief that a third party has authority to consent is an objective inquiry, "based on the 'facts available to the officer at the moment,'" quoting Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990)); United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711, 722 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that "[a]ny after-acquired factual knowledge that 'might undermine the initial reasonable conclusion of third-party apparent authority [is] generally immaterial,'" (quotation omitted)). The court need not resolve contradictions in the hearing testimony because these additional facts are not relevant to the inquiry. The court agrees with the government that, at the time and under the circumstances in which Mrs. Schuler gave consent to search, it was reasonable for Officer Crawford to believe that she had authority to do so.

Former defense counsel waived the suppression motion and hearing on the ground that it was done by private action. Second successor counsel wants to raise the issue anew on the eve of trial, and it is denied. United States v. Onyekaba, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153919 (N.D. Ga. October 21, 2011). Even the “good cause” claim in Rule 12(e) that former defense counsel would be ineffective for waiving wasn’t good enough, and led to footnote 8:

8 To the extent defendant is arguing ineffective assistance of counsel as "good cause" to "hear these motions now, rather than in a future 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding," [Doc. 148 at 4], this argument is misplaced. Indeed, ineffective assistance claims raised for the purpose of showing "good cause" under Rule 12(e) are "not ripe for review" and "are best brought by a defendant in a post-conviction proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 so that the parties can develop an adequate record on the issue." United States v. Jones, No. 3:07-CR-162, 2009 WL 1471807, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. May 27, 2009) (rejecting defendant's argument that he has shown good cause to excuse the waiver due to the alleged ineffective assistance of his prior attorney); see also United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 738-39 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding defendant's "ineffective assistance claim is not ripe for review, and [defendant] therefore, cannot, at this point, demonstrate 'good cause' to excuse his waiver under Rule 12(e)").

Reading between the lines in this case, I’d think that the defendant was insisting on raising this search issue despite the court’s summary which shows it woefully inadequate. Defendant was arrested for shoplifting in a Macy’s store by store security. On him were three credit cards that didn’t belong to him. They called police who stopped the car he was in for a traffic stop, and the codefendants were arrested. The full details aren’t given, but it appears that something came from the traffic stop and there’s at least the appearance that the vehicle was not his; hence a standing problem. Therefore, one might conclude that this was the USMJ’s way of brushing off a motion to suppress that was doomed anyway. We all know clients know more about the Fourth Amendment from their friends than from us.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

In the age of the Internet, when everybody wants to get his two cents into the debate and anybody can invent his own facts and rant in a blog or sometimes even a newspaper column, endorsements don't mean much. They particularly don't mean much coming from a congressman.

Endorsements ...