VoteKansas.org

The movement by U.S. food corporations toward more humane treatment of animals experienced a whopper of a shift Wednesday when Burger King announced that all of its eggs and pork will come from cage-free chickens and pigs by 2017.

The decision by the world's second-biggest fast-food restaurant raises the bar ...

ST. LOUIS (AP) — St. Louis police have issued arrest warrants for the father and paternal grandmother of a 5-year-old boy taken from a hospital where he was on a heart transplant waiting list.

The department issued a statement Wednesday saying it had issued felony warrants for kidnapping, interfering with ...

DNA testing of arrestees violates the Fourth Amendment, applying a balancing test. King v. State, 2012 Md. LEXIS 211 (April 24, 2012):

Although previously we upheld the constitutionality of the Act, as applied to convicted felons, in State v. Raines, 383 Md. 1, 857 A.2d 19 (2004), the present case presents an extension of the statute, not present in Raines. Thus, we evaluate here rights given to, and withdrawn from, citizens who have been arrested, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the totality of the circumstances balancing test, see Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S. Ct. 587, 151 L. Ed. 2d (2001), we conclude, on the facts of this case, that King, who was arrested, but not convicted, at the time of his first compelled DNA collection, generally has a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches that is not outweighed by the State's purported interest in assuring proper identification of him as to the crimes for which he was charged at the time. The State (through local law enforcement), prior to obtaining a DNA sample from King following his arrest on the assault charges, identified King accurately and confidently through photographs and fingerprints. It had no legitimate need for a DNA sample in order to be confident who it arrested or to convict him on the first-or second-degree assault charges. Therefore, there was no probable cause or individualized suspicion supporting obtention of the DNA sample collection for those charges. We conclude that the portions of the DNA Act authorizing collection of a DNA sample from a mere arrestee is unconstitutional as applied to King. Although we have some trepidation as to the facial constitutionality of the DNA Act, as to arrestees generally, we cannot exclude the possibility that there may be, in some circumstances, a need for the State to obtain a DNA sample to identify an arrestee accurately.

Arrest outside the threshold of the home led to invalid protective sweep of the house. The officers failed to articulate any facts or reason to justify going in the house. United States v. Barsoum, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56218 (M.D. Fla. April 5, 2012):

Against these standards, the government offers nothing to suggest the Defendant or anyone in the residence (his family) likely posed a danger to the agents, and certainly nothing that a reasonably prudent officer would accept. Instead, the main reason the government seemingly gives is that the agents took the Defendant inside to avoid the rainy morning and to offer him the opportunity to put on some clothes and shoes. Frankly, I find another reason is more obvious. As Agent Zdrojewski admitted, he wanted to secure the Defendant's consent to search his house. Indeed, he specifically chose that location for the Defendant's arrest, as opposed to the pharmacy, to increase his odds that he could search the residence.11 Because I find the government has failed to meet its burden under Buie, I find the agents' entry into the Defendant's house and their subsequent protective sweep illegal.

11 I do not suggest that this tactic is illegal; on the contrary, the approach is commonplace. But as Payton and Buie make clear, an arrest warrant and a search warrant are not synonymous. Without a search warrant, the government must present an exception to the warrant requirement.

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the length of a stop where the stop was lengthened by the wait for the owner of the car to come to the scene. Defense counsel also was not ineffective for not challenge the stop where the car was indisputably speeding. Owens v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56416 (M.D. Pa. April 23, 2012).*

The same pro se defendant’s motion to suppress was denied where he never, after being invited to do so, said what it was he was trying to suppress. United States v. Goodrich, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56472 (W.D. Mo. April 23, 2012),* R&R 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56470 (W.D. Mo. April 11, 2012).*

Pro se defendant’s claim that a search warrant could not issue without a criminal complaint also being issued is denied as without any legal basis. United States v. Goodrich, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56470 (W.D. Mo. April 23, 2012).*

HANFORD, California (AP) — A nondescript building in the heart of California's dairy country has become the focus of intense scrutiny after mad cow disease was discovered in a dead dairy cow.

The finding, announced Tuesday, is the first new case of the disease in the U.S. since 2006 — ...

LOS ANGELES — We saw his face a bloody, pulpy mess. And in 1992, when the four Los Angeles Police officers who beat him after a traffic stop were acquitted, it touched off anger that affected an entire generation. Now, 20 years later, this is the face of Rodney King, and ...