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 →

Over at Reddit, the website and community that conclusively proves crowdsourcing doesn’t work, my pal Radley Balko did an AMA, which stands for Ask Me Anything. There was a wealth of excellent questions asked, ranging from the lessons from his new book, Rise of the Warrior Cop, to the truly important, his favorite barbecue spot in Nashville.

Radley did an excellent job of responding to the varied questions, even though he left such critical matters as “what does Arianna Huffington smell like” on the table.  He faced some very tough issues, Continue reading →

The Silence of Salinas put to rest the chorus of “just stop talking” advice when a person is questioned by law enforcement, prior to arrest and custodial interrogation. It left an open question of whether there was anything a person could do to enjoy his Fifth Amendment rights. or was he just caught in a judicial Catch-22.

The Second Circuit answered the question in its opinion in United States v. Okatan.  In Salinas v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that the act of going silent, after having answered questions, was not an invocation of the right to remain silent, Continue reading →

To the extent possible, Tuesday evenings in the summer are reserved for a drive in the Healey to Audrey Avenue in the hamlet of Oyster Bay, where a “cruise night” is held and car guys hang out with each other and discuss car guy stuff. Knowing less about cars than most, I tend to do more listening than talking so I don’t confirm my ignorance. Let them guess.

Another guy, driving a beat up old Land Rover defender, one of the truly great British cars even though it has a roof and too many doors, has been telling me about his litigation for a couple of years now. Continue reading →