When the story broke in the Village Voice in May, 2010, it was less revelation than confirmation. Police Officer Adrian Schoolcraft had recorded more than 1000 hours of roll calls, locker room discussion and lectures inside Bed-Stuy’s 81st Precinct, and it was no longer what people thought or remembered, but the actual damning words of his department superiors.

Graham Rayman, who wrote the series of articles for the Voice, has produced a book, published by Palgrave Macmillan, that would appear from a distance to be about the “shocking” revelations of what Schoolcraft uncovered. Continue reading →

The American Civil Liberties Union scored a huge win in the District of Oregon with the opinion of Judge Anna Brown in Latif v. Holder. The suit was brought on behalf of a bunch of people with terrorist-y sounding names who showed up at the airport all ready to hop on a plane and munch peanuts, only to be told that it ain’t happening.  Some were told they were on the “No Fly List.” Most weren’t told much of anything at all, aside from their patronage was not wanted.

The case was carefully constructed, as plaintiffs with names like Ibraheim Mashal weren’t scary terrorists, but veterans of the United States Marine Corps. Continue reading →

Remember when twitter was new, and people were busy making up those cute words that twitterers just adored using? Tweeple and tweets? Just add “tw” before a word and you were one of the cool kids on twitter.  Thankfully, that idiocy died, as did such other nonsense as #FollowFriday.

To the extent twitter had a place in social media, it was as an extremely limited medium for communication that allowed people to share tiny bits of thought Continue reading →

A curious article by Sarah Laskow in the Columbia Journalism Review is entitled “The Lawyers Hackers Call.”  It’s a piece about the team defending Matthew Keys, the latest case under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that sunk Andrew Auernheimer, better known as Weev.

The federal government was alleging that Keys, then a social media editor at Reuters, had conspired with the infamous group Anonymous to hack the Los Angeles Times’ website. Keys, according to the government, had given the hackers access, and off they went. They managed to, as the Department of Justice put it, Continue reading →

By way of the WindyPundit, Mark Draughn raises a remarkable Georgia Court of Appeals decision in Dryer v. State.

By the officer’s own testimony, Dryer hadn’t broken any traffic laws, and the only reason he pulled Dryer over is because the officer thought it was suspicious that he had been in the lot after the club was closed. That wasn’t enough to constitute reasonable suspicion, and so Dryer’s lawyer tried to have the evidence thrown out. Continue reading →

A curious dilemma arises from the efforts to explain why police so often end up shooting, if not killing, suicidal people when they are called to help a person in need.  In some instances, there is at least an inkling of understanding as to why police ended up shooting the person. In others, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to explain it. So is it better to call the police for help or is it a death sentence?

While the answer may be hard to determine in most places, not so in St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana. As NOLA.com explains, it’s pretty much a lock that when the cops show up, somebody is going to end up dead. Continue reading →

After Attorney General Holder’s announcement last February that the Department of Justice would soon be coming out with its new policy on how it would address the renegade states of Colorado and Washington, who had done the unthinkable by legalizing marijuana, we waited with great anticipation for the moment of splendid audacity. Six months later, the Memo arrived.

The Cole Memo 2.0 makes one thing clear: the feds won’t be storming the Rockies today. Tomorrow? Well, who knows, since it turns and twists and wiggles as only a DOJ memo can. Of course, it does not direct the United States Attorneys Continue reading →

Where there’s a forced digital rectal insertion, Michael LaPaglia seems to be close at hand, along with a couple of cops smiling at the mere thought of Vaseline and latex reminding a perp that they can do anything they want, including the warrantless search of a guy’s rectum.  Oh yes, this happens.  And happens.

Dr. LaPaglia appears to have an affinity for helping the police whenever his peculiar services are needed, which doesn’t seem to bother any of his medical colleagues too much, I might add. Without the help of a physician, the police might have to get their own hands dirty. Ew. Continue reading →

At Above the Law, Brian Tannebaum declared the future of law dead. No, not that law had no future, but that the futurists had no future.  Tannebaum pointed to the results of a survey conducted by Jordan Furlong, a Canadian lawyer gone astray, about what he called the “future legal survival kit.”

Here’s the real results, in order of priority:

1. Emotional intelligence that fosters great relationships, especially with clients.

2. Connections: Strong and productive relationships with clients in your chosen field.

3. Moral Fibre: You’re renowned for strength of character and high levels of integrity. Continue reading →

Buried in Section F of the 4th Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Bartko, an affirmance of the defendant’s securities fraud conviction, is this astounding discussion of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina’s Brady practices. It would be wrong to use only excerpts in this instance, and so I quote the section at length:

Having analyzed the Brady and Giglio issues that Bartko raises, we pause here to address the discovery practices of the United States Attorney’s office in the Eastern District of North Carolina. A cursory review of this Court’s opinions reveals recent consideration of at least three cases involving discovery abuse Continue reading →