IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho State Police
District 5 5205 South 5th Ave.
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-2299
(208) 236-6466 FAX: (208) 236-6068
For Immediate Release: 2/20/2013 at 8:45 p.m.
Please direct questions to the District Office
****Update****
The southbound lane of travel is no longer blocked on I15.
*****************************************************
Idaho State Police is currently investigating a rollover crash on Interstate 15 at milepost 87, near Blackfoot.
There is currently blockage on the southbound side while the vehicle is removed.
A full release will be sent when information is available.
-------------
Update: Lanes Open on I15 Near Blackfoot
↧
↧
**FINAL UPDATE** Jeep Rolls Near Blackfoot
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho State Police
District 5 5205 South 5th Ave.
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-2299
(208) 236-6466 FAX: (208) 236-6068
For Immediate Release: 2/20/2013 at 9:40 p.m.
Please direct questions to the District Office
****Final Update****
On February 20 2013, at approximately 7:20 pm, the Idaho State Police investigated a one vehicle rollover near milepost 86 on Interstate 15. Jasmine Santana, 37, of Montana, was driving a 2003 Excursion towing a green 1995 Jeep Wrangler, that was unoccupied, northbound on I15 at milepost 86. Santana lost control of the Excursion, causing the Jeep to fishtail. Both vehicles traveled into the median where the Jeep rolled coming to rest in the southbound lanes of travel. The Excursion, which did not roll, came to a stop on the shoulder of the road.
Santana was wearing her seatbelt and was not injured. The roads were icy in the area. The crash remains under investigation.
******************************************************************************************************
****Update****
The southbound lane of travel is no longer blocked on I15.
*****************************************************
Idaho State Police is currently investigating a rollover crash on Interstate 15 at milepost 87, near Blackfoot.
There is currently blockage on the southbound side while the vehicle is removed.
A full release will be sent when information is available.
-------------
↧
ME: No reasonable expectation of privacy against recording sex acts in Kennebuck Zumba Studio case
Maine interprets its invasion of privacy statute involving the alleged recording of sex acts between a prostitute and her customers in the Kennebunk Zumba Studio prostitution case holding that there is no expectation of privacy when one is with a prostitute since it’s a crime. The state argued for a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy analysis which the court did not find appropriate. State v. Strong, 2013 ME 21, 2013 Me. LEXIS 20 (February 15, 2013)*:
Although the State urges us to construe 17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(B) (2012) in light of the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence addressing unreasonable searches and seizures, that body of law provides little guidance. Nowhere in section 511 is there any indication that the Legislature intended to make the rights protected by the statute coextensive with the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. In addition, there is no logical correlation between the Fourth Amendment and the circumstances addressed by section 511, when, for example, many persons who could expect to be safe from surveillance within the meaning of the statute might nonetheless lack standing to assert Fourth Amendment rights. See State v. Fillion, 2009 ME 23, ¶ 13, 966 A.2d 405 (observing that a defendant who asserts a violation of the Fourth Amendment occurring at a location belonging to or controlled by a third person must demonstrate that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy based on several factors, including the defendant’s possession, ownership, or prior use of the property; the legitimacy of the defendant’s presence on the property; the defendant’s ability to exclude others from the property; the defendant’s access to the property if owned by another who is not present; and the defendant’s subjective expectation of privacy).
↧
SUPREME COURT LIMITS THE DETENTION OF RESIDENTS OF A BUILDING SUBJECT TO A SEARCH WARRANT TO THOSE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE BUILDING
As I predicted The Supreme Court reviewed and reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Bailey v. United States.
The police obtained a search warrant for 103 Lake Drive, Wyandanch, New York. While they were outside the apartment house and before anyone knew of their presence two officers saw Chunon Bailey and Bryant Middleton leave the building, get in a car, and drive away. The officers followed them. They stopped the vehicle approximately a mile away and transferred the occupants to a police car. Bailey and Middleton were driven back to Lake Drive and detained. An officer took Bailey’s keys and drove his car back to the Lake Drive residence.
By the time they got back to the residence a gun and narcotics had been found in the apartment and Bailey was arrested.
In Michigan v. Summers the Supreme Court held that law enforcement agents could detain people found in or near a house that is being searched pursuant to a search warrant. In Bailey the court refused to extend Summers to allow detentions some distance away from the house. It pointed out that the detentions in Summers were based on three legitimate needs of law enforcement. First, detentions of those in or near the house are permitted to prevent harm to the peace officers. If someone, like Bailey is not at the residence and does not even know that officers are searching the house the likelihood of injury to the peace officers is minimal. Yes, someone could come home during the search and injure an officer but this would allow numerous people present in numerous places to be arrested and this would clearly violate the Fourth Amendment. Second, Summers permits detentions in order to facilitate the orderly completion of the search. But again if someone is not at the residence they cannot interrupt the orderly completion of the search. Finally, a detention of someone at the house creates a minimal intrusion in their life and it prevents their escape in light of a possible arrest depending upon what is found in the residence. Again detaining people away from the residence not only creates a significant intrusion in people’s lives but it leads to the detention of many people who may be some distance from the residence. The effect is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
↧
Investigator in Pistorius Case Charged With 7 Counts of Attempted Murder
In the "you can't make this stuff up" department: Hilton Botha, the lead investigator in the Oscar Pistorius murder case who testified at yesterday's bail hearing, is himself charged with 7...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
↧
Oscar Pistorius: Day 3, Bail or No Bail?
At 11:00 a.m. SAT (2:00 am MT), defense lawyer Barry Roux and prosecutor Gerrie Nel will make their closing arguments as to why Oscar Pistorius should be allowed or refused bail.
Chief Magistrate...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧
Bored or Crazy, They're Us
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">Adam Liptak reported in the <a href=
"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/us/bucking-trend-supreme-court-still-rejects-video-coverage.html?smid=pl-share" target="">New York Times</a> that empathetic Latina Justice Sonia Sotomayor,
who stated during her confirmation hearing that she favored the Supreme Court's arguments being televised, has changed her mind.<br>
<br></font>
<blockquote>
<p itemprop="articleBody"><font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">She was singing a different tune a couple of weeks ago, <a title="video" href=
"http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12765">telling Charlie Rose</a> that most Americans would not understand what goes on at Supreme Court arguments ...</font></p></blockquote>
↧
Student verschanzte sich im Hörsaal
An der Technischen Universität Berlin kam es zu einem Großaufgebot der Polizei. Mit rund 100 Beamten, darunter auch zwei schwer bewaffnete Spezialeinsatzkommandos, umstellte die Polizei das Universitäts-Gebäude. Zuvor ging ein Notruf bei der Polizei ein, woraus auf die Gefahr eines Amoklaufes geschlossen wurde. Ein Student, der Hausverbot an der Universität hatte, betrat mit einer . . . → Read More: Student verschanzte sich im HörsaalÄhnliche Beiträge:Freispruch: Student hat Polizisten nicht getretenBGH-Richter in Vorlesung geschlagenSachbeschädigung: Betrunkener beschädigt zehn AutosBankraub: Geiselnahme in einer Berliner BankUSA: Student zu einer halben Million Euro Strafe wegen…
↧
Ridiculous, Squared
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">Judge <a href="http://www.19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/Organization/Pages/booras.aspx" target="">James Booras</a> of the 19th Circuit of Illinois
is both tough and sensitive. Just not in the right order. Via the <a href=
"http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/grayslake_gurnee_round_lake/ct-tl-lawyer-in-contempt-20130220,0,6285034.story" target="">Chicago Tribune</a>:</font>
<blockquote><font style="FONT-SIZE: 12px" face="Arial">Robert Ritacca said that when Judge James Booras heard his client missed his curfew by 22 minutes, the judge immediately agreed to a request by
Assistant State's Attorney Danielle Pascucci and raised the defendant's bond.<br></font></blockquote>
<p>"Raising bond" is a relative phrase. ...</p>
↧
↧
Ohio appellate court finds that failure to make motion to suppress over GPS search was ineffective assistance
In State v. Allen, 2013 Ohio 434 (Ohio Ct. App 2013), the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a conviction after trial counsel failed to make a motion to suppress evidence derived from the use of a GPS device on the defendant's car.
The GPS device was used for a period of two days. At trial, defense counsel failed to make a motion to suppress, and the defendant appealed arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that "trial counsel had an obligation to raise the GPS issue in a motion to suppress all evidentiary items obtained by the police officers," the court found that the defense counsel's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness."
As to whether or not the outcome would have been different, the court found that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome. The appellate court ruled that good faith did not save the search because there was no binding appellate legal precedent on the GPS issue. Further, despite an argument to the contrary by the state, the court held that the evidence could not have been acquired through inevitable discovery.
Thus, the case was reversed and remanded and trial counsel ordered to file a motion to suppress.
![]()
↧
Pulling back the curtain on prosecutor paranoia
Ever wonder how prosecutors speak to one another when they think no one's watching? Conservative blogger Big Jolly, a GOP activist in Houston, pulled back the curtain, obtaining a copy of a video under open records of the first mandatory prosecutor training under new Harris DA Mike Anderson, conducted by the Texas District and County Attorneys Association. Here's an excerpt from Jolly's summary:The entire tone of the video suggests a sort of “bunker” mentality, an us against them, almost a “whine-fest” from the trainer, Rob Kepple of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association. Did you know the Innocence Project is the “enemy” of prosecutors? Nevermind that their work has resulted in the release of innocent men and women convicted by prosecutorial abuse. DA Anderson goes so far as to say that in the eyes of the Innocence Project, prosecutors are nothing more than pondscum. I suppose the old axiom is true – no good deed goes unpunished.The “training” also describes our legislature as “out to get them” – “them” being prosecutors because they are “government employees” and the legislature apparently hates government employees. Oh, and the only reason crime has gone down since the 1980′s in Houston is because the legislature built more prison capacity. But now, “they” want to release criminals in prison for minor offenses because it is a whole lot cheaper to put someone on probation than it is to house them in a prison. Imagine that.Mr. Kepple goes through a whole series of how people cheat in life and it isn’t cheating if you get away with it. I think his point was to say that prosecutors can’t do that but you’ll have to watch it to see how bad he made that point. And remember Pedro Oregon? You know, the guy that was killed dead, dead, dead because a bunch of yahoo cops forced a drunk driver to give them the address of his “dealer” and then started shooting for no reason? Yeah, he presents that as an example of using Johnny Holmes’ stellar reputation to get away with anything. Just totally bizarre.Having worked for several years for the Innocence Project of Texas, I'm pretty used to prosecutors considering that group the "enemy," though like Jolly I've never fully understood it. After all, when an innocent person goes to prison, that means a guilty person remains free. One would think prosecutors would have an interest in rectifying that situation. Still, we see instances like in Williamson County, where DA John Bradley fought for years to keep the national Innocence Project from testing evidence that eventually exonerated Michael Morton. Does anybody believe that, if Bradley had agreed to DNA testing when it was first requested, that Judge Ken Anderson would currently be facing judgment in a court of inquiry? Things got to that point because, thanks to the bellicose stance of the DA, a balls-to-the-wall fight was the only way to prove Morton's innocence. The open-records requests that discovered alleged prosecutorial misconduct would never have even been filed if Bradley had agreed to retesting from the get-go.Similarly, the idea that the Repbublican-dominated Legislature somehow hates prosecutors or is soft on crime beggars belief, but prosecutors and the police unions see themselves particularly at odds with freshman and sophomore Tea-Party types. These special interests are so used to absolute deference that they consider even modest questioning of their practices tantamount to betrayal.I'll be interested to learn what Mark Bennett, Paul Kennedy, Robb Fickman and other Houston criminal defense lawyers think about the presentation. Sounds like quite a show. Grits hasn't had time to watch the full video yet, and may have more to say about it after I do. (I've heard Kepple's schtick and such paranoid, "us against them" rhetoric fails to shock me as much as it once did.) For now, head over to Jolly's shop to see it for yourself.
↧
MO: When RS was quickly dispelled, defendant should have been let go
Defendant was riding a bicycle in circles in an intersection late at night in a high crime area. When they were near him, he said “They went that way.” They saw the handle of a gun and stopped him. They quickly found it was a toy gun, and they should have let him go, even if they suspected he was high. “Because Officers Smith and Fenwick's articulated basis for reasonable suspicion was dispelled prior to the warrant check and no new facts were developed, the continued detention of Mr. Lovelady was unlawful. The handcuffs should have been removed from Mr. Lovelady, thereby releasing him to go home as he had requested.” State v. Lovelady, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 204 (February 19, 2013).*
Defendant was arrested on warrants at home, and she was taken to the door. When she wanted to get a jacket and turn off the stove, the officers followed her back in, and they saw things in plain view, and that caused enough concern for a protective sweep finding more in plain view that supported a search warrant. United States v. Moore, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22830 (E.D. Mo. February 20, 2013).*
Defense counsel at trial was not ineffective for not challenging defendant’s parole search that would have lost anyway. Foster v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23192 (N.D. Ohio February 20, 2013).*
↧
Pleading Guilty to Failure to Maintain Control
The other day I was in Stafford General District Court when a young man answered for his case on the traffic docket. The judge announced that he was charged with reckless driving for driving too fast for road conditions. The judge then asked how the gentleman pleads. The young man said, “Well, Your Honor, I [...]
↧
↧
Man Shot by Ex-Wife on Valentine’s Day
Valentine’s Day didn’t start out very well for a Butler County Man. David Knapp was shot in the face in the morning of Valentine’s Day by his ex-wife. He was treated at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center for a gunshot wound to his nose and mouth. Pamela Dawson faces felonious assault charges and is [...]
↧
CA3: Being pointed out by witnesses to a shooting as being involved is PC for arrest
Plaintiff matched the description of a shooter, and an eyewitness pointed him out. That provided probable cause for arrest and defeats a § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim. Franks v. Temple Univ., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3533 (3d Cir. February 20, 2013).*
Defendant’s nervous demeanor and apparent gun in pocket justified patdown. United States v. Felton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22944 (E.D. Wis. February 20, 2013).*
Defendant’s business was subjected to a search warrant for federal benefits fraud. He consented to a search of his truck while he was not in custody and had been told he was free to leave, yet he didn’t. United States v. Dix, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22476 (N.D. Ga. January 29, 2013).*
↧
It's a dog's world
When I reviewed the oral
argument last November in Florida v.
Harris, I wasn't too sanguine about the prospects of the Court's affirming
the Florida Supreme Court's decision establishing a lengthy checklist of items
which had to be considered in determining whether a drug dog was sufficiently
reliable so that his alert could provide probable cause for a search. That skepticism was borne out on Tuesday,
when the Court unanimously
reversed. There may be a nugget or
two for defense attorneys confronted with a search prompted by a dog alert, but
you have to do some digging to find them.
↧
WI: Passenger's statement “Got a warrant for that?”, was not objection to driver's consent to briefcase
“Got a warrant for that?” with a laugh is not an unambiguous objection to search of defendant passenger’s briefcase in a car where the driver, defendant’s wife, consented to a search of the whole car. He needed to be more specific because it didn’t even put of the officer on notice he was objecting. Defendant could have objected but did not. State v. Wantland, 2013 Wisc. App. LEXIS 147 (February 20, 2013):
Wantland's exchange with the deputy did not amount to such an assertion. A reasonable person would not expect a clear and unequivocal (and serious) identification of one's self as the owner of personal property about to be searched and objection to the search of the property to be made with a question such as “Got a warrant for that?” accompanied by laughter1 and a continued identification of items the deputy could expect to find in searching the briefcase. See Payton, 327 S.W.3d at 478 (concluding that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's exchange with officers, which included the question “Where's your warrant?” did not constitute revocation of his wife's consent to search their home). The circuit court correctly found that Wantland did not limit the driver's consent to search the vehicle.
↧
↧
Jacksons plead guilty and federal prosecutors recommend significant prison terms for both
This recent post, titled "You be the prosecutor: what federal sentence should be sought for Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife?", engendered a lengthy debate over federal sentencing law and practice as applied to a pair of new high-profile federal...
↧
ARC Talk Radio - Tami Loehrs, a computer forensics expert specializing in child porn cases
Hosted by: ARC Talk Radio (TalkShoe)Title: SPECIAL GUEST Tami Loehrs computer forensics expertTime: 02/20/2013 08:00 PM ESTEpisode Notes: We are pleased to announce a special guest on ARC Talk Radio and we are excited to announce that our guest is Tami Loehrs, a computer forensics expert specializing in child porn cases. Tami is the computer forensic expert who worked on the well-known Matt Bandy case. Mark your calendars you won't want to miss this show!© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues
↧
Calculating Damages: What is Reasonable Certainty?
One of the common issues raised when an expert calculates damages is “reasonable certainty.” It is not uncommon for opposing counsel to suggest that the expert’s calculated damages are speculative. The calculation of damages necessarily requires estimates and assumptions. Something has happened, and a company or individual is claiming that there are lost profits because [...]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
