VoteKansas.org

A suspect does not have a right to know what it is the police are looking for in a consent search, which is essentially his only issue for suppression. Here, defendant clearly consented by signing a consent form and even unlocked doors for the officers. He’s been through a police investigation before that was apparently fruitless and consented to a search there. State v. Chesrown, 2012 Ohio 2476, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2175 (9th Dist. June 6, 2012).*

That defendant may have been injured in an accident did not affect the admissibility of the evidence in a DUI case by motion to suppress. That went to weight of the evidence. Even assuming the officers misstated their ability to force a blood draw, that does not require suppression of the search here. State v. Walters, 2012 Ohio 2429, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2138 (9th Dist. June 4, 2012).*

While the officers never saw money change hands, they had probable cause to arrest defendant after months of investigation, wiretaps, and tailing the defendant on drug runs, always on a Sunday. United States v. Rucker, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78323 (N.D. Fla. June 6, 2012).*

Infowars.com | Trends forecaster Gerald Celente examines Rand's horrifying endorsement of Mitt Romney.

Infowars | “TSA Directives” supersede Freedom of Information Act

A patdown that revealed a wad of money was not a valid plain feel because it should have been apparent that it was not a weapon. State v. Robinson, 2012 Ohio 2428, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2137 (9th Dist. June 4, 2012):

[*P20] Here, the testimony is unclear as to whether the nature of the "wad of money" was apparent by touch during the Terry search, or whether the officer reasonably believed the "wad" in Robinson's pocket to be a weapon. Moreover, the record does not indicate that Officer McConnell at any point subjectively believed that the "wad" in Robinson's pocket was a weapon. Therefore, the seizure of the money from Robinson's pockets is not justified by the Terry search or the plain feel doctrine. See Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295, 297, 1999 Ohio 68, 720 N.E.2d 507 (1999) ("Generally, at a suppression hearing, the state bears the burden of proving that a warrantless search or seizure meets Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness.")

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate required under state law to give fingerprints for SORNA purposes, and he refused. He was placed in segregation for refusing, and a criminal investigation was opened by the State Police. He sued under § 1983, but he doesn’t state a claim for relief because the intrusion is minimal [not to mention that, as a prison inmate, his fingerprints are in multiple places and were likely taken when he got there]. Ford v. Curtin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79439 (W.D. Mich. June 8, 2012).*

Officers lawfully in defendant’s place with an arrest warrant saw a gun and ammunition in plain view, so the seizure was valid. United States v. Lyons, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11651, 2012 FED App. 0590N (6th Cir. June 7, 2012).*

Defendant argued that one question from the officer expanded the scope of a traffic stop. The court concludes, however, that his shaking and obvious nervousness and deflection when the question was asked was reasonable suspicion. One question could be enough, but not here. State v. Smith, 2012 Minn. LEXIS 239 (June 6, 2012)*:

[W]e conclude that Smith's extreme shaking and his evasive response when asked about his shaking provided the officers with reasonable, articulable suspicion sufficient to support an expansion of the traffic stop. In essence, because we conclude that the officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to support the alleged expansion of the stop, we assume without deciding that Ehrhardt's question caused an incremental expansion in the scope of the traffic stop.1
1 We are not persuaded by the State's argument that a question cannot expand the scope of a traffic stop. Instead, we recognize that even a single question, depending on its content, could expand the scope of a traffic stop under other facts.

The Secretary of Agriculture failed to show “special needs” for random drug testing of civilian employees of the Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers of the U.S. Forest Service. The only evidence shows that there is no drug problem. Nat'l Fedn. of Fed. Employees-IAM v. Vilsack, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11605 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 2012):

The National Federation of Federal Employees ("the Union") challenges the constitutionality of a random drug testing policy applicable to all employees working at Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers operated by the U.S. Forest Service. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (hereinafter "the Secretary") and denied the Union's request for a preliminary injunction. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Secretary has failed to demonstrate "special needs" rendering the Fourth Amendment requirement of individualized suspicion impractical in the context of Job Corps employment. See Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995); Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665-66 (1989). Although identifying governmental interests in the students' abstention from drug use and in their physical safety, the Secretary offered no foundation for concluding there is a serious drug problem among staff that threatens these interests and thus renders the requirement for individualized suspicion impractical. Rather, the Secretary's evidence to date suggests the contrary. Because the Secretary has offered a solution in search of a problem, the designation of all Forest Service Job Corps Center employees for random drug testing does not fit within the "closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches," Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 309 (1997). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Infowars | Just some of the amazing footage from the routing in Chantilly, Virginia.

MSN | Terrorist Screening Center did not explain the action; said they can't release any information about any individual cases.

LA Times | "oil and gas industry want to withhold information even from regulators about the exact formulation of the fluids injected into the ground during fracking..."

The Week: The drone over your backyard: A guide / U.S. skies are being opened to police and private drones. Will it be the end of privacy?

Drones are coming to the U.S.?

They're already here — and the drone era is just beginning. Predator drones — the same remote-controlled, camera-equipped aircraft used to hunt terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan — have been patrolling U.S. borders since 2005. Emergency responders have used smaller drones to search for missing persons and track forest fires, and police departments in Florida, Maryland, Texas, and Colorado are testing drones for surveillance and search-and-rescue missions. Last month, the Federal Aviation Administration, acting at the behest of Congress, relaxed the rules for deploying unmanned aerial vehicles. Police departments across the country can now fly drones weighing up to 25 pounds, as long as the aircraft stay within sight of the operator and fly no higher than 400 feet (so as not to get in the way of commercial aircraft). More rules easing restrictions on commercial drones are expected by 2015. By the end of the decade, the FAA expects 30,000 unmanned aerial vehicles — some as small as birds — to be peering down on American soil.

Why are they allowing more drones?
Law-enforcement officials love them. They believe the mobile, eye-in-the-sky technology will improve public safety at a low cost. With high-resolution cameras, drones can help police patrol large areas, spot runaway criminals, and track drug shipments. And since a small police drone with a camera can be purchased for around $50,000 (with some basic models costing as little as $300), they're far cheaper than standard helicopters, which can cost $1 million or more.

CNN | "IMF says Spanish banks need at least 40 billion euros to preserve Spain's stability."