SearchSupport ReformAny amount helps!
Reform NewsTopicsUser loginVote ReformOrganizationNavigationUpcoming eventsActive forum topicsNew forum topicsBrowse archives
PollWho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 4 guests online.
Who's new
Recent blog posts
|
IssuesNavy jet crashes into Virginia apartments, pilots ejectVIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) — Two Navy pilots ejected from a fighter jet Friday, sending their unmanned plane careening into a Virginia Beach apartment complex and engulfing several buildings in flames. The plane had dumped loads of fuel before crashing, though it wasn't clear if that was because of a ... Reason: "7 Rules for Recording Police"Reason: 7 Rules for Recording Police, Courts are expanding rights but cops are cracking down. Find out how to keep your footage, and yourself, out of trouble by Steve Silverman: Last week the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public.” The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public. Five Best Books: AnimalsGoing the DistanceAn Urban FarragoKickstarting the Butcher ShopWhit Carter has just pushed us up over the $10,000 funding level at our Kickstart the Butcher Shop project! That means we’re 40% funded at the one week mark! Congrats to Whit who unknowingly won a T-shirt! What other prize levels do I have in mind you might ask… Special numbers, round numbers, spiky numbers, prime numbers… Ah, the possibilities! Thanks to everyone who has helped get us there. Ben is working on a new cartoon info-graphic to go with these breath taking heights as the graph soars higher. Meanwhile, back on the ranch, a photographer from the local Times Argus newspaper was here to get pictures for a story they’re running. We had great weather and the pigs were posing out in the pasture for him. Yes, we actually have some green grass starting to show up! Wah-hooie! Or as the pigs are saying, Grunt! Go check out our project and see the video of our farm and ongoing construction of our butcher shop. Back our project and you can get great rewards from swag like T-shirts to genuine pastured pig ivory tusks (some huge ones!) to the really good stuff: meat such as sausage samplers and Pick of the Pig! Obama adds politics to women's forumNavy jet crashes into Va. apartments, 2 pilots ejectLawmaker vows deeper probe of GSA spendingGov. Nikki Haley on politics & raceO'Connell: What GOP must do if health care law overturnedTribe: The 5th Circuit Court's insult to ObamaRomney turns to Obama, eyes SantorumVideo prompts more outrage over GSAFL4: Consent involuntary after Miranda violationConsent involuntary after Miranda violation. Defendant sought to ask a lawyer about what he was waiving, and officer kept questioning. Hebron v. State, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5184 (Fla. 4th DCA April 4, 2012): Defendant: Who can tell me? You got a lawyer here? Can we get a lawyer here that can tell me ... ? Seconds later, the defendant consented to police officers searching his apartment which uncovered the physical evidence utilized in the instant case. The defendant raised this issue before the trial court by way of a motion to suppress, arguing that his consent was obtained in violation of his right to counsel. . . . In the instant case, the defendant asked a clear question concerning his rights when he asked what his options were, stated that he did not know what the law was and asked "can we get a lawyer here?" The detective merely asserted that there were no lawyers on the staff and failed to provide a "simple and straightforward answer" to the question posed. The officer was required to properly answer the defendant's question regarding his Miranda rights before resuming the interrogation. See Almeida, 737 So. 2d at 525. The failure to stop the interrogation to answer the defendant's question tainted the subsequent consent to search, which, in turn, tainted the evidence seized. Because of this, the evidence discovered during the search of the defendant's apartment should have been suppressed. See Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957, 968 (Fla. 1992) (noting that evidence obtained by the State in contravention of the right to counsel may not be used by the State). Because the physical evidence uncovered in the apartment was so important to the prosecution's case, we cannot find that "there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction." State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986). WA rejects Thornton application to Gant under state constitutionWashington rejects the Thornton “exception” to Gant on scope of search incident under state constitution. State v. Snapp, 2012 Wash. LEXIS 293 (April 5, 2012) (dissent here): In the consolidated cases before us, the issue we must decide is whether an equivalent to Gant's second exception, referred to here as Thornton 1 exception, applies under article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. We conclude that no such exception is permissible under article I, section 7. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals in both cases, reverse the defendants' convictions, and remand these cases for further proceedings consistent with our decision herein. . . . The specific issue raised in the present consolidated cases is whether the Thornton form of the exception will apply under article I, section 7. We conclude that it does not. First, the underpinnings of the Thornton version of the exception do not justify its existence under article I, section 7. The Court in Gant adopted the Thornton exception given "circumstances unique to the vehicle context." . . . However, although the automobile exception is recognized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, it is not recognized under article I, section 7. See Patton, 167 Wn.2d at 386 n.4; State v. Tibbles, 169 Wn.2d 364, 369, 236 P.2d 885 (2010) (in context of automobile search where suspect was not arrested; probable cause to search did not justify search of vehicle--"the existence of probable cause, standing alone, does not justify a warrantless search"); Ringer, 100 Wn.2d at 700-01. Although the Thornton exception is consistent with the rationale underlying the federal automobile exception under the Fourth Amendment, it lacks similar support under article I, section 7. . . . We also reject the State's proposal made at oral argument that a modified form of the Thornton exception, so to speak, be applied. The State proposed a vehicle search incident to arrest exception that would permit a warrantless search based on probable cause to believe that evidence of the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle, rather than a reasonable belief as stated in Gant. As we said in Buelna Valdez, "when a search can be delayed to obtain a warrant without running afoul of" concerns for the safety of the officer or to preserve evidence of the crime of arrest from concealment or destruction by the arrestee "(and does not fall within another applicable exception), the warrant must be obtained. A warrantless search of an automobile is permissible under the search incident to arrest exception when that search is necessary to preserve officer safety or prevent destruction or concealment of evidence of the crime of arrest." Id. (emphasis added). We emphasized that "time is of the essence" because in "some circumstances, a delay to obtain a search warrant might be shown to provide the opportunity for the arrestee to procure a weapon or destroy evidence of the crime." Buelna Valdez, 167 Wn.2d at 773 (emphasis added). CA11: GFE sustains searches without getting to the meritsThe search incident of defendant’s car for evidence of child enticement would be saved by Davis in any event, so the search is not suppressed. As to the search of his house, the good faith exception would apply there, too. [The court never goes to the merits of the searches.] United States v. Lebowitz, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6859 (11th Cir. April 5, 2012).* [Note: The 11th Cir. condones the stagnation of the Fourth Amendment since the merits go undecided. There is a perpetual gray area where searches are possibly unconstitutional, but we'll never know. I think it's really just judicial laziness or complete lack of judicial curiosity to decide real legal issues. GFE is easy and requires no thought because one's politics and constitutional apathy decides GFE questions.] Officers had reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop based on collective knowledge of intercepted phone conversations with drug slang. United States v. Donaldson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48083 (S.D. Ga. February 23, 2012).* Search warrant for an apartment’s address was particular and with probable cause based on the address being in a Backpage.com ad. United States v. Latham, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48397 (D. Minn. April 5, 2012)* [Based on the opinion, this wasn’t remotely arguable.] Plaintiff’s claims include a Fourth Amendment claim, but no facts suggest a seizure or a search so no Fourth Amendment violation, and that is dismissed. Wilfong v. State Bd. of Ethics, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47436 (M.D. La. March 5, 2012).* ![]() |
InfoWars.comTruthNews.US - News
www.NewsWithViews.com
News
|
Recent comments
15 years 18 weeks ago
15 years 49 weeks ago
17 years 35 weeks ago
17 years 46 weeks ago
17 years 47 weeks ago
17 years 47 weeks ago
17 years 47 weeks ago
17 years 47 weeks ago
18 years 1 week ago
18 years 1 week ago