Thursday, June 28, 2018
Gamble v. United States
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17-646 | 11th Cir. | Not Argued | Jun 28, 2018 | TBD | TBD | OT 2018 |
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
headline writers take note.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Friday, June 22, 2018
Pageviews last month
|
2,744
|
Pageviews all time history
|
257,451
|
| i assume most of these visitors are robots. |
The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The
“basic purpose of this Amendment,” our cases have recognized,
“is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals
against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.”
In fact, as John Adams recalled, the patriot James Otis’s 1761 speech condemning writs of assistance was “the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain” and helped spark the Revolution itself.
On this score, our cases have recognized some basic guideposts. First, that the Amendment seeks to secure “the privacies of life” against “arbitrary power.”
- Carpenter v USA 6/22/18.
(“[E]very man’s house is looked upon by the law to be his castle”); 3 E. Coke, Institutes of Laws of England 162 (6th ed. 1680) (“[F]or a man[’]s house is his Castle, & domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [each man’s home is his safest refuge]”).
In Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029 (C. P. 1765)—a heralded decision that the founding generation considered “the true and ultimate expression of constitutional law,” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 626 (1886)—Lord Camden explained that “[t]he great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property.”
(complaining that the writs were “‘expressly contrary to the common law, which ever regarded a man’s house as his castle, or a place of perfect security’” (quoting a 1768 letter from John Dickinson)). John Otis, who argued the famous Writs of Assistance case, contended that the writs violated “‘the fundamental Principl[e] of Law’” that “‘[a] Man who is quiet, is as secure in his House, as a Prince in his Castle.’”
Thomas dissenting in Carpenter
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
General warrants and writs of assistance were noxious not because they allowed the Government to acquire evidence in criminal investigations, but because of the means by which they permitted the Government to acquire that evidence. Then, as today, searches could be quite invasive. Searches generally begin with officers “mak[ing] nonconsensual entries into areas not open to the public.” Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U. S. 408, 414 (1984). Once there, officers are necessarily in a position to observe private spaces generally shielded from the public and discernible only with the owner’s consent. Private area after private area becomes exposed to the officers’ eyes as they rummage through the owner’s property in their hunt for the object or objects of the search.
Alito, dissenting in carpenter
Physical destruction always lurks as an underlying possibility; “officers executing search warrants on occasion must damage property in order to perform their duty.” Dalia v. United States, 441 U. S. 238, 258 (1979); see, e.g., United States v. Ramirez, 523 U. S. 65, 71–72 (1998) (breaking garage window); United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 817–818 (1982) (ripping open car upholstery); Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dept., 844 F. 3d 556, 572 (CA6 2016) (shooting and killing two pet dogs); Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F. 3d 1341, 1350, n. 3 (CA10 1997) (breaking locks).
Id (alito)
In fact, as John Adams recalled, the patriot James Otis’s 1761 speech condemning writs of assistance was “the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain” and helped spark the Revolution itself.
On this score, our cases have recognized some basic guideposts. First, that the Amendment seeks to secure “the privacies of life” against “arbitrary power.”
- Carpenter v USA 6/22/18.
(“[E]very man’s house is looked upon by the law to be his castle”); 3 E. Coke, Institutes of Laws of England 162 (6th ed. 1680) (“[F]or a man[’]s house is his Castle, & domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [each man’s home is his safest refuge]”).
In Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029 (C. P. 1765)—a heralded decision that the founding generation considered “the true and ultimate expression of constitutional law,” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 626 (1886)—Lord Camden explained that “[t]he great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property.”
(complaining that the writs were “‘expressly contrary to the common law, which ever regarded a man’s house as his castle, or a place of perfect security’” (quoting a 1768 letter from John Dickinson)). John Otis, who argued the famous Writs of Assistance case, contended that the writs violated “‘the fundamental Principl[e] of Law’” that “‘[a] Man who is quiet, is as secure in his House, as a Prince in his Castle.’”
Thomas dissenting in Carpenter
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
General warrants and writs of assistance were noxious not because they allowed the Government to acquire evidence in criminal investigations, but because of the means by which they permitted the Government to acquire that evidence. Then, as today, searches could be quite invasive. Searches generally begin with officers “mak[ing] nonconsensual entries into areas not open to the public.” Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U. S. 408, 414 (1984). Once there, officers are necessarily in a position to observe private spaces generally shielded from the public and discernible only with the owner’s consent. Private area after private area becomes exposed to the officers’ eyes as they rummage through the owner’s property in their hunt for the object or objects of the search.
Alito, dissenting in carpenter
Physical destruction always lurks as an underlying possibility; “officers executing search warrants on occasion must damage property in order to perform their duty.” Dalia v. United States, 441 U. S. 238, 258 (1979); see, e.g., United States v. Ramirez, 523 U. S. 65, 71–72 (1998) (breaking garage window); United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 817–818 (1982) (ripping open car upholstery); Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dept., 844 F. 3d 556, 572 (CA6 2016) (shooting and killing two pet dogs); Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F. 3d 1341, 1350, n. 3 (CA10 1997) (breaking locks).
Id (alito)
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/06/21/camel-milk-hot-new-trend-and-there-farm-here-indiana/717514002/
camel milk latest indy foodie trend.
camel milk latest indy foodie trend.
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/police/uspo65.htm
info about police brutality in indy
info about police brutality in indy
Police Chief Zunk states that whenever the city loses a civil lawsuit involving an officer, it leads to a review of policies and procedures, but that the awarding of a large sum of money to a plaintiff "merely serves to give us less resources to use in our battle against crime."50 According to the city's Office of Corporation Counsel, in Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 there were seven settlements or jury awards paid, totaling $59,380; in FY 1995, there were eleven totaling $581,750, and in FY 1996, there were three totaling $104,294.51 (In 1996, there was a $3.55 million jury verdict award in favor of the family of Michael Taylor, which is now on appeal.) According to the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which files civil lawsuits against police officers, there is a usually a high level of sympathy among jurors toward officers, making pre-trial settlements by the city less common.52
Thursday, June 21, 2018
4 -1-1 v 4, the supreme court allows south dakota to tax internet sales.
a plurality reverses quill, which had said you couldn't tax out of state businesses.
i am oversimplifying a complex fact pattern.
thomas, as usual, rejects the dormant commerce clause.
what is interesting here is that gorsuch hints that he agrees.
this shows that like thomas, gorsuch is an out of the box thinking willing to go in whole new directions and disregard stare decisis when needed.
here, they are rejecting years of interpretation in favor of a return to the text,
continuing scalia's crusade.
i am thinking of doing a short article or long blog post about the Constitution in Exile movement, which EV denies exists, even though he is a major player in it.
Return of the Constitution from Exile?
IJ has litigated over 200 cases, including five before the U.S. Supreme Court. Of those five cases, IJ won four of the cases before the Supreme Court and won the fifth case (the Kelo eminent domain case) in the court of public opinion.
ij now has a 6th case teed up, on the excessive fines clause.
a plurality reverses quill, which had said you couldn't tax out of state businesses.
i am oversimplifying a complex fact pattern.
thomas, as usual, rejects the dormant commerce clause.
what is interesting here is that gorsuch hints that he agrees.
this shows that like thomas, gorsuch is an out of the box thinking willing to go in whole new directions and disregard stare decisis when needed.
here, they are rejecting years of interpretation in favor of a return to the text,
continuing scalia's crusade.
i am thinking of doing a short article or long blog post about the Constitution in Exile movement, which EV denies exists, even though he is a major player in it.
Return of the Constitution from Exile?
IJ has litigated over 200 cases, including five before the U.S. Supreme Court. Of those five cases, IJ won four of the cases before the Supreme Court and won the fifth case (the Kelo eminent domain case) in the court of public opinion.
ij now has a 6th case teed up, on the excessive fines clause.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
i missed this one yesterday. among the cert grants, ij.org was grated cert on a case about whether to incorporate the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment to the states via the 14th amendment.
this is very important in terms of supreme court doctrine. looking forward to gorsuch's take on it.
there is a pleading i'm working on atm, where i could probably toss in an excessive fines defense and counterclaim.
my health has been so bad lately that i can't work a regular physical labor kind of job, so i'm getting a lot closer to getting back into the practice of law, simply because its one of the few options left.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180131162915070_Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20Timbs%20et%20al%20v%20State%20of%20Indiana.pdf
oh it's an indiana case!
this is very important in terms of supreme court doctrine. looking forward to gorsuch's take on it.
there is a pleading i'm working on atm, where i could probably toss in an excessive fines defense and counterclaim.
my health has been so bad lately that i can't work a regular physical labor kind of job, so i'm getting a lot closer to getting back into the practice of law, simply because its one of the few options left.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180131162915070_Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20Timbs%20et%20al%20v%20State%20of%20Indiana.pdf
oh it's an indiana case!
Sunday, June 17, 2018
https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/threats-to-joni-ernst-lead-to-prison/article_ec0791a7-ef98-5a94-93dd-63fba949128c.html#tncms-source=infinity-scroll-summary-siderail-latest
guy tweets he hopes senator will die, gets prison.
the article doesn't mention the text found to be a true threat.
call me skeptical. however, newspapers usually leave out key details, so who knows.
guy tweets he hopes senator will die, gets prison.
the article doesn't mention the text found to be a true threat.
call me skeptical. however, newspapers usually leave out key details, so who knows.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/June-2018/This-Might-Hurt-a-Little/
they spelled my name right. decent article.
they spelled my name right. decent article.
For Robbin Stewart, being a lab rat has become a second career. About 15 years ago, feeling burned out, the free-spirited public interest attorney closed his law practice. Now he makes enough money as a test subject—$20,000 in a good year—to subsidize other pursuits. While sequestered in clinical trials, he’s used the time to write court briefs for pro bono cases and craft blog posts about politics and soup recipes.
He’s done about 40 studies, driving from his home in Indianapolis to clinics around the country, including at least five at AbbVie. “I never thought I’d do it for that long. But it’s such an easy habit to fall into when they are offering you that kind of money and you’re not really doing anything. You just hang out for a few weeks or a month or whatever and get a nice check.”
Stewart is similarly unconcerned about the risk. “Most people ask, ‘Aren’t you afraid?’ Apparently, I lack that gene to be cautious and sensible,” he quips. He, too, has had very few bad experiences. But there was that time at AbbVie when a doctor struggled to get a tube down his nose and into his large intestine. “They had kind of a tricky time threading it through the stomach, so I was in there for 45 minutes while they were playing with the tube, trying to get it right,” he recalls. He says the clinic didn’t adequately warn him about the pain that would be involved. So he wrote a complaint—and has never since been selected for an AbbVie study.
Participants are not always forthcoming about adverse reactions, Stewart says, for fear of getting booted from a study. (He got kicked out of one recently after developing a rash—not because of the test drug, he thinks, but because of a cheap detergent he’d used. And he’s not happy about it. “It cost me $1,000.”) “You can get banned at any time, for any reason,” he says. “So if someone is experiencing a side effect, they are not going to run and tell the doctor. It’s bad science and bad policy—and defeats the whole purpose.”
Saturday, June 09, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgtopghkBZc&ab_channel=SebMayer
funky giraffe puppet sings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUR4VccS5U&ab_channel=SebMayer
zebra gives i have a dream speech.
funky giraffe puppet sings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUR4VccS5U&ab_channel=SebMayer
zebra gives i have a dream speech.
Friday, June 08, 2018
Sunday, June 03, 2018
picked up a few books at the woodruff place yard sale.
eisenhower was my boss, by kay summersby
federal justice: a history of the southern district of indiana
eisenhower was my boss, by kay summersby
federal justice: a history of the southern district of indiana
Saturday, June 02, 2018
http://www.wishtv.com/news/crime-watch-8/police-checking-suspicious-package-near-downtown-indygo-bus-plaza/1213126924
police closed my street due to a typewriter.
police closed my street due to a typewriter.
