VoteKansas.org

CNN | "Congressional leaders seek to halt increasing leaks of classified information."

Jerry Weintraub discusses his new documentary on former President George H. W. Bush.

Infowars.com | We Are Change journalist Luke Rudkowski exposes the darkest side of the global elite's sick, hidden agenda to murder two thirds of the world's population.

RT | Pure evil: Chicago cops are now tasering expectant mothers - and police head sees nothing wrong with it.

Ruben Navarrette says it's disrespectful to lump together Latino U.S. citizens with Latino illegal immigrants

W. Kamau Bell, host of FX's "Totally Biased With W. Kamau Bell," with his take on big political stories of the week.

Sen. John McCain tells CNN's Anderson Cooper why he believes the White House is behind recent major security leaks.

Infowars.com | The 45th Anniversary of the Attack on the USS Liberty still leaves some unanswered questions about what happened that day.

International envoy Kofi Annan meets U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday as frustrated world leaders warned that Syria is engaging in crimes against humanity and drifting closer to a civil war.

Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday assigned two U.S. attorneys to lead investigations into the possible leaking of state secrets.

Washington Post | Coke is feeling the pressure, and turning to desperate marketing campaign to fool consumers.

Infowars | The program tries to get "truthers" to recant and swallow the official story.

Washington Post | Remember the FAX machine? Find out why Japan still uses them.

Infowars | Unseen photos of Bilderberg 2012 exclusively provided to Infowars by Charlie Skelton.

Search incident of the call log of defendant’s cell phone was valid. (Maybe that's all that's subject to search incident.) People v. Taylor, 2012 COA 91, 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 926 (June 7, 2012):

[*P10] For present purposes we assume, as apparently did the trial court, two propositions: First, defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cellular telephone's call history4 and second, the officer's review of the call history constituted a warrantless search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

4 Other courts to consider this issue have found a reasonable expectation of privacy in a cellular telephone's call history. See, e.g., United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250, 259 (5th Cir. 2007) (finding legitimate expectation of privacy in call history of cell phone); United States v. Gomez, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1140 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ("the weight of authority agrees that accessing a cell phone's call log or text message folder is considered a 'search' for Fourth Amendment purposes"); United States v. Wurie, 612 F. Supp. 2d 104, 109 (D. Mass. 2009) ("It seems indisputable that a person has a subjective expectation of privacy in the contents of his or her cell phone."); United States v. De La Paz, 43 F. Supp. 2d 370, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (finding legitimate privacy expectation in the fact that calls were received and in the identity of the callers); State v. Boyd, 992 A.2d 1071, 1080-81 (Conn. 2010) (reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone); but see United States v. Mercado-Nava, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (D. Kan. 2007) (when cell phones were taken from defendant's person but defendant did not assert ownership of cell phones, did not testify as to expectation of privacy in cell phones, and did not present testimony that he had a legitimate possessory interest in cell phones or had taken steps to ensure his privacy in them, defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in content of cell phones).

. . .

[*P17] We conclude that a search of the call history of a cellular telephone on the person of the arrestee is a lawful search incident to arrest. Here, the uncontested evidence at the suppression hearing was that defendant's cell phone was removed from his person after his lawful custodial arrest. The officer then searched defendant's cell phone call history to confirm defendant had called the woman who arrived to sell Investigator J.W. the drugs. This search was a lawful warrantless search incident to arrest. See, e.g., Smallwood, 61 So. 3d at 460.

[*P18] Additionally, applying the narrower view proposed by some courts that officers may not search all data contained in a cell phone, nevertheless the search of the call history of defendant's cell phone was lawful. See Hawkins v. State, 704 S.E.2d 886, 891-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) ("Just because an officer has the authority to make a search of the data stored on a cell phone (that is, just because he had reason to 'open' the 'container') does not mean that he has the authority to sift through all of the data stored on the phone (that is, to open and view all of the sub-containers of data stored therein). Instead, his search must be limited as much as is reasonably practicable by the object of the search.").

Information Liberation | "Click It Or Ticket' Now Applies To Your Cats & Dogs."

The search of defendant’s purse violated the Fourth Amendment, and it was excluded in her criminal case, but that did not make it excludable in her probation revocation proceeding. People v. Lazlo, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 659 (1st Dist. June 6, 2012):

[T]he exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation hearings, unless the police conduct at issue shocks the conscience. (See, e.g., United States v. Vandemark (9th Cir. 1975) 522 F.2d 1019, 1020 [“[t]his accords with the almost unanimous view that the exclusionary rule does not usually apply in probation revocation proceedings”]; People v. Harrison (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 803, 811 [245 Cal. Rptr. 204] (Harrison) [“federal law does not require application of the exclusionary rule to probation revocation hearings”]; People v. Nixon (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 687, 691, 693–694 [183 Cal. Rptr. 878].)

One senator who has survived the vice presidential vetting process described it this way: Like having a colonoscopy without anesthesia.

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz discusses the differences between Romney and Obama's stances on immigration.

Police were searching woods for a murder suspect and they encountered defendant, whom they asked for identification and why he was in the woods. This was not an investigative detention subject to the Fourth Amendment. He wasn’t the suspect they were looking for. Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 2012 PA Super 118, 2012 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1043 (June 6, 2012).*

The stop was justified based on the testimony even though its basis wasn’t mentioned in the reports. “No extrinsic evidence has been offered to contradict Officer Nelson’s testimony, and ‘[t]he mere fact an incident report omits certain details is not sufficient to render the officer's testimony concerning the underlying action facially implausible.’ United States v. Mendoza, 677 F.3d 822, 828 (8th Cir. 2012).” United States v. Gant, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78853 (D. Minn. June 7, 2012).*

Defendant’s post-conviction claim that his 2007 conviction should be voided because of Gant was rejected, not on Davis grounds, but on the automobile exception. United States v. Carter, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11265 (11th Cir. June 5, 2012).*