There are some places where privacy, for Fourth Amendment purposes, really shouldn’t be in question.  If a person’s home is his castle, the toilet is his throne. But to police in Portland, prosecutors and the judge who denied suppression without explanation, there is nothing special about porcelain.

From Oregon v. Holiday:

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine, ORS 475.884, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Believing that defendant was in violation of a term of his probation, police unlocked and opened the door to the public restroom that defendant was occupying. Continue reading →

It might surprise you to know that I, for one, appreciate Sam Glover’s missives at The Puddle of the Clio Cloud 9 Conference in Chicago. His posts save sane and busy people from sitting through these conferences by reporting back from the cutting edge. It both allows working lawyers to do their work and still learn what the fringe has to say.

You might think my use of the word “fringe” is derogatory, but I assure you it’s not. How else would we learn what’s happening on the cutting edge but from the handful of people willing to spend their time at such conferences? Continue reading →

When lawprof Danielle Citron’s op-ed appeared on CNN, I felt the shiver.  Since her Cyber Civil Rights days, when she proposed criminalizing speech that hurt women’s feelings, it was clear that when feelings clashed with reason, the latter didn’t stand a chance.  This time, it was revenge porn, websites that posted nude photos given to former suitors who used them to harm, embarrass and humiliate the person.

Criminal law should have a role in deterring and punishing revenge porn. It’s not new that certain types of privacy invasions are crimes. Many states prohibit the nonconsensual taking of sexually explicit images — the disclosure of someone’s naked images should be criminalized as well. Continue reading →

In a New York Times op-ed, Ashley Merryman writes that losing is good for you.

The science is clear. Awards can be powerful motivators, but nonstop recognition does not inspire children to succeed. Instead, it can cause them to underachieve.

More hateful Boomer criticism?

Carol Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University, found that kids respond positively to praise; they enjoy hearing that they’re talented, smart and so on. Continue reading →

Regardless of what you think about my dear friend, Lynne Stewart, she’s dying.  It used to be a joke, when Jeralynn Merritt asked when judges would start meting out sentences of “life plus cancer,” but that’s the effective sentence imposed on Lynne.

As many of you know, I’ve been twitting since yesterday asking people to sign a petition to the government to allow Lynne compassionate release.  There have been more than a thousand new signers since then, and to the extent I’ve contributed to that, I thank you.

As I wrote in the twit, I don’t ask much, but I have something to ask of you now. Please sign the petition.  No, I am not a big believer in petitions, but the government has already refused compassionate release and appears quite happy to let Lynne die in prison.  Let the government know that you find its position disgraceful.

I realize that many do not share my views with regard to Lynne, and may think of her as a criminal.  So what? Her life is coming to an end. Is that not enough to sate your appetite for retribution?  Even if you think Lynne deserving of the sentence of imprisonment, show enough humanity to allow her to die with her husband, Ralph, her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Lynne is dying of cancer regardless of what anyone thinks. That’s enough.  Let her die at home. Please sign the petition. Thank you.

Whether one likes it or not, and I don’t in case that’s unclear, people use the internet to “learn” about the people, products and services they need. They read reviews, which makes reviews matter regardless of whether or not they should. And that means reviews becomes the target of deception.  I know. Shocking, right?

The problem is huge and intractable, as people and businesses fight with review sites to clean up phony negative reviews and sites try to stop phony positive reviews.  The internal war is a losing proposition, Continue reading →

When the first sentence of a post damn near causes whiplash, you know things are going to get bad.  Your head spins back from the squiggly lines on the page in shock at seeing what appears to be the rantings of a total lunatic, except the writer is listed as “Max McCann, Attorney, City of New York.”  Who? The guy who wrote this:

Most of the time, reporters avoid writing a story about an arrest in a way that  assumes the guilt of the person charged. Continue reading →

A drama played out last week between USA Today reporter Brad Heath and the Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility.  At Techdirt, Mike Masnick reported it, and Ken at Popehat followed it up. It matters because Brad has done some extraordinary investigations into systemic impropriety, and made some enemies along the way.

It began with Brad trying to FOIA documentation to find out what the OPR had done after the release of classified decisions showing that the FISA court had thrice chastised the DOJ for presenting misleading information to the court. Continue reading →

Over the years, I’ve heard from people about lousy CLE’s taught by lawyers who demonstrated little level of expertise in the subject they were teaching. I’ve heard about conferences where people no one knows spoke about a subject that conclusively proved they knew the least about it of anyone in the room.  These are issues I’ve written about here as well.

Another frequent occurrence is speakers, with a product or service to sell, end up on the podium to pitch. Often, they are smart enough not to sell directly, but to sell the underlying concept that justifies their product. Continue reading →

When it comes to an issue like retroactivity of ending mandatory life without parole for juveniles, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, there is no shortage of credible people ready to provide strong arguments in support.  It’s so easy, even I can do it.

But arguments against it? Not so easy. Even harder to find some credible source, which no doubt left the New York Times scratching and clawing to find someone, anyone, to be the spokesman for the losing side of the debate.  Enter Kent Scheidegger, Continue reading →