VoteKansas.org

Blind Spot: Save a Planet and Live on It, Part 2, 4-16-09

How Can You Kill a Planet? And Still Live On It!, Part 1 4-13-09

Sounding the Trumpet on RINO Donald Trump, 4-19-11

U.S. Congress, Obama/Soetoro are anti-American jobs 8-9-11

Florida Independent: Scott signs latest random drug testing of state employees bill by Ashley Lopez:

Last night, Gov. Rick Scott signed into law the state’s second attempt to randomly drug test state employees.

A bill passed through both chambers of the Legislature this month that would allow state agencies to adopt policies for randomly drug testing all of their employees. Civil rights and labor groups spoke out against the bill, which was lobbied for by the governor’s office, as it made its way through the Legislature.

The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in United States v. Cotterman, 637 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2011), posted here.

Today we examine a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit: whether the search of a laptop computer that begins at the border and ends two days later in a Government forensic computer laboratory almost 170 miles away can still fall within the border search doctrine. The district court considered the issue to be a simple matter of time and space. It concluded that the search of property seized at an international border and moved 170 miles from that border for further search cannot be justified by the border search doctrine. We disagree.

The seizure of defendant’s clothing in the ER was not shown to be supported by any exception to the warrant requirement. It was not shown to be inevitable by the state, it was in an opaque bag so not plain view, and it was not by exigency or consent. Clay v. State, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 301 (March 19, 2012).

There is no constitutional requirement [citing no cases] that a CI be searched before a controlled buy. Also, the CI here unwittingly led the police to defendant, and that enhanced his reliability. United States v. Donnell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36487 (D. Minn. February 2, 2012).*

Wearing an empty holster and putting something in a saddlebag is probable cause there is a gun in the saddlebag. State v. Pryor, 2012 Ohio 1033, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 973 (1st Dist. March 16, 2012).*

Defendants lived at the place searched, and the fact that it was also used to distribute drugs did not deny them standing under Carter. United States v. Vazquez-Velazquez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35867 (N.D. Ga. February 23, 2012):

Notwithstanding the Government's evidence that the house at 1986 Benthill Drive was used for some drug activity, the evidence does not establish that the house was used primarily for drug operations. Based on the evidence discussed above, I conclude that Defendants met their burden of showing that they lived in the house and used it for ordinary activities of daily living, and thus, had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house.

A traffic stop based on a reasonable belief that a traffic violation occurred is proper. United States v. Rodriguez-Trevino, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36561 (N.D. Ga. February 21, 2012)*:

"the propriety of the traffic stop does not depend on whether the defendant is actually guilty of committing a traffic offense," but instead, "the pertinent question is whether it was reasonable for the officer to believe that a traffic offense had been committed." United States v. Crump, Criminal Action File No. 4:10-CR-032-HLM-WEJ, 2011 WL 6153106, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 21, 2011) (citation omitted), adopted by 2011 WL 6179211, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 12, 2011).

ACLU.org: Even After Supreme Court GPS Decision, Feds Still Want Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking by Sarah Roberts, Speech, Privacy and Technology Project:

Even after January's landmark Supreme Court decision cast significant doubt on the government’s ability to electronically track a person’s location without a warrant, the Justice Department continues to defend this practice. On Friday, the ACLU, along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the government should be required to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before seizing 60 days’ worth of location information generated by an individual’s cell phone.

Volokh Conspiracy: What Are the Damages for a Fourth Amendment Search? by Orin Kerr:

Imagine the police search a home for evidence of crime. No one is home but the door is unlocked, and the officers look in the kitchen, bedroom, and closets. They find nothing, and then they leave. Assume that the police do not damage any property or make a mess of things inside the home.

. . .

Now imagine the homeowner learns of the search. The homeowner believes correctly that the search violated the Fourth Amendment, and he sues the officers for money damages. Imagine five possibilities for why the search violated the Fourth Amendment: ...

Here’s my question. Assume that there is no qualified immunity, and that the officers are liable for whatever damages the homeowner suffered for the search. If you are a juror and you are tasked with estimating the damages, what do you think the damages are for these five scenarios?

With this Supreme Court, not much. Maybe no qualified immunity, but how do you calculate the damages?

State by State: We're Taking Our Country Back 5-17-10

Contraceptives Should not be Covered by Insurance Companies, 3-20-12

Post Christmas Wish List 12-27-10

Illiteracy in America: 7,000 High School Kids Drop Out Every Day 9-6-10

Detroit Tragedy Morphing Into National Tragedy 4-18-11

Immigration Caused Coming Mega-Traumas 8-8-11

A defendant who denied living in an apartment at the time of a search did not waive his reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment where he actually paid the rent. A ruse to get defendant to open the door of the apartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It would have if the ruse led to consent, but this one didn’t. People v. Nelson, 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 419 (March 15, 2012).

“[W]e need not conduct the balancing test for an Article 1, Section 11 determination because the manager of the motel evicted Harper immediately upon his arrest and then gave officers permission to search the room.” Harper v. State, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 102 (March 15, 2012).*

Defendant consented after he was told he was free to go. His prior possession offenses made the officer “curious.” McLain v. State, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 106 (March 16, 2012).*

Police with information that a suicidal person is driving to a location to kill himself can stop the car. State v. Dunn, 2012 Ohio 1008, 2012 Ohio LEXIS 688 (March 15, 2012):

[*P22] Thus, we hold that the community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows police officers to stop a person to render aid if they reasonably believe that there is an immediate need for their assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury.

[*P23] In this case, officers received a dispatch regarding an allegedly armed and suicidal person with an imminent plan to kill himself upon reaching a certain destination. Given that stopping a person on the street is "considerably less intrusive than police entry into the home itself, Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 336, 121 S.Ct. 946, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001), the officers' effecting a traffic stop to prevent Dunn from harming himself was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows police officers to stop a driver based on a dispatch that the driver is armed and plans to kill himself.

The Power Elite and the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 10, 3-19-12

Trashing America: Chemical and Animal Litter, Part 3, 11-28-11