VoteKansas.org

LONDON (AP) -- A lawyer for two Michael Jackson fans accused of stealing unreleased music by the late King of Pop from Sony's computers says the men are confident they can prove their innocence in court....

2012 Geneva motor show

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mitt Romney said Wednesday he's "prepared to fight all the way" to become the Republican presidential nominee after a strong showing on the biggest night of the GOP presidential primary season. But Rick Santorum demonstrated enough political muscle on Super Tuesday to ensure that there's more convulsion ahead as Republicans struggle to settle on a candidate to take on President Barack Obama....

Warrant was vague as to a search for “further analysis” of the digital media, so the subsequent searches were suppressed. The first searches are enough for the case to proceed. United States v. Salceda, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28211 (C.D. Cal. February 27, 2012):

The government conducted searches of defendant's digital media in September and October 2011 based on the following language of the original search warrant:

If, after conducting such an initial search [within 60 days from the date of the execution of the search warrant], the case agents determine that a digital device is an item to be seized or contains any data falling within the list of items to be seized pursuant to this warrant, the government will retain the digital device for further analysis; otherwise, the government will return the digital device.

. . .

The Court finds that any evidence discovered during the September and October 2011 forensic searches is inadmissible. The original warrant's "further analysis" language is ambiguous as to whether it permits the government to analyze defendant's digital devices for additional evidence of contraband, or whether it merely permits additional analysis of previously discovered contraband. Given this ambiguity, suppression of the evidence is appropriate. See Transfiguracion, 442 F.3d at 1228 (construing ambiguities in plea agreements in favor of a defendant because the government, as drafter of the agreement, bears the "responsibility for any lack of clarity") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Wilhelm, 425 F.3d at 463 (finding fourth amendment violation because officer "recognized the warrant as ambiguous before the execution of the warrant, but failed to immediately stop execution and seek the necessary clarification of a warrant in order to make certain the warrant particularly described the place to be searched. ..."). The Court's decision is informed by the fact that the government sought—and was denied—a new warrant from Judge Zarefsky, and thereafter sought ex parte relief from this Court before conducting the subsequent searches. At the very least, the government's conduct demonstrates its acknowledgment that the "further analysis" language is ambiguous. In denying the government's ex parte application, the Court directed the government to seek clarification from the issuing judge to cure any ambiguities. Because the government chose to proceed with the searches without clarification or without securing a new search warrant, that evidence must be suppressed. See Wilhelm, 425 F.3d at 463.

NEW YORK (AP) -- The attorney for a mother of four who is accused of operating a high-class Manhattan brothel says he never asked her about a so-called black book....

Footballer Mario Balotelli is asked to leave Manchester's Trafford Centre after refusing to pull his hood down, it is revealed.

Arrest of capital murder suspect on an outstanding traffic warrant was valid, and pretext was not a valid argument. Johnson v. State, 2012 OK CR 5, 2012 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 4 (March 2, 2012):

[*P12] Appellant first asserts that his arrest on outstanding warrants was illegal because it was solely a pretext to hold him for questioning about the homicides. However, if police have a valid right to arrest an individual for one crime, it does not matter if their subjective intent is in reality to collect information concerning another crime. Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 48, 4 P.3d 702, 718. "Whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred, 'turns on an objective assessment of the officer's actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time, ... and not on the officer's actual state of mind at the time the challenged action was taken.'" Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 470-71, 105 S.Ct. 2778, 2783, 86 L.Ed.2d 370 (1985) quoting Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 136-39 n. 13, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 1722, 1724 n. 13, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978). See also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 812-13, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1774, 135 L.Ed.2d 89, 98 (1996) (Supreme Court reiterated its position that it was unwilling to entertain Fourth Amendment challenges based upon the actual motivations of individual officers); Phillips v. State, 1999 OK CR 38, ¶ 41, 989 P.2d 1017, 1031. If the police action could have been taken against an individual "even absent the 'underlying intent or motivation,' there is no conduct which ought to have been deterred and thus no reason to bring the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule into play for purposes of deterrence." See 1 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 1.4(e) (4th ed. 2004). In other words, if the alleged pretextual arrest could have taken place absent police suspicion of Appellant's involvement in another crime, then the arrest is lawful. In the present case, Appellant was arrested on outstanding warrants which were issued before the murders occurred. The officers legally executed the valid arrest warrants and their subjective intent does not make this otherwise lawful conduct illegal or unconstitutional.

I wouldn't have raised this argument, but it's a capital case and defense counsel has to pursue issues that seem weak anyway. At least in my state we can raise it in trial court and not bother to argue it on appeal, but, by rule and statute, the issue is deemed decided on the merits for post-conviction purposes without cluttering the appeal with seems to be a frivolous issue.

FUKUSHIMA, Japan (AP) -- Yoshiko Ota keeps her windows shut. She never hangs her laundry outdoors. Fearful of birth defects, she warns her daughters: Never have children....

FUKUSHIMA, Japan (AP) -- Yoshiko Ota keeps her windows shut. She never hangs her laundry outdoors. Fearful of birth defects, she warns her daughters: Never have children....

FUKUSHIMA, Japan (AP) -- Yoshiko Ota keeps her windows shut. She never hangs her laundry outdoors. Fearful of birth defects, she warns her daughters: Never have children....

Twitter launches versions of its site in four right-to-left languages to help attract more users in the Middle East and Asia.

The leader of Libya's NTC says calls for a federal state structure from oil-rich Cyrenaica will be resisted with force if necessary

A last-minute bid to scupper Scottish government plans for a tax on supermarkets and large shops is defeated.

Seven out of Wales' nine Remploy factories providing jobs for disabled people face closure after a UK government review.

Defendant was free to go when she consented to a search of her purse, despite her language difficulties and she was outnumbered by the police. The “asked” “rather than commaned[ed].” United States v. Nieto-Rojas, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4500 (9th Cir. March 5, 2012) (unpublished)*:

The district court held that Appellant was not in custody when her purse was searched, reasoning that the officers were deferential and protective rather than commanding, that they asked rather than demanded to search her purse, that they did not physically control her at any time or display their weapons, and that they told her multiple times that she was free to go when her ride arrived. Appellant argues she was in custody because there were three officers on the scene, she was cited for traffic violations, English was not her native language, she watched the officers conduct an inventory search of the car, her passenger was searched in front of her, and she was told that she could leave when her ride came but she was not told she could leave before. We agree with the district court that Appellant was not in custody. Appellant was told several times she would be free to leave when her ride came. She did not ask to leave before her ride came. It was not unreasonable for the officer to stay with Appellant and her passengers while she waited for a ride, given the dangers of the busy highway.

If the district court had found consent involuntary, likely that would have been affirmed on appeal, given the standard of review.

Now that we have Sonia Sotomayor, a Latina, on the Supreme Court, the esteemed body will soon find itself in the middle of a telenovela.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Watching 40 judges in white lab coats nibble on cheese and then spit the samples into garbage cans might not sound like an elegant evening to most people, but hundreds of cheese lovers have paid $25 each for a close-up view of Wednesday's World Championship Cheese Contest finals....

Edward Morrissey says none of the candidates hit their targets for moving ahead on Super Tuesday, but hung on just enough to keep the crown out of Romney's reach

OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Anders Behring Breivik was indicted Wednesday on terror and murder charges for slaying 77 people in a bomb and shooting rampage, but prosecutors said the confessed killer likely won't go to prison for Norway's worst peacetime massacre....

LONDON (AP) -- Hackers claiming allegiance to the amorphous Anonymous movement say they've defaced several sites belonging to online defense firm Panda Security....