VoteKansas.org

In an effort to find a visual counterpart to his rhetoric on energy, President Barack Obama is speaking at four types of energy production facilities in two days, each site representing a facet of his energy plan.

ATLANTA (AP) — Nearly half of first marriages break up within 20 years, a new government study has found. With those odds, one might wonder: Would we be better off living together first?

The new research, part of a marriage survey of 22,000 men and women, suggests times have changed ...

President Obama's critics, including GOP presidential candidates, say his words about energy conflict with the facts.

Time Magazine's Fareed Zakaria: Intellectually credentialed innumerate, 12-1-11

Americans don't want good paying jobs 8-11-11

HARTFORD, Conn. — Murray Lender, who helped turn his father's small Connecticut bakery into a national company credited for introducing bagels to many Americans, has died in Florida. He was 81.

Lender, perhaps best known from promoting Lender's Bagels in TV commercials, died Wednesday at a hospital in Miami from complications ...

Dog sniff outside the defendant’s house in a multi-family unit was reasonable under Place and Caballes, and Jardines is rejected. United States v. Anthony, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38123 (D. N.J. March 20, 2012):

This is the type of distinction the Florida Supreme Court found in Jardines v. State, 73 So.3d 34 (Fla. 2011). The Court reasoned that even though the revelation of possession of contraband could not invade a privacy interest, the canine sniff outside a home "will invariably entail a degree of public opprobrium, humiliation and embarrassment for the resident, for such dramatic government activity in the eyes of many-neighbors, passers-by, and the public at large-will be viewed as an official accusation of crime." Id. at 36. The Court added that if police can conduct suspicionless sniff tests, there was nothing to prevent discriminatory or irrational use of the procedure. Id.

However, neither reason for distinguishing Caballes is persuasive as applied to the present facts. First, the Florida Court's conclusion that sniffs "will invariably entail a degree of public opprobrium, humiliation and embarrassment for the resident" is less applicable to the facts of this case, in which the sniff occurred away from the plain view of the general public inside a common area of a multi-family residence with the permission of the owner. Nothing in the record suggests anyone but the landlord was privy to the presence of police activity, much less aware of the particular apartment being sniffed. Similarly, this Court is not asked to determine whether police presence with a dog on the curtilage of a home without permission involves some intrusion into privacy not present in Caballes or Place. Instead, this situation involves police presence in a common area with express permission to be there.

Defendant’s confusing account of his travel plans was reasonable suspicion. The trial court’s findings of consent to the search was clearly supported by the record. Defendant was unhandcuffed and sitting in the police car during the search. A dog alert made that irrelevant. Thus, a challenge to the search was frivolous. Defendant did not show how his failure to testify at the suppression hearing would have changed anything in light of the video, not that IAC claims can be raised on direct appeal anyway. United States v. Penlton, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5888 (7th Cir. March 21, 2012) (unpublished)*; United States v. Harris, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5878 (7th Cir. March 21, 2012) (unpublished).*

Plaintiff state prisoner failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim that he was unreasonably removed from his cell during a suicide threat. “Insofar as Brown contends that his seizure during this incident was unreasonable, even assuming that a prisoner has any Fourth Amendment right not to be seized and transported from one place to another within a state prison facility, there is no record evidence that this particular seizure was not justified by the same legitimate interest in safety and security.” Brown v. Graham, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5825 (2d Cir. March 21, 2012) (unpublished).*

President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit the demilitarized zone that splits the Korean Peninsula in two for the first time on Sunday.

When expectations of a bipartisan Congress seem like a bygone tradition, two men who embodied leadership often beyond party politics were honored in Washington for their combined century of service.

Ilyse Hogue says he won in Illinois by drawing once more on well-off, college-educated voters; he has a harder time attracting many others who see him as an emblem of the forces that sent the economy off a cliff

With less than two weeks before federal money runs out for transportation projects across the country, a partisan showdown is developing between Senate Democrats and House Republicans over passing a new bill.

NEW YORK — Rush Limbaugh's opponents are starting a radio campaign against him Thursday, seizing upon the radio star's attack of a Georgetown law student as a "slut" to make a long-term effort aimed at weakening his business.

The liberal Media Matters for America is using a past campaign against Glenn ...

Defendant was stopped for not dimming his headlights, and he was without a DL. The officers’ search incident of defendant’s car violated Gant, even though the defendant and his passenger weren’t handcuffed and were standing at the rear of the car, they were outnumbered. The government’s argument that Long justified a protective weapons search of the car was also rejected. United States v. McCraney, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5818, 2012 FED App. 0081P (6th Cir. March 21, 2012):

Here, McCraney and Ammons were not handcuffed or secured in the back of a patrol car. They were standing, however, behind the Buick as instructed, two or three feet from the rear bumper, with three officers standing around them, while the other two officers on the scene conducted the search of the passenger compartment. Ricker testified that he stood approximately eight feet from McCraney, and watched him closely while the search was conducted. The officers outnumbered the detainees and, although not formally arrested, handcuffed or secured in a patrol car, the district court did not err in finding that the officers could not reasonably believe McCraney and Ammons were "within reaching distance" of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. Given the narrowed scope of the exception in light of Gant, the search may not be justified as a search incident to arrest.

ALLENTOWN, Pa. — Neighborhood watch groups were designed to be the eyes and ears of police — passively observing what they see and reporting back to law enforcement — not to enforce the law themselves.

Most neighborhood watches follow the rules, and confrontations are rare. But after the killing of ...

Officers’ determination that they could hold defendant for 48 hours on an illegal arrest was the cause of defendant’s statement, and it should have been suppressed. State v. Bishop, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 171 (March 14, 2012).*

Talking to defendant sitting in a parked car was a “consensual encounter” under Ohio case law, and the officer’s plain view of two roaches in the ashtray was valid. State v. Calhoun, 2012 Ohio 1128, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 994 (11th Dist. March 19, 2012).*

Defendant's 2255 was couched in terms of a Fourth Amendment violation and not a Sixth Amendment violation, so it should have been raised in the direct appeal. Ford v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38296 (E.D. Mo. March 21, 2012).*

MIAMI — Florida is among 21 states with a "Stand Your Ground Law," which gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight. The self-defense law helps explain why a neighborhood watch captain has not been arrested in the shooting death of an unarmed teenager.

...

Defy the Bastards, 3-22-12

A letter to my preacher, 3-22-12

Geekosystem: FBI Can’t Crack Pimp’s Phone’s Pattern Lock, Serves Google With Warrant by James Plafke:

The FBI secured a pimp’s Samsung Android phone as part of a case following a former pimp released on parole who seemed to be partaking in pimping activities once again, specifically through the use of his Android phone. The pimp previously signed a Fourth Amendment search rights waiver, which allowed the FBI to search his home and property at any time without a court order. When he turned over his phone, he didn’t unlock the device, even though his parole conditions prevented him from hiding or locking digital files, but claimed the phone belonged to his sister. Amusingly, the FBI couldn’t crack the phone’s unlock pattern, and then served a warrant to Google, Android’s developer, to help them unlock the phone.

The FBI obtained a warrant to search the phone last month, but weren’t able to crack it due to the phone’s swipe password lock, which can actually be easily defeated — either by simply looking at the smudges on the phone’s screen, or because you’re the FBI and should have access to a variety cracking tools and skilled employees who know how to use them. The FBI attempted the password too many times, which locked the phone, which in turn could only be unlocked using the phone owner’s Google account credentials. As you could imagine, the pimp refused to cooperate, so the FBI served Google with a warrant in order to get the Android developers to help out.

This is the logical step. See ZDnet.com: "Woman who pleaded Fifth in password case now citing Fourth". If the owner of the phone can plead the Fifth, then the government has to attempt to use a search warrant to get into the phone.