My friend Mary today posted this on her Facebook page:
"The SCOTUS just sold out the U.S. and there was an 8.2 magnitude earthquake in Chile, yet CNN's top 'breaking news' story is STILL about a plane that crashed into the ocean weeks ago."
Amen.
Here is what she is talking about with the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court). Mark it down. April 2, 2014, the day democracy in America died.
Yet, the lead story on CNN was still about a missing plane.
Well, untill yet another shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. It is now CNN's lead story.
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Now you can be strip searched after ANY arrest
... thanks to a 5-4 decision by the US Supreme court.
So for any crime, any crime at all, if you are arrested and about to be jailed, prepare to bend over and cough.
"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations."
Even if they have no reason to suspect you of being in possession of contraband!
"The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures."
Nice, so now the Court is ignoring state legislative activity, typically used by the Court as an indicator of the right thing to do. Not in this case.
What is at stake here is captured in what happened in the scenario that prompted the case: It "arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence’s arrest based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)"
Got that? A man was arrested for not paying a fine, a fine he actually paid. And he was jailed for it. And then strip searched! Twice! (because he was held for a week in two jails)
Just like the nun who was arrested for protesting US war. She was strip searched too.
Now it is all legal! Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the decision, and said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we ‘not embarrass the future.”
Too late, sir!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
So for any crime, any crime at all, if you are arrested and about to be jailed, prepare to bend over and cough.
"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations."
Even if they have no reason to suspect you of being in possession of contraband!
"The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures."
Nice, so now the Court is ignoring state legislative activity, typically used by the Court as an indicator of the right thing to do. Not in this case.
What is at stake here is captured in what happened in the scenario that prompted the case: It "arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence’s arrest based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)"
Got that? A man was arrested for not paying a fine, a fine he actually paid. And he was jailed for it. And then strip searched! Twice! (because he was held for a week in two jails)
Just like the nun who was arrested for protesting US war. She was strip searched too.
Now it is all legal! Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the decision, and said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we ‘not embarrass the future.”
Too late, sir!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
Monday, April 2, 2012
Obama versus the US Supreme Court
As you know, the US Supreme Court has heard challenges to the Obama health care law, often called by its more cuddly name, "Obamacare."
The Court set aside six hours of hearings over three days, as opposed to the normal one hour normally reserved by the Court. That should give you a sense of the complexity of the case, if not the importance.
You listen to the entire argument as well as read analysis here (New York Times).
The issues:
1) Does the Court have authority to decide the fate of the law in the first place
2) Can Congress require you to buy health insurance (the individual mandate)?
3) If the Court invalidates the individual mandate, can that be severed from the rest of the law or does the whole law become invalid?
4) What about the Medicaid expansion?
The Justices are now deciding these issues in private. The process is unknown to most, but insiders to the Court have written about the process of bargaining between Justices, a process that sounds pretty disgusting to me. Imagine, for example, agreeing to conclude something to please another Justice or to get his or her vote on another case.
Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and publisher of SCOTUSblog.com, recently said: "This case is on a rocket ship. Because there may be as many as four decisions, the justices work collaboratively. The majority opinion writer circulates it for other people to comment, dissenters will circulate their opinions and that process will go back and forth, back and forth until about mid-June, when they will just get down to finalize it."
So we will know the fate of this law in June. Predictions are all over the web. I already made the outlandish prediction that the Court will uphold the law, 7-2. But if I were a betting man, I'd go with 5-4 to overturn it.
Clearly, some people love the law. Others, not so much.
Personally, I wonder how many of these people have read the law (virtually none of them) or even know what it does (probably a tiny fraction of them).
Things like:
* Insurance companies cannot hike my rate without approval from an independent panel
* They cannot put a cap of lifetime coverage for a serious condtion
* They cannot refuse me coverage based on preexisting conditions
* They cannot charge women more than men for the same insurance
* They will start offering free preventive health screenings
* Checkups and immunizations are offered for my children for free
* An insurance exchange is created to allow me to buy coverage across state lines to find the best deal for my family
Not to mention, millions of people who do not have insurance will finally get it. The only way to make sure this happens is to require people to buy insurance for those who can afford to buy it. That is, the law requires people who can afford to buy insurance to buy insurance from a private for-profit company based on the premise that it is your responsibility as a citizen to take care of yourself rather than to not buy insurance but continue to use the health care system (e.g., emergency room visits) and force everyone else to pay for your illness or injury.
This is a conservative principle based on conservative ideas going back at least to 1989!
So what is so controversial about this law anyway?
The Court set aside six hours of hearings over three days, as opposed to the normal one hour normally reserved by the Court. That should give you a sense of the complexity of the case, if not the importance.
You listen to the entire argument as well as read analysis here (New York Times).
The issues:
1) Does the Court have authority to decide the fate of the law in the first place
2) Can Congress require you to buy health insurance (the individual mandate)?
3) If the Court invalidates the individual mandate, can that be severed from the rest of the law or does the whole law become invalid?
4) What about the Medicaid expansion?
The Justices are now deciding these issues in private. The process is unknown to most, but insiders to the Court have written about the process of bargaining between Justices, a process that sounds pretty disgusting to me. Imagine, for example, agreeing to conclude something to please another Justice or to get his or her vote on another case.
 |
| Yes, it is entirely up to us. |
Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and publisher of SCOTUSblog.com, recently said: "This case is on a rocket ship. Because there may be as many as four decisions, the justices work collaboratively. The majority opinion writer circulates it for other people to comment, dissenters will circulate their opinions and that process will go back and forth, back and forth until about mid-June, when they will just get down to finalize it."
So we will know the fate of this law in June. Predictions are all over the web. I already made the outlandish prediction that the Court will uphold the law, 7-2. But if I were a betting man, I'd go with 5-4 to overturn it.
Clearly, some people love the law. Others, not so much.
Personally, I wonder how many of these people have read the law (virtually none of them) or even know what it does (probably a tiny fraction of them).
Things like:
* Insurance companies cannot hike my rate without approval from an independent panel
* They cannot put a cap of lifetime coverage for a serious condtion
* They cannot refuse me coverage based on preexisting conditions
* They cannot charge women more than men for the same insurance
* They will start offering free preventive health screenings
* Checkups and immunizations are offered for my children for free
* An insurance exchange is created to allow me to buy coverage across state lines to find the best deal for my family
Not to mention, millions of people who do not have insurance will finally get it. The only way to make sure this happens is to require people to buy insurance for those who can afford to buy it. That is, the law requires people who can afford to buy insurance to buy insurance from a private for-profit company based on the premise that it is your responsibility as a citizen to take care of yourself rather than to not buy insurance but continue to use the health care system (e.g., emergency room visits) and force everyone else to pay for your illness or injury.
This is a conservative principle based on conservative ideas going back at least to 1989!
So what is so controversial about this law anyway?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Should Minor Offenders Be Subject To Strip Searches?
Riding into work today I heard this fabulous story on NPR.
And the good news is that NPR and the story are available online.
Here is the story:
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case testing whether prison guards may constitutionally strip-search even minor traffic offenders when they are arrested and taken to jail.
For decades, most courts did not allow such blanket strip searches, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way.
Wednesday's test case began on a New Jersey highway in March 2005. Albert Florence, his wife and his little boy were in a celebratory mood as they motored their way to the home of Albert's parents. The couple had just bought a new house and had been looking at new furniture at the design center. April was at the wheel, and Albert noticed that their BMW was being followed by a state trooper.
April assured her husband that she wasn't speeding, but the trooper soon signaled them to pull over. After checking April's license, the trooper asked who owned the car, and upon learning that her husband, sitting next to her, was the owner, the trooper ordered Albert out of the car, handcuffed him and arrested him on an outstanding warrant for failure to pay a fine.
Albert Florence, a finance director at a car dealership, had no criminal record. He had just one brush with the law, years earlier, stemming from his leaving the scene of a traffic stop. He had been fined $1,500, and when he fell behind in his payments, a judge issued a warrant for his arrest, prompting Florence to pay the amount due in full.
The problem was that the warrant had never been purged from the computer system.
Florence, however, could prove he had paid the fine. He kept the document showing he had paid in his car, and he showed the paperwork, complete with a state seal, to the state trooper. The officer apologized but said he still had to arrest him.
The Constitution requires a suspect to be promptly arraigned and, in most cases, released, on bond if necessary. However, in Florence's case, despite the best efforts of his wife, he did not get a hearing and remained in jail for a full week.
At the Burlington Country jail where he was first taken, he was told to shower and was inspected by a guard.
The guard "was at about arm's distance," Florence recalls, "and he instructed me to turn around, squat, cough, lift up my genitals, and then put on the orange jumpsuit."
Florence says he pleaded with jail authorities to check with Essex County, where the warrant originated, and he kept waiting for his hearing. But it didn't happen. Meanwhile, his anxiety was growing. By the fourth day, he says, he was "pretty messed up" and scared about not being there for his wife, who was seven months pregnant with a condition that put her at risk of a premature birth.
After five days, he was transferred to Essex County, where he expected that everything would be straightened out.
Instead, Florence found "the same hell all over again."
He was not only strip-searched, but unlike in Burlington County, where he was by himself, Florence was now mixed in with other criminals.
"I'm with a whole bunch of murderers and carjackers and rapists and all walks of life that I wouldn't wish upon anybody, " Florence says.
Finally, a week after his arrest, and after his wife got a lawyer, he was released. He sued both counties for failing to give him a hearing and for what he contends were illegal strip searches. The failure to provide a prompt hearing is still pending before the lower courts. The strip search is before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
In Washington, D.C., a woman arrested for eating a sandwich on the subway was strip-searched in front of male guards.
Florence contends that strip-searching a person who is arrested for "a noncriminal offense" violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.
His lawyer, Susan Chana Lask, notes that Florence was not arrested for a knife fight or a drug violation.
"He was pulled off the street for a traffic stop," Lask says. "There was no reason to strip-search Albert Florence unless they thought he was carrying contraband, but they never made that case."
Indeed, the state of New Jersey has a policy against strip searches without suspicion. And Lask, in her brief, calls the number of trivial offenses for which individuals are regularly arrested and would be subject to indiscriminate strip searches "astonishing." Such jailable offenses include car equipment violations, such as driving with a noisy muffler, parking violations, even riding a bike without a bell. In Washington, D.C., a woman arrested for eating a sandwich on the subway was strip-searched in front of male guards.
The New Jersey counties where Florence was imprisoned, however, have an entirely different perspective. Representing them, lawyer Carter Phillips will tell the Supreme Court that cases like Florence's are both rare and better than the alternative. Phillips notes that Essex County includes Newark, where thousands of prisoners are processed. To protect prisoners and guards alike, he argues, "it is simply the safer approach to say, if for whatever reason the system has seen fit to put you in a jail ... you have to go through the strip-search process."
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 ruled that prison officials may, in the name of security, conduct strip searches of prisoners who have planned contact visits with outsiders. The court said such searches are reasonable in order to prevent weapons, drugs and other contraband from being brought into the prison. Until quite recently, however, the lower courts have not permitted automatic jail-admission strip searches for those charged with minor offenses and not yet convicted. In the past decade, that trend has started to reverse. And now that question is squarely before the Supreme Court.
_____________________________________________
This is a criminal justice policy story. Is this policy correct? It is logical? It is Constitutional?
Click on this link to hear the story.
And the story is here:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/12/141243323/should-minor-offenders-be-subject-to-strip-searches
And the good news is that NPR and the story are available online.
Here is the story:
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case testing whether prison guards may constitutionally strip-search even minor traffic offenders when they are arrested and taken to jail.
For decades, most courts did not allow such blanket strip searches, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way.
Wednesday's test case began on a New Jersey highway in March 2005. Albert Florence, his wife and his little boy were in a celebratory mood as they motored their way to the home of Albert's parents. The couple had just bought a new house and had been looking at new furniture at the design center. April was at the wheel, and Albert noticed that their BMW was being followed by a state trooper.
April assured her husband that she wasn't speeding, but the trooper soon signaled them to pull over. After checking April's license, the trooper asked who owned the car, and upon learning that her husband, sitting next to her, was the owner, the trooper ordered Albert out of the car, handcuffed him and arrested him on an outstanding warrant for failure to pay a fine.
The problem was that the warrant had never been purged from the computer system.
Florence, however, could prove he had paid the fine. He kept the document showing he had paid in his car, and he showed the paperwork, complete with a state seal, to the state trooper. The officer apologized but said he still had to arrest him.
The Constitution requires a suspect to be promptly arraigned and, in most cases, released, on bond if necessary. However, in Florence's case, despite the best efforts of his wife, he did not get a hearing and remained in jail for a full week.
At the Burlington Country jail where he was first taken, he was told to shower and was inspected by a guard.
The guard "was at about arm's distance," Florence recalls, "and he instructed me to turn around, squat, cough, lift up my genitals, and then put on the orange jumpsuit."
Florence says he pleaded with jail authorities to check with Essex County, where the warrant originated, and he kept waiting for his hearing. But it didn't happen. Meanwhile, his anxiety was growing. By the fourth day, he says, he was "pretty messed up" and scared about not being there for his wife, who was seven months pregnant with a condition that put her at risk of a premature birth.
After five days, he was transferred to Essex County, where he expected that everything would be straightened out.
Instead, Florence found "the same hell all over again."
He was not only strip-searched, but unlike in Burlington County, where he was by himself, Florence was now mixed in with other criminals.
"I'm with a whole bunch of murderers and carjackers and rapists and all walks of life that I wouldn't wish upon anybody, " Florence says.
Finally, a week after his arrest, and after his wife got a lawyer, he was released. He sued both counties for failing to give him a hearing and for what he contends were illegal strip searches. The failure to provide a prompt hearing is still pending before the lower courts. The strip search is before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
In Washington, D.C., a woman arrested for eating a sandwich on the subway was strip-searched in front of male guards.
Florence contends that strip-searching a person who is arrested for "a noncriminal offense" violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.
His lawyer, Susan Chana Lask, notes that Florence was not arrested for a knife fight or a drug violation.
"He was pulled off the street for a traffic stop," Lask says. "There was no reason to strip-search Albert Florence unless they thought he was carrying contraband, but they never made that case."
Indeed, the state of New Jersey has a policy against strip searches without suspicion. And Lask, in her brief, calls the number of trivial offenses for which individuals are regularly arrested and would be subject to indiscriminate strip searches "astonishing." Such jailable offenses include car equipment violations, such as driving with a noisy muffler, parking violations, even riding a bike without a bell. In Washington, D.C., a woman arrested for eating a sandwich on the subway was strip-searched in front of male guards.
The New Jersey counties where Florence was imprisoned, however, have an entirely different perspective. Representing them, lawyer Carter Phillips will tell the Supreme Court that cases like Florence's are both rare and better than the alternative. Phillips notes that Essex County includes Newark, where thousands of prisoners are processed. To protect prisoners and guards alike, he argues, "it is simply the safer approach to say, if for whatever reason the system has seen fit to put you in a jail ... you have to go through the strip-search process."
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 ruled that prison officials may, in the name of security, conduct strip searches of prisoners who have planned contact visits with outsiders. The court said such searches are reasonable in order to prevent weapons, drugs and other contraband from being brought into the prison. Until quite recently, however, the lower courts have not permitted automatic jail-admission strip searches for those charged with minor offenses and not yet convicted. In the past decade, that trend has started to reverse. And now that question is squarely before the Supreme Court.
_____________________________________________
This is a criminal justice policy story. Is this policy correct? It is logical? It is Constitutional?
Click on this link to hear the story.
And the story is here:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/12/141243323/should-minor-offenders-be-subject-to-strip-searches
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The 4th Amendment is on life support
Combine the USA PATRIOT Act and the war on terror with the war on drugs, and the 4th Amendment is nearly dead.
Which one is that?
It is the one that gives you protection from unwarranted searches and seizures.
From the article:
"The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.
"Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs."
The decision was 8-1 with only Justice Ginsburg dissenting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20110517,0,6746878.story
Which one is that?
From the article:
"The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.
"Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs."
The decision was 8-1 with only Justice Ginsburg dissenting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20110517,0,6746878.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)