VoteKansas.org

“This is an appeal asking that we overrule State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981, 842 P.2d 660 (1992), and hold that the Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to violations of Article I, section 17, of the Idaho Constitution. Because the State has not shown any ground for doing so, we decline to overrule that case and affirm the order of the district court suppressing evidence obtained incident to an arrest pursuant to a wrongly issued warrant.” Considering state case law, the Idaho Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule in State v Arregui, 44 Idaho 43, 254 P. 788 (1927), and the good faith exception was not adopted in Guzman. State v. Koivu, 2012 Ida. LEXIS 54 (March 1, 2012).

Officers responded to an alleged burglary call, but they found that a tenant was removing stuff, and there was no burglary. Defendant asked to get a cigarette, and the officer said no because of “officer safety,” but she reached into her purse and pulled out a cigarette pack which the officer took away from her and laid it down for. After awhile the officer looked in the cigarette pack and found a glass pipe, so he then searched her purse. The search of the cigarette package could not be justified for officer safety which, the officer said, was based on his experience with prostitutes and drug addicts having sharp objects in there, which this case wasn’t. Also, his casual after-the-fact search of the cigarette package belied the “officer safety” rationale. Finally, the state’s failure to raise an expectation of privacy argument in the trial court is a waiver on appeal [not that it would have worked anyway]. State v. Johnson, 2012 Kan. LEXIS 148 (March 2, 2012).

Officers approached an already parked car, and they did not need reasonable suspicion to do that. When defendant got out of the car and reached for his pocket, officers were justified in a patdown because of information from an informant. State v. Ray, 2012 Ohio 840, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 733 (2d Dist. March 2, 2012).*

Plaintiff was “confined” when she was strip and body cavity searched, so the state one year limitations applied, and this suit was not timely. Bing v. Haywood, 2012 Va. LEXIS 40 (March 2, 2012).*

There was actual authority to consent to a search by the consent, although she did not have a working key to the front door, she did to the back. Alternatively, the court finds that it was reasonable for officers to believe in her apparent authority to consent. Finally, even if the information derived from that entry were excised from the application for the search warrant, there still would be probable cause for issuance. United States v. Taitano, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27489 (D. Guam February 17, 2012).*

Defendant’s guilty plea waived his illegal search claim, so defense counsel was not shown to be ineffective for not challenging the search before the guilty plea. Schniepp v. State, 2012 Ark. 94, 2012 Ark. LEXIS 108 (March 1, 2012).*

Neither defendant had standing to challenge the search of the car: the passenger because he was a passenger and the driver showing no connection to having it with permission of the owner. They did have standing to challenge the stop, and there was cause for the stop for wandering within a lane. United States v. Perez-Guerrero, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27365 (D. Kan. March 2, 2012).*

A dog alert on a car justifies a search of the trunk. A new Fourth Amendment issue raised in a reply brief is waived. United States v. Greene, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4407 (4th Cir. February 29, 2012) (unpublished):

Greene's second argument — that the search of the trunk was outside the scope of a warrantless search — is likewise meritless. See Kelly, 592 F.3d at 589-90 ("The scope of a search pursuant to [the automobile] exception is as broad as a magistrate could authorize. Thus, once police have probable cause, they may search 'every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.'") (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 (1982) (citation omitted)).

Information from Medivac crew was sufficient to provide probable cause defendant was under the influence when he was taken to the hospital after a wreck. Crowe v. State, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 227 (March 2, 2012).*

A Wii stolen in a burglary had the victim’s Netflix account, and the police were able to track the Netflix use back to defendant’s IP address. That was sufficient nexus for a search warrant for the premises, and it also was not stale. United States v. Medel, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27410 (C.D. Cal. February 29, 2012).*

The protective sweep here was legal. But, even if it wasn’t, the person consenting didn’t know about it, so the consent was tainted by the sweep. United States v. Gomez-Rivero, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26867 (N.D. Ga. January 20, 2012).*

As a mere passenger, defendant had no standing to challenge the inventory search of the car. State v. Parker, 2012 Ohio 839, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 730 (2d Dist. March 2, 2012).*

Officers saw a van parked in an industrial area around noon on Sunday, and they approached because that was unusual. Defendant would not roll down the window and reached under the seat, and that justified a protective search of where he was reaching. State v. Rose, 2012 Iowa App. LEXIS 167 (February 29, 2012).*

Defendants failed to show a connection to the car they were driving, so they did not have standing to challenge the search. They did, however, have standing to challenge their stop. The stop, however, was justified by crossing the fog line three times in a couple of miles. United States v. Perez-Guerrero, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27365 (D. Kan. March 2, 2012).*

In this circuit the good faith exception in considered first, and the affidavit for the warrant is not so lacking in probable cause that the good faith exception would not apply. United States v. Oldaker, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25788 (N.D. W.Va. February 16, 2012).*

NEWARK — Federal officials in New Jersey have announced charges against 29 people in what they said is a massive international counterfeit goods operation.

New Jersey's U.S. attorney, Paul J. Fishman, said parallel international investigations resulted in arrests in New Jersey, Texas, New York and the Philippines.

Mr. Fishman said ...

HENRYVILLE, Ind. — St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church has always been a gathering point for the people of Henryville, never more so than now.

Under a roof with a patched-up 6-foot hole, dozens gathered Sunday not just to worship, but to check on neighbors and get updates on the devastation ...

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The Indiana toddler found in a field after Friday's violent tornadoes has died.

Fourteen-month-old Angel Babcock of New Pekin, Ind., was found after her family's mobile home was destroyed in storms that ravaged the Midwest and South and also killed her father, mother and two siblings.

When ...

Some of the 10 Super Tuesday states are easy to predict, but others remain a big question mark. Polls of individual "Super Tuesday" states have been rare and, in most instances, only focus a handful of the larger contests. The impact of the recent Romney victories and Santorum losses has yet to be determined. National polls suggest he has lost most of his momentum.

As of today, here is how things look to be shaping up:

Romney will be an easy winner in Massachusetts, where he was governor, and most likely in demographically-similar Vermont. He was handed a gift in Virginia where longtime residents Newt Gingrich, who failed to submit enough valid signatures, and Rick Santorum, who didn't even try to submit signatures, won't even be on the ballot.

A handful of new polls have Newt hanging out in the 40% range in the state he represented for over two decades. While Romney probably hasn't stepped foot in his home state of Massachusetts, Newt has had to spend far too much time in Georgia to avoid an embarrassment. This has allowed for less campaign time for Newt in other states, despite skipping contests in Arizona and Michigan.

While Santorum has yet to notch a big win (he had less than 30,000 votes in all three caucus victories) he is still considered Romney's main competition and is the favorite in both Tennessee and Oklahoma. In 2008, Mike Huckabee won Tennessee while McCain pulled out a win in Oklahoma on Super Tuesday. Santorum must win both of these states to remain competitive in the long run. Three polls show Santorum is far from a sure bet in Tennessee.

Certain states always get more attention than others. On Super Tuesday, Ohio is that state. Newt has split his time between Georgia and Ohio for the better part of a month. Santorum has been busy battling in Michigan with Romney and probably missed out on precious opportunity to collect early votes. Romney has been the only candidate with an early-vote operation and the ability to launch a campaign in multiple states at one time. These factors, combined with momentum, should give Romney the edge.

Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota round out the rest of the Tuesday contests. All three will be low-turnout caucuses and will be somewhat unpredictable. Romney actually won Alaska and North Dakota in 2008, while Idaho held a primary after Romney withdrew. Santorum has done well in smaller caucuses like these, but only when he has been able to heavily out-campaign his opponents. This won't happen here. It could be a clean sweep for Romney once again based on his continuing momentum and the fact that his competition has been able to spare little resources outside of the main Super Tuesday contests.

To really secure the nomination lead, Romney would need to win Ohio or to pull off an upset in Georgia, Oklahoma, or Tennessee and take the three small caucus states. If he wins seven states, it's hard to see his momentum derailed. Gingrich will probably only win Georgia and anything beyond that will give him reason to continue on. Santorum really needs to win Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Since he is considered the favorite in those states, he would also need to steal a caucus state or two. If he leaves Super Tuesday with only two victories, the road ahead becomes increasingly difficult.

See Also: Super Tuesday Forum Predictions

Super Tuesday Preview originally appeared on About.com Conservative Politics: U.S. on Monday, March 5th, 2012 at 03:30:31.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

During a series of public hearings on rate hikes, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority officials were quick to point out that they were doing everything they could to save money for customers, including enacting a pay freeze across management.

But after they received news of an unexpected surplus for fiscal ...

The federal government's only program aimed at preventing the discarding of "extra" frozen human embryos is itself in danger of being discarded.

In a move that pro-lifers are calling more evidence of the Obama administration's "pro-abortion slant," the White House has sought to defund the Embryo Adoption Awareness Campaign in ...

SAN FRANCISCO | Months after moving to the U.S., telenovela star Eliana Lopez blogged about her hopes and aspirations for her new, simpler life as a wife and mother, far from the bright lights of TV and movies.

The Venezuelan actress was excited about living in San Francisco - "a ...

by Greg Palast
for TheMudflats

See Greg Palast on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman on the BP Settlement.

Following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, Greg Palast led a four-continent investigation of BP PLC for Britain's television series Dispatches. From 1989-91, Palast directed the investigation of fraud charges in the Exxon Valdez grounding for Alaska Native villages.

Some deal. BP gets the gold mine and the public gets the shaft.

On Friday night, the lawyers for 120,000 victims of the Deepwater Horizon blow-out cut a deal with oil company BP PLC which will save the oil giant billions of dollars. It will also save the company the threat of a trial that could expose the true and very ugly story of the Gulf of Mexico oil platform blow-out.

I have been to the Gulf and seen the damage — and the oil that BP says is gone.  Miles of it.  As an economist who calculated damages for plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case, I can tell you right now that there is no way, no how, that the $7.8 billion BP says it will spend on this settlement will cover that damage, the lost incomes, homes, businesses and boats, let alone the lost lives — from cancers, fetal deformities, miscarriages, and lung and skin diseases.

Two years ago, President Barack Obama forced BP to set aside at least $20 billion for the oil spill's victims.  This week's settlement will add exactly ZERO to that fund.  Indeed, BP is crowing that, adding in the sums already paid out, the company will still have spent less than the amount committed to the Obama fund.

There's so much corrosion, mendacity and evil covered up by this settlement deal that I hardly know where to begin.

So, let's start with punitive damages.

I was stunned that there is no provision, as was expected, for a punishment fee to by paid by BP for it's willful negligence. In the Exxon Valdez trial, a jury awarded us $5 billion in punitives - and BP's action, and the damage caused in the Gulf, is far, far worse.

BP now has to pay no more than proven damages. It's like telling a bank robber, "Hey, just put back the money in the vault and all's forgiven."

This case screamed for punitive damages. Here's just a couple of facts that should have been presented to a jury:

For example, the only reason six hundred miles of Gulf coastline has been slimed by oil was that BP failed to have emergency oil spill containment equipment ready to roll when the Deepwater Horizon blew out. BP had promised the equipment's readiness in writing and under oath.

And here's the sick, sick part. This is exactly the same thing BP did in the Exxon Valdez case. It was BP, not Exxon, that was responsible for stopping the spread of oil in Alaska in 1989. In Alaska, decades ago, BP told federal regulators it would have oil spill "boom" (the rubber that corrals the spreading stuff) ready to roll out if a tanker hit. When the Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef, BP's promised equipment wasn't there: BP had lied.

And in 2010, BP did it again. Instead of getting the oil contained in five hours as promised as a condition of drilling, it took five days to get the equipment in place (and that was done by the US Navy on orders of the President).

This was more than negligence: it was fraud, and by a repeat offender. Now BP is laughing all the way to the bank.

And there's more. BP mixed nitrogen into the cement which capped the well-head below the Deepwater Horizon. BP claimed to be shocked and horrified when the cement failed, releasing methane gas that blew apart the rig. BP accused the cement's seller, Halliburton, of hiding the fact that this "quick-set" cement can blow out in deep water.

But, in an investigation that took me to Central Asia, I discovered that BP knew the quick-set cement could fail - because it had failed already in an earlier blow-out which BP covered up with the help of an Asian dictatorship.

The lack of promised equipment, the prior blow-out — it all could have, should have, come out in trial.

Think about it: BP knew the cement could fail but continued to use it to save money. Over time, the savings to BP of its life-threatening methods added up to billions of dollars worldwide. BP will get to keep that savings bought at the cost of eleven men's lives.

Other investigators have uncovered more penny-pinching, life-threatening failures by BP and its drilling buck-buddies, Halliburton and TransOcean. These include bogus "blow-out preventers" and a managerial system that could be called, "We-Don't-Care Chaos."

BP partners and contractors will have to pay $5.4 billion as part of the deal — and BP, not the victims, will keep the entire $5.4 billion. If TransOcean and Halliburton follow suit, BP could walk without paying another dime to victims.

BP had no choice but to pay proven damages and conceded as much. I have learned from inside the plaintiffs' legal team that this judge was just not going to allow punitive damages; and the Bush-burdened US Supreme Court is just as hostile. (The Supremes cut the Exxon Valdez punitive award by 90%.)

So BP walks without the civil punishment that tort law should provide and justice demands, grinning and ready to do it again: drill on the cheap with the price paid by its workers and the public.

But stopping a trial denies the public more than the full payment due: it denies us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There are 72 million pages of evidence from inside BP and industry files obtained by legal discovery in the case which are now likely to follow the rig to the bottom of the sea.

That's not good. We need the real story.

The lawyers for plaintiffs got all they could get for their clients given the rightward march of the law. Also, there is no doubt that the control of the “$20-billion” spill fund by Kenneth Feinberg, known here in New York as “The Reptile,” the back room choice of Obama and BP, shafted victims by the thousands. Getting the Fund out of his saurian hands is probably the best part of the settlement deal.

But we need to widen the idea of “victim” to beyond those measurably harmed individuals. We are all BP’s victims: because of BP’s and the industry’s addiction to safety fakery from Alaska to the Caspian.

The President has just opened up the arctic waters of Alaska for drilling, has reopened the Gulf to deepwater platforms, and is fiddling with the idea of allowing the XL Pipeline to slice America in half.

So we need to know: Can we trust this industry?

The states of Louisiana and Mississippi could still haul BP into court. Fageddaboudit: neither Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal nor Mississippi's Phil Bryant, both of the Grand Oil Party, will expose BP. The Obama Administration must be pushed to bring the case to trail in the public interest. Though the history of federal complicity and Obama's fear of looking like a whale-hugging drill buster suggests a sell-out is in the offing.

Without a trial in the Deepwater Horizon case, we may never get the answer, never get the full story of the prior blow-outs, the fakery in the spill response system, and other profits-first kill-later trickery that bloats the bottom line of BP and the entire drill-baby-drill industry.

***

For more on Palast's worldwide investigation of BP and the industry in Central Asia, the Gulf, Alaska and the Amazon, read Palast's new book, Vultures' Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores at www.VulturesPicnic.org.

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

Support the Palast Investigative Fund and keep our work alive.
Subscribe to Palast's Newsletter and podcasts.
Follow Palast on Facebook and Twitter.

GregPalast.com

ShareThis

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

We have veered so far from the vision of our Founding Fathers that, unless the American people regain a strong commitment to the traditional American values of self-reliance, individual liberty and equality of opportunity, our democracy will inevitably lead to socialism.

In fact, it's hard to argue that we ...

EAST BERNSTADT, Ky. (AP) — The stories from tornado survivors across the South and Midwest were remarkable: Schoolchildren took cover under desks; people hunkered down in a church basement or hid out in a bank vault; one family even piled on top of one another for protection.

One of the ...