1. You know, the authorities never seem to have trouble finding a jail cell for my clients. Of course, none of them are named Martha.
2. Marijuana is still the top illegal drug.
3. Counties are opting out of the indigent defense system Georgia set up.
4. Marrying the woman who tried to have you killed?
5. Apparently the indigent defenders are being pressed back into service in Massachusetts.
6. If you are going to rob a bank don't write the note for the teller on an inspection report for your car.
7. Okay, I'm torn here. Kitten killers should at least get a conviction on their record. On the other hand appealing the disposition of a case by the prosecutor grates.
8. If you are going to steal a car, you'd best make damn sure that the father's child ain't in it.
9. No matter how many times they are told not to, inmates will always talk about stupid things over the phone. Not that I am complaining about this result - who plots to kill a kid?
10. In Connecticut it is unconstitutional to strip search minors who have been out of the control of the correctional facility (in court, new transfers, etc.) It's an interesting position to take. I understand the philosophy behind it but I'm not sure it tracks with the realities of some of the juvenile facilities I've been in.
11. Didn't they used to hang people for cattle russlin'?
12. An attorney is not supposed to steal his client's funds. Or at least you'd think he wouldn't be stupid about it. You take the money instead of paying the mortgage and someone will notice.
13. Police supervisors think it prudent to suspend an officer wanted in connection with the murder of two tourists.
14. Police are upset but the politicians aren't going to renew the ban on assault weapons during an election year: the right to bear arms being just a little too popular in the heart and hinter lands (you know - the "swing states").
2 comments:
Ken, you got the CT story wrong. The 2d circuit ruled in NG et al v. CT, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18834 (2d Cir. 2004) that “searches conducted upon each initial entry into the custody of the State's juvenile authorities were lawful, but that repetitive searches, conducted while the girls remained in custody, violated the Fourth Amendment in the absence of reasonable suspicion that contraband was possessed.” So, 1) this applies to New York, too; and 2) this does not go to the CT constitution.
Yep, you got me. Should'a read the news article a little more closely. Although, I didn't mean the Conn.Con. I meant that the interpretation of the federal constitution in this jurisdiction was such that this act would not be allowed. As we all know, the interpretation of that pesky federal constitution seems to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
As to missing the fact that it was a 2d Circuit opinion? I just can't come up with a believable excuse for that one. Still, it's kinda weird that a NY media outlet would issue a report from Conn. about a court decision which came down from NY.
Post a Comment