With her typical clarity, Judge Shira Scheindlin shut down New York City’s attempt to spin her ruling in Floyd v. City of New York, that the execution of the stop & frisk policy violated the rights of millions to nab a handful, with a resounding smack. Via Tim Cushing at Techdirt:

As to the city’s argument that carrying out the Finest message (i.e., instructing its officers to operate in adherence with the Constitution) will cause “irreparable harm” via confusion in the ranks (especially if Sheindlin’s ruling is overturned on appeal), both in implementation and (possible) retraining (again, dependent on the success of the appeal), the judge had this to say:

The City’s first argument is circular. Continue reading →

With the Senate Judiciary Committee conducting hearings on the efficacy of mandatory minimums, and football season upon us, who would field a team to champion a concept that has proven itself an abject failure?  It’s the National District Attorneys Association, of course, with Executive Director “Mr. Scott Burns, Esq.“* as quarterback.

A prosecutor told me the other day, after reading General Holder’s statements, “to me, I see this as we are three touchdowns ahead and many are now saying we should take out some of our best players — and mandatory minimum sentences are one of our best players”.  Why now, with crime at record lows are sweeping changes being suggested? Continue reading →

The rote recitations of excuses for the use of force usually fly because they have some connection to reality, at least for those inclined to believe whatever the police say.  But once in a while, the story crosses a line of absurdity that would make for a fabulous joke, if only it hadn’t actually happened.  It happened in Laguna Beach.

From the OC Weekly:

When Marilyn Injeyan–a 5-foot-3 and 125 pound, 71-year-old retired school teacher without a criminal record–opened her front door, Continue reading →

Many readers are aware of my friend Ken’s initiative to help bloggers who are attacked for what they write by putting up the Popehat Signal, a call for lawyers and supporters to back a blogger who has been threatened or sued by what Ken calls a “censorious asshat.”  By this, he’s become the “go to” guy in the blawgosphere for those in need of pro bono assistance in fending off assaults on their First Amendment rights.

It goes in hand with Ken’s other interest, naming and shaming those who have the misfortune of coming across his radar.

Speech has consequences.  It ought to. Continue reading →

If something is so wrong today that it violates the Constitution, how could it not be that wrong yesterday?  And yet, as the New York Times editorial points out, the Supreme Court of the United States once again left us hanging when it comes to the retroactivity of Miller v. Alabama.

In 2005, the court banned the death penalty for juveniles. In 2010, it outlawed sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of crimes other than homicide. And, in a 2012 case, Miller v. Alabama, it said juveniles may never receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole, which prisoners refer to as “the other death penalty.” Continue reading →

We make them pledge allegiance to the flag. We make them stand for the national anthem. But the days of “better dead than red” are well behind us.  Our children aren’t buying, even if we still shed a tear when we hear “and our flag was still there.”

In a New York Times op-ed. Northwestern philosophy prof Peter Ludlow writes about the “banality of systemic evil,”

In recent months there has been a visible struggle in the media to come to grips with the leaking, whistle-blowing and hacktivism that has vexed Continue reading →

My good friend, FritzMuffknuckle, who has been missing in action for a few months now, once asked me whether I thought Reddit’s Bad Cop No Donut, where he was a mod, was a good or bad thing.  I told him I thought it was a good thing, as it not only provided a place to post about police abuse and misconduct, but a place for non-lawyers to vent their anger and frustration.

Fritz was worried that so many redditors posted reactions about harming police that it had become a cesspool of hatred.  It spread misinformation, whether about the law or blame, and fed the fire of anger.  My thought was that while it was true that BCND seemed to work the choir into a frenzy, Continue reading →

On the surface, it reads like a bad joke: three shots fired and two bystanders hit, while the guy two relatively new New York City cops were shooting at is unscathed. Again.  But it’s not funny, certainly not to the two women struck by poorly aimed bullets.

But concerns over the fact that New York City police are historically poor shooters can be fixed with practice, more time at the range.  Concerns that the officers had their guns drawn and chose to use them are more difficult to tackle. Continue reading →

Jordan Rushie of the Fishtown Lawyers sent me over a post from Wait But Why, with the notation that “this is like, everyone I know.”  What I call the Slackoisie, he calls GYPSYs,

I have a term for yuppies in the Gen Y age group—I call them Gen Y Protagonists & Special Yuppies, or GYPSYs.  A GYPSY is a unique brand of yuppie, one who thinks they are the main character of a very special story.

It’s funny. It’s enlightening. It will infuriate many, Continue reading →

Many viewed it as a gaping hole in the protection needed by the press to report on bad things government might be doing, and most think it already exists: A federal shield law to protect a journalist from being compelled to disclose his sources. Remember Deep Throat (the source, not the movie)?

While most states already protect the reporter’s privilege, the United States has no national shield law, which leaves the press at risk of being compelled to disclose the source of information or suffer the consequences. At a time when information about the government is being revealed, Continue reading →