2012 was another successful year at Bennett & Williams. More proof that if you’re looking for the best dwi/dui lawyers in Arkansas, you need look no further:
Tommy and Brad were the only DWI lawyers voted Best Lawyers in Little Rock in the December 2012 issue of Little Rock Soiree magazine.
Brad and Chip were selected as one [...]
“The Best Around”
↧
↧
LA1 follows LA3: Use of “Wyoming Took Kit” during P2P computer search doesn't violate some separate reasonable expectation of privacy in CP hash values
A child pornography investigator’s use of the “Wyoming Took Kit” that searches for and finds child porn on a computer connected peer-to-peer by locating hash (SHA) values of known child porn images does not violate some other expectation of privacy. State v. Dunham, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 1743 (La.App. 1 Cir. December 21, 2012):
The issues presented in the defendant's brief were recently addressed by the Third Circuit in a factually similar case, State v. Daigle, 2011-1209 (La. App. 3d Cir. 5/2/12), 93 So.3d 657. In Daigle, Louisiana State Police detectives conducted an investigation using the Wyoming Tool Kit and discovered the defendant's IP address was seen with SHA values consistent with child pornography. At trial, the detectives explained that the Wyoming Tool Kit was designed by the Wyoming Department of Justice and ran on the Gnutella network. According to the detectives, software such as LimeWire and BearShare also ran on the Gnutella network. The Wyoming Tool Kit identified IP addresses that had SHA values matching images previously identified as child pornography. Daigle, 93 So.3d at 659-60. The detectives used GNU Watch in addition to the Wyoming Tool Kit, and testified that both programs only ran on the Gnutella network. Id. at 663. Citing several recent federal court decisions, the court found that in applying for a search warrant, the detective did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy on defendant's part by using software available only to law enforcement to identify defendant's IP address as having SHA values that might be associated with images of child pornography. It explained:
Federal courts have examined the issues presented in Defendant's appeal and have determined that defendants have no Fourth Amendment privacy rights in computer files that they have shared on file sharing networks such as Gnutella regardless of whether the defendants have logged onto the Gnutella network through clients such as Lime[W]ire, Morpheus, BearShare, or Shareaza. .... This is equally true if the investigating law enforcement officer uses software specially modified to screen for child pornography, such as ShareazaLE or the Wyoming Tool Kit, provided that the software has no greater access to the defendants' computer files than that available to any other Gnutella client. Gabel, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107131, 2010 WL 3927697; United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) [per curiam], ...
Daigle, 93 So.3d at 665.
We agree with third circuit's reasoning and find that Tpr. Sandifer did not violate the defendant's right to privacy by using GNU Watch to examine the SHA values for files the defendant had already elected to freely share with other LimeWire users. Moreover, the defendant offered no evidence at trial in support of his assertion that publicly available programs are unable to obtain the SHA values of files on LimeWire, and the record does not support that argument. Therefore, the defendant's arguments related to the alleged violation of his right of privacy are without merit.
↧
News Roundup
New Governor Pat McCrory may be more focused on economic policy than on the courts and criminal justice, but he’s still done several things in his first days in office that might interest readers, like rescinding Governor Perdue’s executive order creating a judicial nominating commission; naming former legislator – and former probation officer – David [...]
↧
WA: Arrest for DB justified SI of backpack of handcuffed, but not otherwise restrained, defendant
Police were called to a domestic disturbance and arrested the defendant in possession of a backpack. Even though he was handcuffed, he was not secured in the back seat of a police car, and a search incident of the backpack was reasonable because of the violent nature of the arrest. State v. Ellison, 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 15 (January 8, 2013):
¶22 Even assuming that Gant can be extended to searches outside the automobile context, Gant has not eliminated the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement or the validity of a protective search of the person, objects, and area in the “immediate control” of the arrestee at the time of arrest as allowed by Chimel and Fladebo.
¶23 Here, Ellison's involvement with police did not begin with a traffic violation. Instead, the officers were responding to a potentially dangerous situation involving an estranged boyfriend, Ellison, refusing to leave his ex-girlfriend's property. Moreover, when Officer Barry first made contact with Ellison, Ellison refused to comply with Barry's commands that Ellison show his hands. Accordingly, concern for officer safety (and the safety of Ellison's ex-girlfriend) was heightened in this situation and the search of the backpack Ellison guarded incident to arrest was justified. Moreover, although handcuffed at the scene, unlike the defendant in Gant, Ellison was not securely placed in the officer's patrol car before the search of his backpack. It is possible that despite his restraints, Ellison could have escaped and procured a potential weapon from the backpack. See United States v. Sanders, 994 F.2d 200, 209-10 (5th Cir. 1993) (“The limitations of handcuffs' effectiveness are widely known to law enforcement personnel. … Despite this widespread knowledge, in 1991 alone … at least four police officers were killed by persons who had already been handcuffed.”) (footnotes omitted) ...
↧
Democracy Now: "Bronx Residents Accosted by NYPD Win Landmark Court Ruling Deeming "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Illegal"
Democracy Now: Bronx Residents Accosted by NYPD Win Landmark Court Ruling Deeming "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Illegal:
A federal judge has ruled that New York City police are not allowed to routinely stop pedestrians outside of private residential buildings in the Bronx. The stops are part of the so-called Clean Halls program, which has prompted allegations of police harassment by some residents who say they are being accosted outside of the buildings in which they live. Previous data on the New York Police Department’s "stop-and-frisk" policy has shown African-American and Latino men make up a hugely disproportionate share of those stopped. We’re joined by Molly Kovel, staff attorney with the Bronx Defenders and part of the legal team in the case, and by Abdullah Turner, a Bronx resident whose building is enrolled in the Clean Halls program and who says he was unfairly arrested while waiting for a friend inside. [includes rush transcript]
↧
↧
The Search for Truth
"There's too much information, but not enough to go on" - Ian Hunter, "When the World Was Round"
There is a difference between information and knowledge, let alone truth. These days, it's hard to know what to believe. Fifty years ago, a few nightly news programs and a couple of newspapers peddled what they reported to be "the truth." But the internet has changed all that. The internet has forced good old competition back into a truth business that was once monopolized by tightly controlled corporate entities. Information now flows from numerous sources. Much of what constitutes "knowledge" cannot be broadcast by large corporations like CNN, Fox News, or the NY Times, because their corporate sponsors would pull their support instantly.
For purposes of this discussion, let's assume that it is, in fact, possible to "know" something. Philosophy has attempted over the years to figure out what we can really "know". Basically, philosophy is a search for opinions that are both true, and that we can be justified in believing to be true. Even science is based upon its own 'philosophy' of knowledge, and the assumptions that support this philosophy.
Scientists know things about the world, but there are built in limitations on science's ability to make "truth" claims. Scientific experiments may measure something 100 times, only to "assume" that the universe will behave in the same way on the 101st time. But, this is only an assumption. Also, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle limits science's ability to "know" certain things about our universe. And, when we look at matter in its most basic form (quantum mechanics), we see that "knowing" the state of matter may not be possible without first having a conscious observer force the particles to behave in a certain way (the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, for example).
↧
Cops, Ignorance & Tiaras
Miss University of Arkansas, Sarah Gafvert, was arrested a few months ago on a charge of Arkansas DWI. As I recall, there was the typical rush to judgment on Ms. Gafvert’s guilt. However, as this ABC News story points out, things aren’t always what they seem.
Ms. Gafvert informed the cop that she had Type 1 [...]
↧
Kindesmissbrauch: 245 Festnahmen bei Razzien gegen Kinderpornoring
Ermittlern in den USA ist ein Schlag gegen einen “Kinderpornoring” gelungen. In insgesamt sieben Ländern nahm die Polizei 245 mutmaßliche Täter fest. Alleine 222 davon wurden in den USA festgenommen. Während der Festnahmen wurden auch 123 Kinder in Sicherheit gebracht, die missbraucht worden sein sollen. Das jüngste Kind unter diesen soll gerade einmal ein . . . → Read More: Kindesmissbrauch: 245 Festnahmen bei Razzien gegen KinderpornoringÄhnliche Beiträge:Kindesmissbrauch: Spanische Polizisten befreien mehrere…Anonymous erklärt Kinderpornos den Kampf – mit erstenGeldstrafe: Kinderpornos beschafft und verbreitetGeldstrafe für Besitz kinderpornographischer Bilder auf demProzess wegen Besitz von Kinderpornographie ausgesetzt
↧
Totschlag: Student soll eigene Großmutter umgebracht haben
Vor dem Landgericht Fulda muss sich jetzt ein 25-jähriger Medizinstudent wegen Totschlags verantworten. Er soll von seinem Studienort Berlin in seine Heimatstadt Bebra gefahren sein, um seine 85 Jahre alte Großmutter umzubringen. Mit einem Küchenmesser durchbohrte er laut Anklage die Lungenflügel und schnitt anschließend die Kehle durch. Der Angeklagte sagte aus, dass er Stimmen . . . → Read More: Totschlag: Student soll eigene Großmutter umgebracht habenÄhnliche Beiträge:USA: Nanny soll zwei anvertraute Kinder getötet habenMord: Mann zerstückelt Leiche seiner Frau und erhält 11…Mord an Zuhälter: Staatsanwaltschaft fordert acht Jahre…Versuchter Mord: 46-Jähriger muss sich wegen versuchten…Freispruch statt langjähriger Freiheitsstrafe?
↧
↧
Breath test results in Pennsylvania excluded from evidence based on challenge to the linear accuracy of the breath test machine
For Massachusetts OUI lawyers, the recent decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court may be used to challenge the admissibility of breath test results in Massachusetts. In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Schildt, the defendant's Attorney Justin McShane argued that...
↧
Two DWIs in the Same Night?!
A man in Berlin, Maryland was charged twice in the same night with driving under the influence. He was not, however, charged twice in one night with the same crime. He allegedly committed the same offense twice in one night. On December 12, 2012, Richard Hudome was pulled over for speeding and then arrested for [...]
↧
Benchslap: Judge Kane on Law Schools
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="arial">District of Colorado Senior Judge John Kane offers his views on Law Schools (originally posted at Paul Campos' <a href=
"http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-view-from-bench.html">Inside the Law School Scam</a>).</font>
<div align="left">
<blockquote>
<div align="left"><font style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial"><strong>ON THE FAILURES OF LEGAL EDUCATION</strong></font></font></div>
<div align="left"><font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial"> </font></div>
<div align="left"><font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial"> It is no secret that many lawyers are dissatisfied with their profession. Of the million
or so lawyers in the United States (more per capita by far ...</font></div></blockquote></div>
↧
MENTALLY ILL PEMBROKE MAN IS ARRESTED FOR THREATS, ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER AND ASSOCIATED CHARGES IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE
…But then again, maybe it isn't kids making threats these days.
William Rearick, 45 of Pemroke (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) pleaded not guilty today in Plymouth District Court. He stands charged with making threats in a fairly threatening manner. The Commonwealth contends that he doused his girlfriend’s two children with gas and threatened to blow up the house where they were all living.
This was no mere twitter threat (see yesterday’s blog). Most of all, he is alleged to have had the means to carry out the threat. There is, however, a twist to indicate this is not simply the story of an evil trouble-maker just looking to get revenge or something of the like.
The Defendant, according to the police report, has a history of mental illness. The neighbors say he could neither speak nor hear. They say that he lived in the home with his girlfriend, his girlfriend’s two children, a child of his own, and the girlfriend’s mother. The neighbors said he was very attentive to the children and they communicated with him using sign language.
The allegations are that the Defendant entered the Birch Street home Wednesday afternoon with a gasoline can and a propane tank. He is said to have tried to use a lighter to ignite the propane gas, saying he wanted to kill himself, according to the police report filed by Pembroke Police Sergeant William Hinchey.
He is then said to have struggled with his girlfriend’s two daughters, pouring gas on them, then poured gas all over the kitchen floor.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
The Business of Law Will Get Its Day in Court
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">Jacoby and Meyers was a ground-breaking concept when it first burst onto the legal scene in 1972. Forget the mahogany paneled rooms and rich blood-red
leather chairs. You sat on a milk crate and they charged what "ordinary" people could afford to pay for a lawyer. It was a good idea. <a href=
"http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/06/10/when-the-new-normal-was-new.aspx" target="">Shame it failed</a>.<br>
<br>
But that doesn't mean that the good folks at J&M don't want to be on ...</font>
↧
Reconsidering Work and Family with “the Marriage Equation”
Deborah A. Widiss, Changing the Marriage Equation, 89 Wash. U. L. Rev. 721 (2012).Kerry AbramsEvery day, married couples make decisions about how to allocate work within their relationships. Some couples specialize, with one person performing a breadwinning role and the other doing the lion’s share of caregiving tasks. Others divide breadwinning and caregiving tasks fairly evenly, and still others perform the breadwinning role together while outsourcing caregiving to housekeepers, gardeners, and nannies. When spouses make a decision about how to [...]
↧
Identity Fraud, "Obtain" and Fabrication
After being convicted of “identity fraud, a second degree felony”, in violation of Utah Code § 76-6-1102, Manuel Hurtado Rincon appealed. State v. Rincon, --- P.3d ----, 2012 WL 6720469 (Utah Court of Appeals 2012). This is all the opinion has to say about how Rincon came to be charged with identity fraud: Several years ago, [Rincon] made up a random combination of nine numbers and began representing the number set as his social security number. Over the years, [he] used the invented number numerous times and in multiple states for employment purposes. Most recently, [he] used the number when he began working at a candy store in Ogden. [Rincon] had no clue whether the number had actually been assigned to anyone, and he had never seen, purchased, or possessed any identification or other documents indicating that it belonged to someone else. As it turns out, the nine-digit combination [Rincon] concocted happens to be the social security number of a woman living in Arizona, who lost her job in May 2010. When the woman was denied an extension of her unemployment benefits because, according to her social security records, she was employed by a candy store in Ogden, Utah, the authorities became involved, and [Rincon’s] ruse was discovered. Because he used what proved to be another person's social security number in connection with his job at the candy store, [Rincon] was arrested and charged with identity fraud. State v. Rincon, supra. After being charged, Rincon waived his right to a jury trialand opted for a bench trial. State v. Rincon, supra. After the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence and rested, he moved to dismiss the charge against him. To understand his motion, it is necessary to understand the nature of the offense with which Rincon was charged. The statute under which he was charged provides, in part, as follows: (2)(a) A person is guilty of identity fraud when that person: (i) obtains personal identifying information of another person whether that person is alive or deceased; and (ii) knowingly or intentionally uses, or attempts to use, that information with fraudulent intent, including to obtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, employment, any other thing of value, or medical information. (b) It is not a defense to a violation of Subsection (2)(a) that the person did not know that the personal information belonged to another person. Utah Code § 76-6-1102(2)(a) (emphasis added). In moving to dismiss, Rincon claimed “the State had not presented sufficient evidence to prove [he] had `obtain[ed] personal identifying information of another person’ as required by the identity fraud statute.” State v. Rincon, supra. The trial judge denied his motion, so Rincon’s attorney presented the defense’s evidence, after which Rincon renewed his motion to dismiss the charge. State v. Rincon, supra. The judge again denied the motion and found Rincon guilty. State v. Rincon, supra. As noted above, he appealed. On appeal, Rincon argued that the plain meaning of the word `obtains’ as used in the identity fraud statute does not include the invention of a number, using only one's imagination, that coincidentally turns out to be another's social security number or other personal identifying information. . . . Based on his contention that his invention of a number cannot be construed to mean that he `obtained’ another person's social security number, [Rincon] argues that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction of identity fraud. `When reviewing a bench trial for sufficiency of the evidence, we must sustain the trial court's judgment unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if [we] otherwise reach[ ] a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ State v. Gordon, 2004 UT 2, 84 P.3d 1167. . . . State v. Rincon, supra. The Court of Appeals began its analysis by outlining the arguments on both sides, noting, first, that Rincon was claiming that the word `obtain’ plainly connotes some sort of affirmative act or effort to acquire personal identifying information from some external source. He reasons that simply concocting a nine-digit numerical combination lacks the necessary affirmative effort and, as a result, is nothing more than the product of one's own mental creativity. . . . [T]he State employs a much broader reading of the statutory language to justify its conclusion that `obtain’ is almost perfectly synonymous with the word `get.’ In effect, the State's reading includes any conceivable method of `getting’ -- i.e. taking, receiving, discovering, fabricating, overhearing, reading, creating, theorizing, hypothesizing, etc. The State argues that the `obtain[ing]’ element is satisfied so long as a person `gets’ the personal identifying information of another, regardless of the source of that information and even if the person merely concocts what coincidentally turns out to be someone else's personal information. . . . State v. Rincon, supra. The court then explained that when it is interpreting state law, `we first look to the plain language of the statute.’ State v. Germonto, 2003 UT App 217, 73 P.3d 978. When construing a statute, words that `”are used in common, daily, nontechnical speech, should, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intent, be given the meaning which they have for laymen in such daily usage.” Travelers/Aetna Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 2002 UT App 221, 51 P.3d 1288 (quoting Government Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dennis, 645 P.2d 672 (Utah Supreme Court 1982)). . . We assume `the words and phrases used [in the statute] were chosen carefully and advisedly.,’ Amax Magnesium Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 796 P.2d 1256 (Utah Supreme Court 1990), and we seek to avoid an interpretation that leads to absurd results. . . . The standard dictionary definition of `obtain’ is `to gain or attain possession or disposal of usually by some planned action or method.’ Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1559 (1993). Common synonyms of `obtain’ include: `acquire, attain, bag, bring in, capture, carry, come by, draw, gain, garner, get, knock down, land, make, obtain, procure, pull down, realize, reap, secure, win.’ See Merriam–Webster OnLine, http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/obtain (last visited Dec. 19, 2012). Although `get’ is listed as a synonym, in actual usage `obtain does not mean simply “get”’; it means `to gain or attain usually by planned action or effort.’ Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage 677 (1989). State v. Rincon, supra. The Court of Appeals therefore found that “[b]ased on a plain reading of the statute” at issue, “obtain” necessarily involves (1) some planned action or effort (2) related to an external source. Given those two requisite components, mental processes resulting in an unintended match with someone else's personal information cannot logically be considered a method of `obtaining’ information. Information, or anything for that matter, cannot be `obtained’ unless there is some planned action or effort involved. See Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1559 (1993); Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage 677 (1989). State v. Rincon, supra. The court then rejected the prosecution’s argument that the effort to mentally concoct a nine-digit number is no different than the effort exerted by a person who dives into a dumpster to scavenge a document containing another's social security number. We disagree. The contrasts between the two are quite stark. Merely thinking a thought, as [Rincon] did, is very different from purchasing, reading, looking for, stealing, digging up, or foraging for something. Generating thoughts or ideas in one's own mind is not the same or even analogous to the type of planned action or effort contemplated by the plain meaning of `obtain,’ and our jurisprudence prohibits us from reading substantive terms into a statute that are not already there. . . . [W]e must assume that each word of the statute was used purposefully by the Legislature, see Platts v. Parents Helping Parents, 947 P.2d 658 (Utah Supreme Court 1997), and if the Legislature intended to proscribe everything from stealing, dumpster diving, and eavesdropping to hypothesizing, inventing, and mentally fabricating, then it certainly could have so indicated in the text of the statute. State v. Rincon, supra. The Court of Appeals also explained that the planned action or effort contemplated by the plain meaning of `obtain’ must be related to an external source. That external source could be any number of things -- i.e., another person, a document, a television or radio program, music, etc. -- but it cannot logically be a person's internal thought processes. Thoughts, ideas, or information generated within a person's own mind are not, in common parlance, `obtained’ by the thinker because they do not come to the thinker from any separate or distinct source. State v. Rincon, supra. The prosecution argued, in response to this reasoning, that limiting “obtain” to external sources would produce the absurd result of punishing the purchaser or stealer of mentally fabricated information but not the fabricator himself, which would effectively render meaningless `the purposes of the legislature in ruling out ignorance that the personal identifying information belongs to another as a defense.’ See Utah Code Ann. § 76–6–1102(2)(b) (`It is not a defense to [identity fraud] that the person did not know that the personal information belonged to another person.’). That suggestion . . . ignores the distinct differences between a purchaser and a creator of information, namely the inconsistent methods by which the two come to possess the information. It also encourages us, once more, to stretch `obtain’ well beyond its plain meaning and ordinary usage in order to reach every conceivable possessor of personal identifying information. Again, if the Legislature intended the identity fraud statute to encompass each and every form of acquiring information, including mental fabrication, then it could easily have structured the statute to reflect that intention. State v. Rincon, supra. The Court of Appeals then applied its interpretation of “obtain” to this case: No evidence was introduced at trial to indicate [Rincon] did anything but invent and then use a number that coincidentally turned out to be another person's social security number. There is also no record evidence showing that [he] acquired the number from anywhere other than his own imagination. Therefore, the State failed to prove that [Rincon] `obtain[ed] the personal identifying information of another . . . and in turn failed to present sufficient evidence to support [his] conviction. State v. Rincon, supra. It also explained that in “concluding [Rincon] did not `obtain’ the social security number that he used for employment purposes, we most certainly do not condone his conduct or even suggest that he did not commit a crime.” State v. Rincon, supra (citing 42 U.S. Code § 408(a)(7)(B)). But it reiterated that he “did not commit identity fraud under Utah law.” State v. Rincon, supra. So the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction and vacated “his resulting sentence.” State v. Rincon, supra. (Unfortunately, I do not know what it was.)You may wonder why I did a post on this case when it does not, at least explicitly, involve the use of computer technology. I decided to do a post on it because the issue the court deals with has come up before (Rincon isn't the first to make up SSNs), in cases that did involve the use of computer technology and will no doubt come up again.The issue is basically whether the "identity" crime is an identity theft crime, which would require that the perpetrator actually "take" something from a real person, or is an identity fraud crime, which would only require that the perpetrator use false information to trick the victim into parting with something of value. As I explained in a post I did several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the federal identity theft/fraud statute is a "theft" crime, which means there must be a real victim. Here, that issue did not come up, which is why this court had to address the other, related issue, i.e., that the thief have "taken" something from the victim. It will be interesting to see if and how other U.S. state courts address this issue.
↧
IN MEMORIAM: JIM BEST
Word has reached us this Friday morning that Jim Best, DUI lawyer extraordinaire, former PD, outdoorsman, and all around nice guy, passed away last night from a recently diagnosed brain tumor. Jim was one of those guys who was down to earth, loved a good joke, and fought hard for his clients. In the realm of DUI, no one fought harder. In the 1990's Jim rode the wave of specialized law firms and became one of the top DUI lawyers in Florida. In recent years we would see Jim every now and then, and he would regale us with tales of semi-retirement: with bass fishing with his son in the morning before doing a little work in the afternoon.Sometimes the message gets lost in the daily hustle, but remember, life is about the small special moments. Enjoy the upcoming weekend. Pop a cold one or a few in memory of Jim. He would like that. See you in court.Site Feed
↧
↧
CA2: Wife could consent to search of family computer she hardly used just because it was available to her
Defendant’s wife and daughter sparingly used the family computer, but that didn’t mean that the wife didn’t have actual authority to consent to a search of it. She found child pornography on the computer and called the police and consented to a search of the computer. It was password protected, but the password wasn't working at the time in question. United States v. Marandola, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 592 (2d Cir. January 10, 2013)*:
While Lisa Marandola admitted to using the Apple computer sparingly, she still had access to it, as did her daughter. The computer was located in a common area and was purchased using joint funds. Mrs. Marandola paid for internet out of her own personal account. Moreover, Mrs. Marandola testified that her husband never told her that she was prohibited from using the computer, and that password protection was not enabled on the day in question. These facts provide compelling evidence that Lisa Marandola had common authority over the area, a substantial interest in the area, and even tacit permission to gain access to the area.
The evidence in the record supports consent to search. Three witnesses testified that defendant did, and other evidence pointed to wasn’t conclusive of anything. United States v. Perry, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 503, 2013 FED App. 0008P (6th Cir. January 9, 2013).*
↧
City of Grand Rapids Gun Ordinance Challenged by Open Carry Group
As a criminal defense attorney, I have seen first-hand how passionate people are about their firearms rights. Gun enthusiasts believe strongly in their Second Amendment rights, and I can’t say that I blame them. The City of Grand Rapids, Michigan has recently been the site of a political controversy regarding the right to carry firearms. [...]
↧
NYPD Allege Plan to Blow Up Wash. Square Arch
The latest in the explosives bust of the rich heroin users in Greenwich Village a few weeks ago: Police say Aaron Greene planned to blow up the Washington Square arch.
This is such an odd story....
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
