Is it unconstitutional to strip-search every new inmate entering a jail? The Supreme Court will consider that question next month when it hears the case of Albert Florence, a 35-year-old New Jersey man who spent a week in jail because of a warrant that wrongfully said he was wanted for nonpayment of a fine. Florence is suing the two jails where he was strip-searched and detained, arguing that searching him for contraband when he had been arrested for a minor offense violated his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches, reports the Washington Post.

He's joined in the suit by people strip-searched after being arrested for "driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal, and riding a bicycle without an audible bell," Florence's lawsuit states. The humiliating treatment, he says, is something he wouldn't wish on his worst enemy. The American Bar Association is backing his case. "Nearly 14 million Americans are arrested each year,"and many arrests “do not involve violence or drugs and do not suggest a motive or opportunity to smuggle contraband into a prison," the association wrote in a brief to the court. The appeals court that earlier rejected Florence's claim wrote that "preventing the introduction of weapons and drugs into the prison environment is a legitimate interest of concern for prison administrators."

The court believed that there was a legitimate interest in those searches! So don't break your tail light or you will be seeing this guy above ^ :)

http://www.newser.com/story/128367/are-jail-strip-searches-unconstitutional.html

Yarmouth High School students may face blood-alcohol tests

Apr 04, 2012 12:00 am

http://www.theforecaster.net/news/print/2012/04/17/students-will-be-tested-alcohol-yarmouth-high-scho/119845

YARMOUTH — High school students could be asked to exhale before dancing as the School Committee considers conducting blood-alcohol breath tests at school dances.

"This is more a deterrent than a 'gotcha,'" Superintendent Judy Paolucci said about a proposed policy to "administer Breathalyzer tests to students while on school property or at school-sponsored events."

The proposal will be discussed Tuesday, April 10, from 6-8 p.m., at a policy committee meeting. The meeting at the school district office at 101 McCartney St. is open to the public.

At that point, Paolucci said students will also be asked their opinion of using the devices, which estimate blood-alcohol levels from breath samples, at the school or school-sponsored events.

A draft of the policy created as an amendment to the district policy on substance abuse provides guidelines for testing all students entering a school event or individual students who show signs they have been drinking before or during school events.

A positive test or refusing to take a test would lead to parental notification and discipline conforming to the existing chemical use policy.

Paolucci said she "is not a big fan" of using the test, but the discussion is needed to determine if it can make school events safer. She said she would like to hear from students at the policy committee meeting because the atmosphere may seem less formal.

These parents are stupid if they allowed this to happen. Is this school that dangerous? can't you pick out the drunk students from the sober ones?

LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court panel on Tuesday threw out a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage passed in 2008, upholding a lower court’s ruling that the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated the constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians in California.

Tuesday’s 2-to-1 decision was much more narrowly framed than the sweeping ruling of Judge Walker, who asserted that barring same-sex couples from marrying was a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.

The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

This happened in Febuary 2012. My point is how much more will gay people last before they have actual rights as married people. It was said that Prop 8 was unconstitutional but they did not say go ahead and get married now. Do gay people need to go to court again and fight for their marriage license that should legally be there's to begin with?

Citing Conflict with Federal Law, Department of Justice Challenges Arizona Immigration Law

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html

This article is what the Federal Gov. had to say about the law. 

WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice challenged the state of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law, S.B. 1070, in federal court today.  

In a brief filed in the District of Arizona, the Department said S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that “the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”  A patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.  Having enacted its own immigration policy that conflicts with federal immigration law, Arizona “crossed a constitutional line.” 

The Department’s brief said that S.B. 1070 will place significant burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from high-priority targets, such as aliens implicated in terrorism, drug smuggling, and gang activity, and those with criminal records.  The law’s mandates on Arizona law enforcement will also result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors and legal immigrants, as well as U.S. citizens, who cannot readily prove their lawful status.

In declarations filed with the brief, Arizona law enforcement officials, including the Chiefs of Police of Phoenix and Tucson, said that S.B. 1070 will hamper their ability to effectively police their communities.  The chiefs said that victims of or witnesses to crimes would be less likely to contact or cooperate with law enforcement officials and that implementation of the law would require them to reassign officers from critical areas such as violent crimes, property crimes, and home invasions.

        

The Department filed the suit after extensive consultation with Arizona officials, law enforcement officers and groups, and civil rights advocates.  The suit was filed on behalf of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State, which share responsibilities in administering federal immigration law.

“Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns,” Attorney General Holder said.  “But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety.   Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility.  Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.

Can school officials strip search a thirteen-year-old girl suspected of giving ibuprofen to a classmate?

Relevant provision of Constitution:

Amendment IV 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will review a lower court ruling that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that she possessed ibuprofen.


The case, Redding v. Safford Unified School District, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity as a result of his actions

"Overzealous school officials stripped our client of her clothes and her constitutional rights," said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU. "We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize that such conduct has no place in America’s schools and will protect the privacy rights of America’s students."

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school’s vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen - 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil - in the possession of Redding’s classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems or substance abuse, had given her the pills. Safford maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward all prescription medicines, including prescription-strength ibuprofen.

After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson presented Redding with the ibuprofen pills and informed her of her classmate’s accusations. Redding said she had never seen the pills before and agreed to a search of her possessions, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding’s backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse’s office in order to perform a strip search.

"It offends both common sense and the Constitution to undertake such an excessive, traumatizing search based on nothing more than an uncorroborated accusation of ibuprofen possession," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU and counsel of record in the case. "Our fundamental right to privacy must not be cast aside when faced with groundless allegations rooted in unfounded fears of adolescent Advil abuse."

Arizona law author spars with Schumer

This is the third article on the Arizona law SB1070  this is so you can see how it is going so far. This happened to day! Not a couple of years ago.

Schumer pressed SB 1070 author Russell Pearce about a provision that allows citizens to turn in cops if they don’t appear to be enforcing the immigration law.

“Isn’t that demeaning to police officers?” Schumer asked Pearce. “Won’t that push them to do things to protect themselves from lawsuits that they believe they shouldn’t do?

Pearce defended his law, telling Schumer that it was written with cooperation with law enforcement officials and that particular provision gave cops “the protection they need and the discretion at the same time.”

“I get a little disappointed that we’re the bad guys for enforcing the law,” Pearce, sounding irritated, later told Schumer. “Mr. Chairman, we have a national crisis and we continue to ignore it … I think Americans are a little tired of the drive-by statements from politicians.”

The New York senator also questioned Pearce over a training manual for Arizona police officers that suggested dress would be one of the indications used by law enforcement to determine whether a person was in the country legally.

“What does an illegal immigrant dress like?” Schumer asked Pearce.

In response, Pearce said that manual was developed in conjunction with federal immigration officials.

At one point, Pearce criticized Schumer for arguing that SB 1070 could lead to racial profiling by police officers. The law, Pearce said, explicitly bars profiling.

“I think it’s demeaning to law enforcement to assume they don’t know how to do their job,” Pearce told Schumer.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also traded jabs with Pearce over the DREAM Act, which would offer minors who meet certain requirements a pathway to citizenship.

“All of us have a heart and all of us have compassion,” Pearce said, calling the bill “blanket amnesty.” “But laws without consequences are no laws at all.”

Durbin responded: “Mr. Pearce, the DREAM Act is not a blanket amnesty.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75533.html#ixzz1sypIQvvS

Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?_r=1 

this article was written in April 2010. But is still a hot issue especially now because it has finally reached the Supreme Court. This will inform you of what this law is and does.

 It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

Norway mass-shooting trial reopens debate on violent video games

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/19/tech/gaming-gadgets/games-violence-norway-react/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Norway's alleged mass killer testified on Thursday that he played video games as a way to train for a shooting spree that killed 77 people last summer. In particular, Anders Behring Breivik said at his trial that he played "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" as a means of shooting practice.

The confessed shooter also said he once played the online game "World of Warcraft," a role-playing adventure with multiple players from around the world, for as many as 16 hours a day.

For people who have long suspected that there is some link between violent video games and real-world violence, the statement offered frightening new evidence for why the video-game industry should be more strictly regulated.

I had to post this and can't believe how many times in different ways this has come up after we did the Mock trial in Class. The first link is to the video article and the second link is to the article in which explains what he wanted to do and did.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/19/world/europe/norway-breivik-trial/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

Buffet Proposes a 28th Amendment

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000032014 

I know Buffett was joking but sometimes I wish it could happen. With all this nonsense coming from congress not wanting to do anything, it's hard not wanting all of them replaced.

I don't think they would make it the 28th amendment though. They would not vote themselves out!

WATCH THE VIDEO!

I Plead The Fifth!

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/16/bts-gsa-statements-dc.pool

Jeff Neely, the General Services Administration official who organized the 2010 conference that cost $800,000, repeatedly refused to answer questions, saying more than five times: "I respectfully decline to answer any questions here today based on my Fifth Amendment constitutional privileges."


He can exercise his 5th amendment right, but I feel that it only makes him look like a coward, and a even bigger thief. 


 The link will bring you to the video where he declines to answer questions.

Should the school district be allowed to demand middle-schooler's Facebook password?

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/13/10657012-up-against-the-wall-should-district-be-allowed-to-demand-middle-schoolers-facebook-password

A 12-year-old Minnesota girl was reduced to tears while school officials and a police officer rummaged through her private Facebook postings after forcing her to surrender her password, an ACLU lawsuit alleges. 

The claims are the latest in a string of tales showing that even password-protected, private online activities might not be safe from curious government agencies and schools.

The girl, whose identity is withheld in the lawsuit, came home "crying, depressed, angry, scared and embarrassed" after she was intimidated into divulging her login information by a school counselor and a deputy sheriff, who arrived in uniform, armed with a Taser, the lawsuit alleges.

I believe that the district should not have read or gone through the students facebook. Not only is it her first amendment right taht is being violated but it is also her 4th amendment by searching her facebook. I believe that if they really wanted to see what was on her wall or facebook there could have been other options. For someone to have complained about it they must have had access through there account to see. why didn't they borrow there account to let the officials look that way?

She might not be the nicestest little girl but she still has rights. I know that sometimes 12 year olds can get out of control but as school counselor they should have known better!

Presidential historian pleads guilty to stealing documents

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/us/historian-theft/index.html?hpt=us_c2

There should be something in the constitution that says if you still a national treasure you are no longer american!

This guy obviously wanted to relive through himself the moive National Treasure and steel all posible documents. If the movie is anything similar to real life I do believe that it would have been harder for him to get to the actual Constitution of the US, especially if it is heat sensative! LOL!

Anyway he got away with it for a while let's hope no one else follows in those footsteps.

What does Proposition 8 ruling mean to California.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/toobin-what-proposition-8-ruling-means-for-california-other-states/

Proposition 8, the initiative passed by voters in 2008, is unconstitutional, a violation of the rights of gay and lesbian people who want to get married.

In this article you will read in detail what is going on with this case of same-sex marriage. One big supprising thing to me is not the ruling but the reason why they ruled it unconstitutional as this attorney explains it:

 Instead of ruling that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in all circumstances, the court issued a narrower ruling. The judges said that the peculiar circumstances in California – a right to same-sex marriage withdrawn by a vote of the public – was unconstitutional.

huh?

Tacos for Dinner!

U.S. News - Conn. mayor's 'tacos' comment in Latino profiling case draws outrage

One blunder on top of another? The mayor of East Haven, Conn., came under a torrent of criticism Wednesday for telling a TV reporter “I might have tacos” when asked about how he would support the Latino community in the aftermath of the arrest of four town police officers accused of racially profiling and bullying Latino residents. The public fiasco began Tuesday with the announcement by federal officials that the FBI had arrested four East Haven police officers on charges that they conspired to deprive some residents, particularly Latinos, of their constitutional rights. The charges include multiple counts of excessive force, false arrest, obstruction and conspiracy.

 

It is not the fact that all he can do for the hispanic community was eat a taco for dinner. The problem is that all he can relate to them with is a taco because he is so insensitive to the harm that these police officers have done to these people. Just because the hispanics are only 10% of the community does not mean that he can treat them as third class citizens, and not respect their Constitutional rights.
The police officers work for the city he should be more careful with what he says, because he and his city lost the lawsuit and the city is liable for the damages, and the ones that he keeps on adding.

PIPA and SOPA

http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/design/how-sopa-pipa-can-affect-you/

No, this is not Pippa Middleton that will be discussed on this web page posted above. PIPA stands for Protect Intellectual Property Act and SOPA stands for Stop Online Piracy Act. I believe there are many moral issues with these two proposed bills not only on one side but on both sides of the bill. If you click on the link above you can do a little reading on how this will affect normal people as well as professionals in this work environment

I will present the moral issues as well as intellectual issues regarding the people on all sides of these bills:

 As far as I understand I believe that those people are people in the music and movie industry. I do believe Piracy is bad and you do need to have your intellectual property be yours but do music and movie industries really need an extra few million on top of those almost billions they make each year. I read in a different article that these bills should be put into place to save Americas new ideas and inventions!?! really what ideas and great inventions. Of course I know we have good ideas and inventions in America but it's been a while since we have been sliding down that list as other countries go up, and it is not because of them steeling ideas it is because America has a lack of ideas. We should be putting money towards education where we could be have more Engineers and Scientists, and Doctors.

First of all I believe if the problem of piracy is technology then work on other technology that will make it harder for those people steeling ideas or intellectual property. For example soon there will be no CD's and now days there is not one person that doesn't know itunes. I believe that since itunes started running there has been less piracy on the web of music. Why? because it is that much more accessible to the public and cheaper then buying a whole CD when you only want one song. buying music, movies, books, whatever it is, is so much easier then it used to be that a lot more artists are getting their money via itunes. This kind of technology is good for America and its industries to succeed and to have piracy go down less and less. Piracy will never go away. I will attempt to compare it to the Mexican drug cartels, if you put one in jail, or kill one five more pop up and take that persons place. Mexico has laws, but it doesn't mean that anyone has to follow them.

Second, people who steal intellectual property will always steal intellectual property. They will always find a way. It doesn't matter that the thing you are stealing has no actual weight or can't be seen, it is still bad. America or owners of intellectual property have to be that much smarter so they have less piracy issues.

Third, I do know that many countries make copies of movies or music and sell them for profit even before it comes out to the general public, but really how much of these bills can actually hurt those countries legally? I say not much, but in the contrary it hurts us worse. Constitutionally speaking this can hurt all of us by taking away our first amendment Freedom of Speech. An example given in this website is the most common one. Your child is singing, you want to record it, and YouTube it to the whole world and then you get censured off of the Internet cause you did not pay to sing that song that someone else wrote! That is just a simple example. I'm sure they will not go off on every three year old that sings a song but you can see how just the most simplest thing can come into conflict.

To conclude before giving up your first amendment right at least think about it a little. This web page as well as other web pages are probably biased but so are the people for these two bills. Outweigh the good and the bad! Do something that will help America grow and succeed. Not the opposite as piracy grows and grows. invest in education because as you can see I am not a good writer, and need more of it as well as other students trying to finish a career with crazy amounts of student loans.