Since agreeing with the prior conviction, the US Supreme Court said that applying the exclusionary rule to knock-and-announce violations is not "worth a lot" as a deterrent. Instead, it creates an incentive for criminal defendants to attack police conduct, Scalia writes. "The cost of entering this lottery would be small, but the jackpot enormous; suppression of all evidence, amounting in many cases to a get-out-of-jail-free card,"
The media is often very outspoken when it feels that the rights of an individual are being taken from them. Many liken this type of case to the somewhat controversial patriot act. After the attacks on this country on 9/11 laws have been formed to protect the general but it seems not the individual. Some argue that the no -knock tactic is appropriate in a few limited situations, such as when hostages or fugitives are involved, or where the suspect poses an immediate threat to community safety. But increasingly, this highly confrontational tactic is being used in less volatile situations, most commonly to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs. The media is outraged that some of these raids are launched on tips from notoriously unreliable “confidential informants”. This right to privacy in your home will someday, I believe, be likened to the rights that individuals enjoy online, in their favorite chat room, or on their favorite blog. The right to privacy in Internet activity is a serious issue facing society. Some users of the 'net wish to shield their identities while participating in frank discussions of sensitive topics. Others fulfill fantasies and harmlessly role play under the cover of a false identity in chatrooms. But there are the eternal "bad apples," and on the Internet, they are the people who use anonymous servers as more than a way to avoid responsibility for controversial remarks. Cases of harassment and abuse have become increasingly frequent, aided by a cloak of anonymity. There are also problems with frauds and scam artists who elude law enforcement authorities through anonymous mailings and postings. Other users are concerned about the proliferation of information on the Internet. Databases of court records are now available for free over the World Wide Web. While this information was already available to anyone that wanted it the public has grown more aware of just how public their records have become.
Since no formal law exists within cyberspace, Internet users can find recourse only through the applicable laws of their own government. While there is still much to be decided the in US law and its relevance to the American Internet user, one thing is for sure. If you going to put a blog up on your myspace page saying that your boss is an idiot….. make sure that your boss is not an avid myspacer. Work gossip used to be reserved for the bar up the street with coworkers, now a boss can get on myspace, or facebook and find out just about anything about an employee. Now, should that be legal?
Friday, December 12, 2008
What-cha Got There? Part 5
The US Supreme Court has rejected the legal principle that evidence obtained in violation of the so-called knock-and-announce rule must be excluded from use at a trial. The Supreme Court said in a 5-to-4 decision that this evidence can be used at trial. The social costs of excluding evidence because of a violation of the knock-and-announce rule are considerable, the Supreme Court said. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that "Resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified," This decision marks a rejection in the context of “knock-and-announce”. This principle is noted as a basic safeguard in the criminal justice system to protect the people. Its establishment in the 1960s by the high court adopted the approach that violations of certain procedural requirements by law enforcement officials could carry the heavy penalty of exclusion of evidence from use at a trial. This court was not the first to make this claim. Similar opinions and laws are dated back to the 1600’s in Britain. The power of this decision rocks the fundamental safeguard created an incentive for police officers to not only know the law, but to scrupulously follow it while carrying out their criminal investigations. Justice Breyer writes in a dissenting opinion "The court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution's knock-and-announce requirement.” He continues that he could find no legal precedent supporting the high court's ruling in any of the Fourth Amendment privacy cases decided since 1914. "It represents a significant departure from the court's precedents,” The dissenting opinion even claims that this decision "weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection."
What-cha Got There? Part 4
Another somewhat related case that was recently in the news was the so-called knock-and-announce rule. A case called Hudson v. Michigan where in the summer of 1998 seven Detroit police officers search the home of Booker Hudson. The police had obtained a warrant to search for weapons and drugs at Mr. Hudson's home. When they arrived at the front door, an officer shouted: "Police, search warrant." They paused for three to five seconds before one of the officers turned the doorknob and entered the home through the unlocked front door. According to the case the police officers did not knock or wait to see if anyone would answer the door. Police found Hudson seated in a chair in the living room. They searched Hudson and discovered in the chair in which Hudson had been sitting crack cocaine in plastic bags and a loaded revolver. In Hudson's pockets, police found five “rocks” of cocaine and $225 in cash. Hudson was charged with possession with intent to deliver cocaine and possession of a firearm while committing a crime. He was convicted and sentenced to 18 months probation.
What-cha Got There? Part 3
The investigator and the Sherriff Deputy already had stopped Herring’s vehicle. They had told him that they intended to arrest him on the basis of a warrant from Dale County. Herring had informed the officers that he did not have an outstanding warrant from Dale County and had demanded to see a copy of the alleged warrant before any arrest took place. But without waiting the few minutes necessary to receive further information concerning the validity of the warrant, the officers had gone ahead and conducted a full-scale arrest of Herring. After they had handcuffed Herring, the officers had searched him and his truck and found methamphetamine in his pockets and an unloaded gun under the front seat of
his vehicle. Herring was charged and convicted. This case and others like it challenge the question “Whether the Fourth Amendment requires evidence
found during a search incident to an arrest to be suppressed when the arresting officer conducted the arrest and search in sole reliance upon facially credible
but erroneous information negligently provided by another law enforcement agent?” Herring v United States will be argued before the Supreme Court later this year.
his vehicle. Herring was charged and convicted. This case and others like it challenge the question “Whether the Fourth Amendment requires evidence
found during a search incident to an arrest to be suppressed when the arresting officer conducted the arrest and search in sole reliance upon facially credible
but erroneous information negligently provided by another law enforcement agent?” Herring v United States will be argued before the Supreme Court later this year.
What-cha Got There? Part 2
On July 7, 2004, Bennie Dean Herring showed up at the local Coffee County Alabama Sheriff’s Department to get some personal belongings from one of his trucks that had been impounded. As Herring was leaving, the Coffee County Investigator arrived for work. He knew Herring, and thought that there might be an outstanding warrant for Herring’s arrest so he checked to see if any such warrant existed. There were no outstanding warrants for Herring inCoffee County. The Investigator checked with the sheriff’s department in neighboring Dale County to see if Dale County had any outstanding warrants for Herring. Dale County Sheriff’s Department informed the investigator that there was an outstanding warrant for Herring in Dale County for failure to appear on a felony charge. The investigator asked for a fax of the warrant to Coffee County. Anderson promptly left the sheriffs office with another Deputy Sheriff to pursue Herring. Well after he left the Dale County warrant clerk could find no warrant concerning because there was not, in fact, any outstanding warrant for Herring’s arrest; the court had recalled the warrant referenced in Morgan’s computer database five months earlier. It was too late.
What-cha Got There?
Privacy is becoming an even hotter topic in recent years. Since the attacks on 9/11 the opinion seems to be split about the power that we as US citizens should give the men and women protecting us. Some say that if to much power is given these mostly do good public servants will start to abuse the rights and powers they have been entrusted with. Others say that if we do not equip these upholders of the law with the proper tools to do their job and give them the freedoms and responsibilities they need we limit the effectiveness of their crime fighting abilities. Issues range from internet security laws to proper search and seizer of citizens, from journalist rights to confidential sources to law officials rights to confidential sources. While there is still a great deal to be decided in the realm of technology and the vast world of the internet the rights that we all enjoy online will most likely be based on the rights that we enjoy offline, in our homes or in public. There have been recent cases have changed the landscape of the general rules of what is allowed to be used as evidence. These changes signify the change of judicial leadership and the desire to protect all at the cost of some.
Pure or Mix?
I like dogs. Actually I love dogs. I love it when I come home and they have not a care in the world except to tell me how much the love me. I love it that no matter how late it is or how early in the morning, dogs are always in a good mood. Since I like dogs so much I have ended up getting four. Yes you read that correctly, I have four dogs. A common claim of fact that I have heard for years is that pure breed dogs are better because they are smarter, healthier, better tempered and the list will go on. In the last 5 years or so I have heard the exact opposite. So there has to be some kind of fact information for each. Which is true? Why was one claim made if it was not true? I guess I will find out.
I read a few different websites and seem to find the same information on a couple and conflicting information on another. I looked at the purpose of the third website and it was geared toward selling pure breed dogs so I gathered that it was probably biased. Here is the rundown of what I found. In a purebred dog you get a better idea what you are getting into. Many of their genes are "fixed," as in "no options." Size, temperament, color, shape, behavior, and lifespan are all much more known factors in a purebred dog rather than in a non purebred. When you see a purebred puppy, you have a pretty good idea of what he will look like as an adult. If you want a certain size dog, or a certain type of coat (short, silky, non-shedding), you can choose a purebred who has those characteristics. Be prepared for variations within a breed. In many breeds there are different types, which look very different from each other. You can't look at a few photos of a breed and assume that all members of the breed look like that. With some breeds, you have to know what type you want. The breeder matters. Only skilled breeders with some knowledge of genetics can predict how one dog's genes will combine with another dog's genes, and thus, what the puppies should turn out to look like.If you really want your dog to look a certain way, you have to search for breeders who have proven they can consistently produce such dogs. I also found that Purebreds are prone to health problems. Over 300 genetic health defects have been documented in dogs, and in many purebreds, the incidence of defects is extremely high. Reasons for this include:A limited and closed gene pool. Most breeds were built on relatively few founding dogs, so the same sets of genes have been reproduced over and over since the breed began. Another reason is the breeding of dogs to a detailed standard of appearance. Show breeders seek to produce dogs who match a written Standard of Conformation (for example, eyes a certain shape). To get these details right, show breeders limit the gene pool even more by rejecting breeding stock who might be healthy and good-tempered, but who can't "deliver" in eye shape. Also, breeding the same champion dogs over and over. This floods the breed not only with the same sets of good genes, but also with the same sets of bad genes. Another point about purebreds are the price. Purebred dogs are expensive: $500, $800, $1000! In some breeds, certain health disorders are a virtual epidemic and you are taking a much greater risk if you acquire a dog whose parents weren't officially tested and declared free of these specific disorders. In other breeds, the risk is much less.
Mix breed or “mut” dogs are not necessarily a mix of purebreds. The phrase "My dog's a Shepherd-Husky," is only true if the dog is the offspring of a purebred German Shepherd and a purebred Siberian Husky. Most are not. They are mixes of dogs… just dogs. I know I thought that my dog Kemper was a Lab and Australian Shepard mix until tonight. I guess I didn’t really think about the fact that her parents were street dogs. Lesson learned that even if you THINK you see some recognizable breed in a non-purebred dog... Your probably wrong. There are only so many different ways a dog can look, just like people, so many dogs will look like a lab, or Shepard or any other “purebred”. The extremes of temperament and behavior often seen in purebreds are less common in non-purebreds. Because their temperament and behavior is more middle-of-the-road and less strongly "programmed," non-purebreds tend to be more flexible. They often adjust more easily to a greater variety of households and living conditions. So…. Is my dog healthier if it is a purebred or not? Most non-purebreds have good genetic diversity, i.e. their genes are unrelated and include a little of this and a little of that, which tends to promote overall health and vigor. Because their genes are usually unrelated, the chances are good that the parents of a mixed breed puppy did not both have the same defective genes. It is the pairing up of the same defective genes that causes some of the worst health problems.
I read a few different websites and seem to find the same information on a couple and conflicting information on another. I looked at the purpose of the third website and it was geared toward selling pure breed dogs so I gathered that it was probably biased. Here is the rundown of what I found. In a purebred dog you get a better idea what you are getting into. Many of their genes are "fixed," as in "no options." Size, temperament, color, shape, behavior, and lifespan are all much more known factors in a purebred dog rather than in a non purebred. When you see a purebred puppy, you have a pretty good idea of what he will look like as an adult. If you want a certain size dog, or a certain type of coat (short, silky, non-shedding), you can choose a purebred who has those characteristics. Be prepared for variations within a breed. In many breeds there are different types, which look very different from each other. You can't look at a few photos of a breed and assume that all members of the breed look like that. With some breeds, you have to know what type you want. The breeder matters. Only skilled breeders with some knowledge of genetics can predict how one dog's genes will combine with another dog's genes, and thus, what the puppies should turn out to look like.If you really want your dog to look a certain way, you have to search for breeders who have proven they can consistently produce such dogs. I also found that Purebreds are prone to health problems. Over 300 genetic health defects have been documented in dogs, and in many purebreds, the incidence of defects is extremely high. Reasons for this include:A limited and closed gene pool. Most breeds were built on relatively few founding dogs, so the same sets of genes have been reproduced over and over since the breed began. Another reason is the breeding of dogs to a detailed standard of appearance. Show breeders seek to produce dogs who match a written Standard of Conformation (for example, eyes a certain shape). To get these details right, show breeders limit the gene pool even more by rejecting breeding stock who might be healthy and good-tempered, but who can't "deliver" in eye shape. Also, breeding the same champion dogs over and over. This floods the breed not only with the same sets of good genes, but also with the same sets of bad genes. Another point about purebreds are the price. Purebred dogs are expensive: $500, $800, $1000! In some breeds, certain health disorders are a virtual epidemic and you are taking a much greater risk if you acquire a dog whose parents weren't officially tested and declared free of these specific disorders. In other breeds, the risk is much less.
Mix breed or “mut” dogs are not necessarily a mix of purebreds. The phrase "My dog's a Shepherd-Husky," is only true if the dog is the offspring of a purebred German Shepherd and a purebred Siberian Husky. Most are not. They are mixes of dogs… just dogs. I know I thought that my dog Kemper was a Lab and Australian Shepard mix until tonight. I guess I didn’t really think about the fact that her parents were street dogs. Lesson learned that even if you THINK you see some recognizable breed in a non-purebred dog... Your probably wrong. There are only so many different ways a dog can look, just like people, so many dogs will look like a lab, or Shepard or any other “purebred”. The extremes of temperament and behavior often seen in purebreds are less common in non-purebreds. Because their temperament and behavior is more middle-of-the-road and less strongly "programmed," non-purebreds tend to be more flexible. They often adjust more easily to a greater variety of households and living conditions. So…. Is my dog healthier if it is a purebred or not? Most non-purebreds have good genetic diversity, i.e. their genes are unrelated and include a little of this and a little of that, which tends to promote overall health and vigor. Because their genes are usually unrelated, the chances are good that the parents of a mixed breed puppy did not both have the same defective genes. It is the pairing up of the same defective genes that causes some of the worst health problems.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
