SearchSupport ReformAny amount helps!
Reform NewsTopicsUser loginVote ReformOrganizationNavigationEvents
Upcoming eventsActive forum topicsNew forum topicsBrowse archives
PollWho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 13 guests online.
Who's new
Recent blog posts
|
IssuesFlooding feared after storms sock south-central U.S.OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Residents and businesses from southeast Texas north through western Missouri braced for flooding Tuesday after a violent band of storms brought heavy rain, hail and at least one tornado, with more of the same forecast for the next several days. The National Weather Service said a ... Party of Lincoln struggling in the Land of LincolnRick Santorum slipping in Illinois?Hayden: Obama's Iran problem and Bush doctrinePakistan committee U.S. drone strikes to endGA: State couldn't justify seizure of clothing in ER in a capital caseThe 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).* N.D.Ga.: Living at house where drugs are sold still gives standing under CarterDefendants 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"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. Romney rolls to big win in IllinoisSay what? Romney sees win in pancakeBill Burton on Maher's donationReport: Anti-corruption efforts subparSantorum's math improbableVolokh Conspiracy: "What Are the Damages for a Fourth Amendment Search?"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 5-17-10State by State: We're Taking Our Country Back 5-17-10
Contraceptives Should not be Covered by Insurance Companies, 3-20-12Contraceptives Should not be Covered by Insurance Companies, 3-20-12
Categories: Christianity, Conservative, Devvy Kidd, Family, Issues, New World Order / Globalism, News, Politics, Pro-Life, Truth News, US, www.NewsWithViews.com
Post Christmas Wish List 12-27-10Post Christmas Wish List 12-27-10
|
InfoWars.comTruthNews.US - News
www.NewsWithViews.com
News
|
Recent comments
14 years 46 weeks ago
15 years 25 weeks ago
17 years 11 weeks ago
17 years 22 weeks ago
17 years 23 weeks ago
17 years 23 weeks ago
17 years 23 weeks ago
17 years 23 weeks ago
17 years 29 weeks ago
17 years 29 weeks ago