SearchSupport ReformAny amount helps!
Reform NewsTopicsUser loginVote ReformOrganizationNavigationUpcoming eventsActive forum topicsNew forum topicsBrowse archives
PollWho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 8 guests online.
Who's new
Recent blog posts
|
IssuesAmerican Scene: Suit claims 'Year of the Bible' resolution unlawfulPENNSYLVANIA HARRISBURG — An organization that includes atheists and agnostics is suing over a Pennsylvania House resolution that declares 2012 the "Year of the Bible," saying the measure violates the U.S. Constitution. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the measure's main sponsor, the House clerk and the House parliamentarian Monday ... America's economic crisis ignored on campaign trailA national ID card that protects voting rightsIn a State Over IsraelBoom times lay waste — literally — to N.D. landscapeTIOGA, N.D. — Along the wide-open expanses and rolling prairie of western North Dakota surrounding the state's booming oil patch, all sorts of bizarre litter can be found clogging the once-picturesque roadside: derelict hard hats, single boots, buckets, pallets, pieces of machinery, shredded semi tires, oily clothing, cigarette butts. The ... Law could survive loss of individual mandateWhy health care law is unconstitutionalSupreme Court debates your health careCNN Poll: Majority call for arrest in shootingHealth care's big four issuesObama warns North Korea, Iran on nuclear weaponsCert. granted in a dog sniff equalling PCCert. granted today in Florida v. Harris, 11-817. Issue: Whether an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle. Opinion below: Harris v. State, 71 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011) posted here. Briefs: Cert petition; brief in opposition. This case will be argued next Term. Read the Florida Supreme Court's decision, the petition, and the BIO before you pass judgment on the oversimplistic issue the state chose to present. The case isn't that easy, unless, of course, the conservative wing has no problem with just saying "this is Place and Caballes and we're done." If it really was, they should have GVR'd it and been done with it. Suspect arrested in killing of 5 in San Francisco homeSAN FRANCISCO — A 35-year-old man was booked on five counts of murder after the bodies of three women and two men were found at a gruesome crime scene in a San Francisco home. The aftermath of the killings was so tangled that police couldn't initially determine whether they were dealing with ... TX11: Face-to-face swearing to a SW affidavit not required; fax will doA face-to-face meeting better the affiant for a search warrant and the issuing magistrate is not required. Here, they recognized each other’s voices, the affiant swore over the phone and faxed the affidavit to the magistrate who faxed back the signed search warrant. Clay v. State, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2298 (Tex. App. – Waco March 21, 2012): The second statement relied upon by Clay is a comment by the Court that, while recognizing innovations such as telephonic search warrants should not be foreclosed by the requirement of a signed affidavit, "[w]e leave those potential future changes to the Texas Legislature...." Smith v. State, 207 S.W.3d 787, 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). This statement, Clay believes, is an acknowledgment that a procedure to obtain warrants by telephone and facsimile has not been authorized by statute, does not exist under Texas law, and therefore cannot be a valid practice in Texas at the present time. We believe it is not such an acknowledgement and certainly is not such a prohibition. As the Court stated, it is important for the law to retain some flexibility in the face of technological advances. Id. at 792. Had there been no flexibility in the statute, the Smith Court would have been compelled to hold that a signed affidavit was required. It did not. And thus, the statute is also flexible so as to allow for the taking of an oath over the telephone or by some other electronic means of communication under certain circumstances. That is the nature of the development of the common law. We must decide only the issue presented—in this case, is the affidavit invalid because it was not made on an oath administered face-to-face. ![]() |
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 6 days ago
18 years 6 days ago