ACLU Sues Obama Administration Over Alleged Assassination Plot

ACLU Sues Obama Administration Over Alleged Assassination Plot: "The ACLU proved itself once again an equal-opportunity litigant on Monday when it filed suit against the Obama administration over an alleged policy of killing American citizens suspected of terrorism.

"

Va. institutions on list for sexual misconduct involving inmates | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Va. institutions on list for sexual misconduct involving inmates | Richmond Times-Dispatch

The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves

The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves The cops crawl under your car in the dark of night installing a gps on your car. It's ok. Just so you know, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your driveway. So, when the neighborhood thugs come around spying in your car while it's in the driveway, it's ok...no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Plan For Expungement

Expungements begin at your criminal trial. Whether you are on trial for a sex offense, drug possession, gun possession, or larceny, you need to look beyond your trial to how the outcome can affect the rest of your life.

An expungement is a legal process to seal your criminal history. While there is no way to seal a conviction record, arrests that do not result in a conviction may be expunged.

Careful planning in how you plead, present evidence, amend a charge can mean the difference between having a lengthy criminal history or having a clean record.

After your criminal matter is finished, you can then begin the process of sealing the arrest record from public view. Employers wouldn't find it. Admissions offices wouldn't find it. Volunteer organizations wouldn't find it.

If you've been arrested, and the arrest didn't lead to a conviction, you may be eligible for an expungement.

Knowledge of right to refuse search helps show consent

CA4: Knowledge of right to refuse search helps show consent: "

Consent was found voluntary because defendant was arrested by plain clothes officers who did not pull any weapons, he knew some of them, he was cooperative, and he was told of his right to refuse. United States v. Alexander, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17293 (4th Cir. August 17, 2010 (unpublished).*

The officer did not unreasonably prolong the stop. Defendant consented to a search of his person producing $3,000 in cash and he was nervous. That was reasonable suspicion for calling in a drug dog. United States v. Whitney, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17300 (4th Cir. August 17, 2010) (unpublished).*

Based on multiple intercepted telephone calls, the officers had probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle when he was found. United States v. Verdugo, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17281 (1st Cir. August 19, 2010).*

The smell of marijuana, which the court credits, was not only reasonable suspicion, it is probable cause. United States v. Ortega, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85154 (E.D. Pa. July 22, 2010).*

The officer here developed information from a CI which was corroborated and rose to the level of probable cause. The officer called in the defendant’s probation officer for the search. United States v. Lish, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85138 (D. Idaho August 12, 2010).*

"

Va. ending face-to-face visits on death row | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Va. ending face-to-face visits on death row | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Fourth Amendment news: TSA "testing" "enhanced patdown"

Fourth Amendment news: TSA "testing" "enhanced patdown": "

TSA has started 'enhanced patdown' at the Las Vegas and Boston airports before trying it nationwide. It is reserved for those passengers who fail the metal detector, and it involves the front of the hand rather than the back.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts is questioning whether the new technique is effective enough to justify what it calls a 'seemingly constant erosion of privacy.'

Ever been frisked like that? It is intrusive. It is what Brussels airport security uses on those on American flights. the back of the hand doesn't work for them? This will inevitably lead to more fishing expeditions into pockets.

"

We Can Never Be Too Safe

We Can Never Be Too Safe: "Jonathan Turley posts about a couple of bartenders who put on a great show, juggling bottles of booze and spitting streams of fire. Everybody loved it, and they are now saddled with three felony charges.

Two fire-breathing bartenders — Tegee Rogers, 33, and Justin Fedorchak, 39, — are the center of an interesting legal fight. The two men face up to 45 years in prison each for performing flaming bar tricks at Jimmy’s Old Town Tavern in Herndon, Virginia.

The bartenders are popular attractions as they juggle bottles of alcohol and spit streams of flames. The act has been going on for over a decade, but the police arrested the men and charged them with three felonies and some misdemeanors, including manufacturing an explosive device, setting a fire capable of spreading, and burning or destroying a meeting house.

What fascinating about this particular story is that sounds both extremely cool, and potentially extremely dangerous, at the same time.  This scenario may be the dividing line between safety and a fun, vibrant life.  So often, the conduct is just incredibly foolish or egocentric as to be unworthy of defense.  So often, the conduct just isn't sufficiently threatening to safety as to make it's regulation anything other than laughable. 



For quite a while, I've been paying close attention to the issue of the dividing line between living and safety as discussed by The Advice Goddess, Amy Alkon, and her muse, Walter Olson.  They've posted many stories of people doing the mundane stuff of a relatively normal life, only to have some official, whether governmentally authorized or by self-imposed title, put their offending conduct to rest.  A story that makes the point particularly well:

I happened to arrive at snack time, when one of the ladies was asking for another cookie. 'No,' the attendant told her patiently. 'It's not good for you! You can't HAVE another cookie.'

Whereupon, big surprise, the woman asked for another cookie. And the cycle began again.

That incident came to mind when I read this fantastic article about the focus on safety, and sometimes ONLY safety, in caring for the elderly. It seemed to me, at the assisted living place, that if a woman has lost a lot of her mind and yet KNOWS she wants a cookie -- give her a cookie! If it shortens her life a little, so be it!

I've got no clue why the second cookie was such a killer, but I'll accept the premise that there was a good reason to refuse the request.  So what?  Having lived long enough to span the days when there were no such thing as seat belts to the day when 64 airbags were the norm, I've watched a trend toward safety take hold.  And lose perspective.



Kids sometimes fall down and skin their knee.  I did.  Sometimes, they suffer tragedy and die.  I didn't.  There are risks out there that no child, nor elder, need endure.  The risk/reward ratio clearly favors safety.  But safety, taken to its logical extreme, would put everyone in a bubble, untouched and untouchable by anything that might conceivable cause harm. 



This just isn't a life worth living.  The arguments in favor of bubble-life are made by those who have suffered the harm, or their survivors.  Whether it's a child who choked on a hotdog or drowned in a pool, they have the moral justification to demand that no other person endure what they've gone through.  Any parent who has lost a child gains a moral prerogative, as no one should have to bury their child.



While acknowledging this right to argue their position, and feeling the same sympathy that any normal person would feel toward someone who has suffered so greatly, we need to maintain a level head about what can be reasonably accomplished in the name of safety without making life so devoid of flavor, activity and excitement as to be bubble-like. 



One of our blindest spots is cars, the cause of death for about 50,000 people a year and disability for many, many more.  We spent huge sums dealing with Homeland Security, knowing that the death toll at the WTC was about 3,000, and pay no attention to cars.  Teaching two teenagers to drive, I'm painfully aware of what it means to put a two thousand pound death machine into the hands of children.



Rationally, I would never teach my kids to drive.  I would never allow them in a car.  It's like begging for trouble.  But, of course, it would be impossible to live without cars, at least if we're to enjoy a normal life.  The risk is clear, but so is the reward.  Cars are much safer today than when I was first tossed into the back seat of a '57 Impala convertible with neither car seat nor seat belts, as well they should be. 



A bartender spitting flames doesn't quite carry the same level of necessity as transportation.  He makes for a very cook show, but it doesn't get you to work or school or the hospital.  If anything, it's more like cruising to the Stewart's Root Beer stand for a float.  Still, I can't imagine a life where my children would be unable to see anything cool, fun and exciting.  It's part of what makes life worth living. 



I don't want my kids to fall down and skin their knee, but I assume it's going to happen.  I used to break bones all the time as a kid, and don't have a straight finger in the bunch.  But I had a great time and wouldn't miss it for the world.  My kids aren't nearly as wild and inclined to take stupid risks as I was, for which I'm eternally thankful.   But I bite my tongue when they tell me what they're doing and where they're going, and tell them to have fun.



We need to come to the mutual realization that we cannot have a world where no one is hurt, where everyone is safe from the things that can harm them.  Risk, harm, is omnipresent in a real life, and the only way to eliminate it is to eliminate a life worth living. 



I propose that the 'bartender flambé' (Turley's phrase) be used as a rule of thumb, as the dividing line between acceptable risk and unacceptable risk.  As for prosecuting the bartenders, rather than just telling the bar that it can't put on the show anymore because it crosses the line of safety, that's just absurd.

Copyright © 2010 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. The use of this feed on other websites is a copyright violation. If this feed is not in your RSS feed/news reader, the page you are viewing infringes the copyright"

Simple Justice: We Can Never Be Too Safe

Simple Justice: We Can Never Be Too Safe

Have Released Felon In Custody. Job Done!

Darn it. Here's a parolee. He's already been to prison. Surely he's got some connection to the crime spree. OOOPS...guess not. That pretty much sums it up.
I guess the cops will have to start working on their investigation instead of taking the easy way out.

Denver officials clash over police discipline after brutal video released - The Denver Post

Denver officials clash over police discipline after brutal video released - The Denver Post

Ex-Inmate’s Dilemma - $2.2 Million or a Lawsuit - NYTimes.com

Ex-Inmate’s Dilemma - $2.2 Million or a Lawsuit - NYTimes.com

Wrong Number Connects Drug Seller With Police

I suppose when you market your marijuana, you want to make sure your weekly sales aren't going to the police department. Wrong Number Connects Drug Seller With Police

Diamonds may be forever, but love isn’t

Diamonds may be forever, but love isn’t: "

There’s etiquette, there’s ethics and then there’s the law.

When a couple’s engagement ends, does the woman have to return the ring to her former fiancé?

Virginia trial courts are split but the latest word from Richmond Circuit Court is no, then yes.

That is, Richmond Circuit Court Judge Melvin Hughes initially rejected the jilted lover’s demand for the ring, then changed his mind. Upon further reflection, Hughes said in Hicks v. Jordan that the plaintiff proved the ring was “a gift made in contemplation of marriage and as such, is conditional.

“Upon breach of the engagement to be married, the property may be recovered by the donor,” Hughes said on June 16.

In 2006, a Newport News Circuit Court said a man had no claim to a ring costing nearly $25,000. Judge Timothy Fisher reviewed circuit court decisions from Fairfax and Amherst Counties that allowed the claim. But he cast his lot with a 2005 Salem Circuit Court decision that rejected the claim.

The Richmond court based its decision for the man on a 1921 Missouri case cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Virginia in a 1941 case, Pretlow v. Pretlow.

By Deborah Elkins

"

If Big Brother is Watching, He Needs a Warrant, Court Says

If Big Brother is Watching, He Needs a Warrant, Court Says: "Big Brother may well be watching. But if he's planted a satellite tracking device in your car, he'd better have a warrant, according to a federal appeals panel in the District of Columbia.

"

Supreme Court of Virginia Appeals Granted

Supreme Court of Virginia Appeals Granted: "Appeals granted by the Supreme Court of Virginia. Appeals are removed from this list after decisions are issued by the court."

Virginia AG rules police may inquire about immigration status

Virginia AG rules police may inquire about immigration status: "[JURIST] Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli (R) [official website] on Friday issued an opinion [text, PDF] finding that state law enforcement officials have the authority to investigate the immigration status of those they stop or arrest. The opinion was issued following a request from Delegate Bob Marshall (R) [official website] asking whether Virginia officials have the same authority as that conferred to Arizona law enforcement officials under that state's recently enacted immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive]. Under Virginia law, an opinion of the attorney general is considered law unless overturned [WP report] by a judge in a..."

FOXNews.com - Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status

FOXNews.com - Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status