The Quinnipiac University Poll Release Detail is at the link. "Poll: Coloradans back death penalty, disapprove of Dunlap reprieve," is by Chuck Plunkett at the Denver Post. Coloradans said that the death penalty will be an important factor when they...
Colorado Public Opinion Polling
↧
↧
Court: Texas Inmate's Decades-Old Sentence Invalid
That's the title of an AP report by Michael Graczyk, via WBAY-TV. It's also available through Huffington Post as, "Jerry Hartfield, Texas Inmate, Has Life Sentence For Murder Deemed Invalid By Court of Criminal Appeals." The Texas Court of Criminal...
↧
Spencer & Petersilia on California Victims' Rights in a Post-Realignment World
Jessica Spencer and Joan Petersilia (Stanford Law School and Stanford University) have posted Voices from the Field: California Victims’ Rights in A Post-Realignment World (Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2013) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: On October...
↧
LA - I am not a sex offender
Original Article
You will notice all the harassment, inability to get a job, housing, and other issues these people faced due to being on the registry, and yet it's okay for the over 750,000...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Debating Government Surveillance
Recently, we learned that our government is engaged in secret data mining, telephone metadata collection programs. News of these programs were provided by a former private government contractor to the Guardian and also to the Washington Post, although only reporters … Continue reading →![]()
↧
↧
Dallas Morning News Editorial
"Getting it right on capital punishment," is the Morning News editorial published today. State lawmakers meant business in the high-crime 1990s, getting tough on so-called writ abuse by convicted killers who could file multiple appeals in state courts and drag...
↧
From Madrid: Fifth World Congress Against the Death Penalty
The Swiss Broadcasting Corporation posts, "Minister calls for ‘world without death penalty’." Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter has highlighted Switzerland’s commitment to the abolition of capital punishment at the opening of the Fifth World Congress against the Death Penalty in Madrid....
↧
Failure to Register: Are Violations Overblown?
Original Article
06/13/2013
“As a crime of omission, each failure to report ordinary life events is an opportunity for registrants to commit a new felony.”
Over the last two decades,...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Court of Appeals Reverses Conviction for False Personation
In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeals for the 1st District reversed the conviction of a defendant on the charge of felony false personation (California Penal Code § 529) because the prosecution failed to prove the defendant committed an “additional act” while acting “in such assumed character.” The ...The post Court of Appeals Reverses Conviction for False Personation appeared first on Law Office of Domenic J. Lombardo.
↧
↧
The Supreme Court's Holding in KING v. MARYLAND: Welcome to Gattaca?
As promised, I'd like to address the Supreme Court's controversial holding in King v. Maryland. Truth be told, the analysis is rather straightforward and ho-hum. Unlike the Court's holding in United States v. Jones, which turned-back-the-clock on Fourth Amendment analysis, the Court's holding in King applies a traditional, noncontroversial analysis. The Court restates its earlier assertion in Illinois v. McArthur: "when faced with special law enforcement needs, diminished expectations of privacy, minimal intrusions, or the like, the Court has found that certain general, or individual, circumstances may render a warrantless search or seizure reasonable." The Court then explains that (1) a buccal swab for DNA is a minimally intrusive search; and (2) upon the arrest of individuals for a "serious crime," law enforcement officers collect buccal swabs for a special purpose: identifying arrestees.
If only the Court was correct that the police collect DNA to "identify" arrestees. If that were the case, the collection of DNA upon arrest would be little different than the collection of fingerprints or the taking of booking photos. However, as Justice Scalia points out in his dissent, the police do not collect DNA to identify arrestees; they collect DNA for the sole purpose of solving unsolved crime. Solving crime is most definitely not a "special need" of law enforcement; it is the entire purpose of law enforcement. If the need to solve unsolved crimes justifies an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, there is no longer a purpose to the Fourth Amendment. The Court understands this, which is why the Court adopts the fictitious notion that DNA is collected for "identification."
It is true, of course, that arrestees have a diminished expectation of privacy and that this affirmed policy of DNA collection only applies to arrestees of "serious crimes." We're not living in Gattaca yet!
However, as Justice Scalia points out in his dissent, the fact that this policy only affects those arrested for "serious crime" is somewhat misleading. It is already the practice in all 50 states to collect DNA swabs of all individuals convicted of a felony offense. Thus, those individuals guilty of committing a "serious crime" were already required to give up their DNA, prior to the Court's holding in King. The only individuals who will be affected by this holding, therefore, are individuals who were arrested, but not convicted. That's right: the Court has gone out of its way to adopt a position that law enforcement may collect DNA from individuals who were either: (a) wrongfully arrested; (b) were arrested without enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged crime was committed; or who (c) negotiated and/or litigated a resolution, resulting in something less than a conviction.
This leads to an interesting potential problem. Prior to the adoption of a policy of collecting DNA samples from all individuals arrested for "serious crime," DNA profiles were uploaded into CODIS only when: (1) a DNA sample was collected pursuant to a DNA swab after conviction of a felony offense; (2) a DNA sample was collected pursuant to a lawful warrant, or the consent of the individual swabbed; or (3) when a DNA sample was collected from the scene of a crime. Thus, prior to this new policy, when investigators received a "CODIS hit" indicating that a known DNA sample matched to an unknown DNA sample collected from a crime scene, there wasn't much avenue to litigate the basis of the initial "CODIS hit," because the source of the known DNA sample was only collected pursuant to a fairly controlled process.
However, now that law enforcement may collect DNA samples upon arrest and upload the samples into CODIS, there is a far greater likelihood that some DNA samples will make their way into CODIS based upon unlawful arrests. This poses quite a problem. Typically, after receiving a "CODIS hit," law enforcement will receive a warrant to collect a new DNA swab of the defendant, which they will then compare to the DNA sample taken from the crime scene, to confirm the "CODIS hit." The prosecution of the case will hinge upon the second, controlled DNA test. The warrant to collect the DNA for this second test is based upon the probable cause generated by the initial "CODIS hit." However, if the initial "CODIS hit" is the result of a DNA swab that was collected pursuant to an unlawful arrest in violation of the 4th Amendment, then any subsequent investigation based upon that "CODIS hit" is tainted.
This potential problem will certainly add to the complexity of some criminal litigation. For instance, it is conceivable that an individual wrongfully arrested in Chicago, Illinois will generate a "CODIS hit" for a crime committed in Boca Raton, Florida. The litigation in Palm Beach County will partly depend upon the validity of police conduct in Cook County, Illinois, and would conceivably require Palm Beach County prosecutors to fly-in out of state law enforcement officers to testify in a suppression hearing.
What's more, the already back-logged CODIS system will now have to bear the burden of analyzing what is sure to be an influx of millions of new DNA samples. This will undoubtedly result in delays in receiving bonafide "CODIS hits."
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Florida DUI Lawyer:: Erin Brockovich Charged with Boating while Intoxicated
Movie namesake and environmental activist Erin Brockovich was arrested last week on suspicion of operating a boat under the influence of alcohol at Lake Mead in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The district attorney in Las Vegas decided Tuesday to charge Brockovich with a misdemeanor charge of boating while intoxicated.
Brockovich, 52, is scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 7 to face the charge.
According to reports, she was arrested Friday evening at a marina on the Colorado River reservoir behind Hoover Dam.
![967188_tourtistic_ferryboat.jpg]()
A Nevada state game warden apparently saw Brockovich arguing with her husband aboard the 26-foot Cobra motor boat and witnessed her throwing a cellphone into the water before having trouble mooring the vessel at the Las Vegas Boat Harbor.
The warden claims he had to help Brockovich dock the boat. She allegedly complied with two breath tests, which apparently measured her blood-alcohol level at twice the legal limit of 0.08 percent.
If convicted of DUI in Nevada as a first-time offender, she could face six months in jail, a $1,000 fine, up to 96 hours of community service and court-ordered alcohol and drug counseling.
Brockovich was freed on $1,000 bail late Friday.
She did not immediately respond to the charge against her.
However, later she did release a statement: "At no time was the boat away from the dock and there was no public safety risk. That being said, I take drunk driving very seriously, this was clearly a big mistake, I know better and I am very sorry."
Brockovich is best known for her efforts to sue Pacific Gas & Electric for polluting the water supply of a small Southern California town. Her journey became the subject of a 2000 movie that earned Julia Roberts an Academy Award for playing Brockovich.
Brockovich is now the head of a consulting firm and was featured in the 2011 documentary "Last Call at the Oasis," about the planet's diminishing and progressively more polluted water supply.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
A Nevada state game warden apparently saw Brockovich arguing with her husband aboard the 26-foot Cobra motor boat and witnessed her throwing a cellphone into the water before having trouble mooring the vessel at the Las Vegas Boat Harbor.
The warden claims he had to help Brockovich dock the boat. She allegedly complied with two breath tests, which apparently measured her blood-alcohol level at twice the legal limit of 0.08 percent.
If convicted of DUI in Nevada as a first-time offender, she could face six months in jail, a $1,000 fine, up to 96 hours of community service and court-ordered alcohol and drug counseling.
Brockovich was freed on $1,000 bail late Friday.
She did not immediately respond to the charge against her.
However, later she did release a statement: "At no time was the boat away from the dock and there was no public safety risk. That being said, I take drunk driving very seriously, this was clearly a big mistake, I know better and I am very sorry."
Brockovich is best known for her efforts to sue Pacific Gas & Electric for polluting the water supply of a small Southern California town. Her journey became the subject of a 2000 movie that earned Julia Roberts an Academy Award for playing Brockovich.
Brockovich is now the head of a consulting firm and was featured in the 2011 documentary "Last Call at the Oasis," about the planet's diminishing and progressively more polluted water supply.
↧
Shorstein & Lasnetski Attorney Harry Shorstein Recognized by Laws.com
Laws.com, which is a national website that provides an abundance of legal information and information about lawyers across the country, recently published an article recognizing Shorstein & Lasnetski partner Harry Shorstein for his work as a criminal defense lawyer in Jacksonville and throughout Florida.
The article quotes Harry Shorstein as he discusses communicating with juries after having tried more cases than any other criminal defense attorney practicing in the Jacksonville, Florida area today. The article also discusses the work he did as the State Attorney for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties in North Florida including his juvenile justice program that saw amazing results, was studied by prosecutors' offices throughout the world and was featured by multiple national news programs such as 60 Minutes and the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw.
Having Harry Shorstein at Shorstein & Lasnetski allows the firm to add the unprecedented experience that comes with almost 50 years in criminal law and litigation to a small firm environment that allows us to pay particular attention to each client and each case.
If you are being investigated by law enforcement in a state or federal case or have a pending criminal case and would like a free consultation with a law firm that has unmatched experience in a setting that allows us to be very accessible to our clients, feel free to contact us anytime.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
What happens at arraignment?
At your DUI Arraignment Court Hearing in Washington State the Judge or prosecutor will go over basic information about you (name/date of birth - want to make sure got right person) and your legal constitutional rights at arraignment (some Courts...
↧
↧
More than four out of five police agencies in the U.S. have no written policies for handling eyewitness identifications
WASHINGTON – More than four out of five police agencies in the U.S. have no written policies for handling eyewitness identifications despite long-standing federal guidelines, according to a report obtained by USA TODAY. Read more..
↧
Search warrant comes under suspicion
On July 7, 2010, the Judge of the New York City Criminal Law Court reviewed and approved a warrant authorizing the search of 105 West 128th Street, Apartment 4, New York, New York and seize cocaine and crack possession/cocaine possession and drug crime paraphernalia as well as any records and currency that would be indicative of drug trafficking.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant is charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third and Fifth Degrees, two counts of Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. Defendant moves to controvert the search warrant on the ground that it was issued without reasonable cause. Specifically, defendant claims that there is no nexus between the apartment that is the subject of the search warrant and the facts upon which the search of the apartment was ordered. Defendant also moves, pursuant to CPLR 2221(d), for leave to reargue the Court's Order which granted the People's ex-parte motion for a Protective Order pertaining to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the search warrant affidavit.
A Lawyer said that, according to defendant, he resided at 105 West 128th Street, Apt. 4, New York, New York for the past ten years. On July 8, 2010, at approximately 12:45 a.m., as defendant entered the ground floor lobby of 105 West 128th Street, the police rushed into the building and summarily seized and searched him. Two cellular phones, two keys to defendant's apartment and $26.00 in United States currency was recovered from defendant. He was then handcuffed and subjected to a custodial interrogation in the lobby of his residence, which resulted in defendant making a statement to the police. The police had a search warrant for defendant's apartment. However, defendant was not the subject of the warrant and the warrant did not authorize the search or seizure of any person "thereat or therein."
Upon execution of the search warrant, the police recovered 3,104 mg. of marijuana possession, 3,278 mg. cocaine possession, a .32 caliber magazine, six .32 caliber bullets, scales, ziplock bags, $70.00 in United States currency, an identification card in defendant's name, a letter addressed to defendant and a computer. According to defendant the police recovered a total of $889.00 in this case. The warrant affidavit basically sets forth in substance, the following facts, namely, that Detective received information from an undercover police officer relating to the sale of cocaine by the barber shop located on the ground and first floor level of 237 Lenox Avenue. Those observations were set forth in the affidavit for a search warrant.
Additionally, the Detective also states that he was able to see through a window, Miller and Harris inside of the barber shop handling money. Immediately after the transaction, the Detective stopped defendant who threw one rock of crack cocaine to the ground and that the other Detective recovered the rock of cocaine. The Detective returned to the barber shop, where he stopped and frisked him, recovering one ziplock bag containing cocaine from Harris's right front pants pocket. The Detective also observed an open black bag containing "numerous rocks of cocaine" inside of an open drawer inside the barber shop. The detective also smelled a "strong odor of cooked crack cocaine coming from" the open drawer.
A New York Lawyer said that, defendant does not dispute that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant for the possession and sale of a controlled substance. Clearly, the officer’s personal observations of the accused at the barber shop selling crack cocaine provided the police with ample probable cause for defendant’s subsequent arrest. Defendant argues instead that the police lacked probable cause to believe that Harris sold and/or possessed controlled substances and/or child pornography at 105 West 128th Street, apartment 4, where he purportedly lived. Therefore, according to defendant, regardless of the existence of probable cause to justify the arrest, the police lacked probable cause to connect Harris's alleged criminal activity to his apparent residence. Accordingly, defendant contends, there was a dearth of probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant for 105 West 128th Street, apartment 4.
A Lawyer said that, defendant points out, and the Court concurs, that the warrant application in this case is devoid of any explicit facts demonstrating a nexus between his alleged criminal activities and 105 West 128th Street, apartment 4. The warrant application contains no specific assertion that illegal drug crime activities or child pornography were taking place at or near 105 West 128th Street, apartment 4. The application includes no explicit allegation that Harris possessed crack cocaine or any other controlled substance or child pornography at or near 105 West 128th Street, apartment 4. To the contrary, the only allegation in the warrant application connecting 105 West 128th Street, apartment 4 to Harris is that Harris resides at that house.
The issue in this case is whether there was probable cause to search defendant’s apartment for evidence of criminality simply and solely because he lived there.
The Court concludes that there was. Probable cause to search a particular place exists not only where there is sufficient information that an offense has been or is being committed at that place, but also where there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place. In this case, the fact that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant for the criminal sale and for criminal possession of a controlled substance with respect to the rocks of crack cocaine and that he had to get the crack cocaine and that his home was in the vicinity of the barber shop comprised sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that evidence of his criminal conduct would be found in his house.
New York State courts have consistently observed that "logic suggests that person who has committed a crime and who wished to conceal evidence thereof would choose to hide it at a place where he exercises some control". For that reason, "New York courts routinely sustain search warrants issued to allow the search of homes of persons identified as criminal perpetrators for evidence of the alleged crimes, despite the absence of direct evidence linking the perpetrators' alleged criminal conduct to their homes".
In one case, supra, the Court found probable cause to search the residence of a co-defendant, who was arrested on probable cause, despite a lack of a nexus between the criminal activity that led to the co-defendants arrest and the co-defendants residence. The Court found it reasonable to deduce that evidence of the crimes upon which the co-defendant was arrested would also be found in his home.
Similarly, in a 1986 case decision, the Court of Appeals found probable cause existed to permit the search of the dormitory room of the defendant, who was suspected of robbing a bank, because it was reasonable for the police to deduce that the items used by the bank robber would be found in his living quarters. Similarly, in a 1999 case decision, the Second Department found there was probable cause to search the home of a defendant where the search warrant application sufficiently identified him as an armed robber, for evidence of the robbery despite the absence of evidence linking defendant's house to the robbery. The court concluded that given defendant's identification as one of the robbery participants, "it was entirely reasonable to deduce' that evidence of the robbery would be found at defendant's home".
Accordingly, the search warrant issued by New York County Criminal Court on July 7, 2010 was based upon the requisite probable cause necessary to search 105 West 128th Street, apartment 4, for evidence related to Harris's involvement in the criminal sale and possession of crack cocaine and defendant's motion to controvert the search warrant and to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to it is denied.
In a 1975 case decision, the court stated that "the critical element, in reviewing the validity of a search warrant to determine whether it was supported by probable cause, was whether facts and circumstances made known to the issuing Magistrate at the time the warrant application was determined were sufficient to establish that nucleic ingredient of probable cause." Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant exists where there is "information sufficient to support a reasonable belief" that an offense has been or is being committed in a certain place, or that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place. In evaluating the validity of a search warrant, a court must be mindful that "search warrants, which are composed not by lawyers but by police officers acting under stress, are not to be read hypertechnically and may be accorded all reasonable inferences.". For that reason, a search warrant must be analyzed in light of common sense and everyday experience.
Moreover, a presumption of validity attaches to a warrant, which has already been tested by the issuing Judge, thus simplifying the suppression court's task to determining whether the issuing Judge could reasonably have concluded that probable cause existed. Reflecting this preference for the warrant process, the standard for review of an issuing magistrate's probable cause determination has been that so long as the magistrate had a "substantial basis for concluding" that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the Fourth Amendment requires no more. As the New York Court of Appeals has stated, "Where a search warrant has been secured, the bona fides of the police will be presumed and the subsequent search upheld in a marginal or doubtful case".
Therefore, paying "great deference" to the issuing magistrate's determination of probable cause and finding a "substantial basis" for his determination, defendant's motion for a hearing to controvert the search warrant is denied. Nor do the other assertions by defendant provide a legal basis for controverting the search warrants or suppressing evidence. Accordingly, defendant's motion to controvert the search warrant is denied in all respects.
The defendant also seeks to reargue this Court's Order which granted the People's ex-parte motion for a protective order pertaining to Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the search warrant. The People oppose this motion. The People argue that the reasons for the protective order still exist with respect to the identity of the undercover police officer and the information provided by that officer. Specifically, the People argue that there is a substantial risk of intimidation and/or harm to the undercover officer that outweighs the usefulness of discovery at this stage of the proceedings. As the People note, the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant references the date and surrounding circumstances where the undercover police officer purchased cocaine from a separately charged defendant in the vicinity of Lenox Avenue where the undercover officer police is still working as an undercover officer and has open investigations.
Accordingly, the court held that the motion to reargue the granting of the Protective Order is denied at this time and the Protective Order will remain in effect.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Is There an International Attempt to Dodge Dodd-Frank?
The following blog was contributed by Qui Tam Attorney Tony Munter
An article by Carter Dougherty of Bloomberg discusses what appears to be the latest efforts to roll back the financial regulations imposed by the Dodd-Frank reforms.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Ohio man charged with DUI despite documents showing a BAC of 0.00
Jessie Thornton, a 64-year old retired firefighter from Ohio was arrested following a standard battery of field sobriety tests. Thornton was given a breathalyzer test at the station, showed a blood alcohol content of 0.00.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
Shady Drug Trials Could Be Even Shadier Than We Thought.
The following was provided by Whistleblower attorney Tony Munter
A while back a few of the lawyers who value the False Claims Act were wondering if the major pharmaceutical companies had learned anything from large collections they have paid under the law. Have practices improved? Is safety the sole concern in testing drug efficacy? We certainly hope so, but it is worth taking a look at just how bad some things have been through history. Where there was money to be made it seems some could not resist the scariest of practices even by relying on the poverty and repression of former totalitarian regimes.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
N.S.A. Surveillance Underscores Need For a Revitalized Approach to Fourth Amendment
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it."--John F. Kennedy, April 21, 1961
Last week, the Guardian and Washington Post newspapers revealed--with the help of Edward Snowden--the existence of two secret N.S.A. programs designed to surveil internet and telephonic traffic in the United States. While the reports regarding the internet surveillance program, code named PRISM, are somewhat contradictory (the Post and Glenn Greenwald have reported that the Government is collecting data "directly" from the "servers" of American internet companies, such as Google and Yahoo!, while the internet companies have largely disputed this very important detail), there is no mistaking the import of the court order providing the N.S.A. access to "telephony metadata" from all users of the Verizon network: the Government is collecting massive amounts of information about millions of American citizens, without an individualized showing of suspicion, and without anyone outside the federal government knowing about it.
Much of the media response to these stories--particularly as they pertain to PRISM--has been reminiscent of Ed Helms in the Hangover.
This overreaction was probably driven by Glenn Greenwald's activist, hyperbolic "reporting." Those familiar with Greenwald's schtick shouldn't be surprised to learn that his initial story on PRISM was based upon an "Epic Botch," in which he misled his readers as to the nature of the program.
However, while much of the media's focus has been on the PRISM program, the far more interesting story relates to the N.S.A.'s collection of "telephony metadata" from the Verizon Network.
In response to last year's Supreme Court holding in United States v. Jones, in which the Court failed to address the question of whether prolonged GPS tracking violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, I wrote: [With] the advent of data-mining, it is not far-fetched to imagine the federal government capable of collecting massive amounts of data on individuals, which could reveal an individual's personal secrets.
Now we learn that the federal government, relying on the Business Records section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), has convinced a federal judge to order Verizon to hand over: "comprehensive communications routing information, including but not limited to session identifying information (e.g., originating and terminating telphone number, International Mobile Subscriber Identity {IMSI} number, International Mobile station Equipment Identity {IMEI} number, etc.), trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration" of every domestic telephone call made on the Verizon network.
Presumably, the government argued that the data-set from every domestic telephone call made on the Verizon Network was a "tangible thing" that was "relevant to an authorized investigation" under FISA. At the risk of sounding like a callous government apologist, it is important to note that (1) under FISA, the government is required to implement "minimization procedures," which protect against the unwarranted and unneeded collection of information from Americans; (2) the government is not using the metadata to identify any individuals by name; and (3) the information the government is collecting is information that Verizon customers are already sharing with a third-party: Verizon. What's more, under current Fourth Amendment precedent, individuals do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in information shared with a third party. See, Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979).
However, despite "minimization procedures" and current (and arguably outdated) Supreme Court precedent, the problem is rather obvious. The government is secretly applying for a secret court order in a secret court for secret reasons, and the secret court is applying a secret interpretation of the law...secretly! What's more, whatever real benefits this secret legal regime provides are...secret!
Furthermore, this metadata collection underscores an important point Justice Sotomayor made in her concurring opinion in Jones: "More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers...I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection."
Nail, meet hammer.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
More litigation over heat in TX prisons now that 5th Circuit cleared way
More lawsuites vx. TDCJ related to heat-related deaths, just as summer begins to warm up. I couldn't go to the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) press conference on Thursday so here's how the report from the Austin Statesman (June 13) opened:Robert Allen Webb, a 50-year-old developmentally disabled man who suffered from a medical condition that made him susceptible to heatstroke, was supposed to be serving a short sentence in a Texas prison for drunken driving.But in August 2011, as Texas baked in one of its worst heat waves ever, it became a death sentence inside an East Texas prison.On Thursday, two wrongful-death lawsuits were filed in a Galveston federal court alleging that Webb and 12 other Texas convicts have died since 2007 — 10 alone in a six-week period of July and August 2011 — in un-air-conditioned prisons because of negligence of Texas prison officials.In some prisons, lawyers said, indoor summer temperatures routinely reach 110 degrees. In one prison near Dallas, the temperature reportedly topped 149, lawyers in the case said.Texas operates the nation’s largest prison system, with 111 lockups. But unlike other states that have air-conditioned prisons in recent years to curb health questions and lawsuits, most Texas prisons have air conditioning only in administrative and some treatment areas — not in the cell blocks. See also coverage from the Texas Tribune. Last year the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for prisoners to sue in federal court over heat-related Eighth Amendment claims. One of the federal appellate judges likened conditions to sitting in an oven. Today, the weather is on the cool side for June, but things will heat up soon. If TCRP has their way, that will be true in the federal courthouse as well as inside Texas prison cells.See a related column from Bob Ray Sanders at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram promoting the annual fan drive for indigent prisoners run by CURE, the Committee United for Rehabilitation of Errants. Good cause, give if you can.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
