Mediaboss Marketing

WisBar

Drunk Driver Gave Consent, Blood Test was Voluntary, Supreme Court Says WisBar Two justices agreed that Brar expressly consented but did not join the conclusion that his implied consent was sufficient for Fourth Amendment purposes. Two other justices dissented, concluding that Brar did not freely and voluntarily consent to a ...

Excerpt from:
Drunk Driver Gave Consent, Blood Test was Voluntary, Supreme Court Says - WisBar

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide

See the original post:
The Fourth Amendment Implications of Sharing Server Space - JD Supra (press release)

Recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the revival of civil asset forfeiture practices. Such a phrase is ambiguous enough to disinterest average citizens, yet anyone whose assets have been sized through this method may attest to its truly malevolent and un-natural ramifications.

Effectively, civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to confiscate possessions from anyone suspected of illegal activity without filing any criminal charges; cases are between law enforcement and alleged criminally-connected assets, not owners. Notorious case names include Texas v. .39 Acres and Texas v. One 2004 Chevrolet Silverado. During such cases, 59.02 (c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires forfeiters to prove their innocence instead of requiring law enforcement to prove guilt.

One stark example of abuse was endured by Austin resident Javier Gonzalez in 2005. The Texas Observer reported Gonzalez was traveling from Austin to Brownsville with approximately $10,000 budgeted for his aunts funeral; however, despite no contraband, after Jim Wells County sheriff deputies stopped him for missing a front license plate, he was arrested and coerced into forfeiting the funds. Javier was told forfeiture represented the only way to prevent felony money laundering charges. Similarly, under Sessions direction, any UT student could experience disenfranchisement and have their possessions removed under the pretense of mere suspicion.

Civil asset forfeiture exists as an un-natural legal practice. The term un-natural reflects Ciceros timeless observation that, true law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain Civil asset forfeiture, conversely, represents wrong reason in disagreement with nature. Imagine no property laws, or any laws whatsoever, existed: Would theft suddenly become acceptable? One does not need statutes to grasp the concept that taking from another without cause is not tolerable.

Unfortunately, even the Texas Supreme Court has ostensibly sanctioned civil asset forfeiture by holding in Texas v. Richards that the Texas Constitution does not protect owners from having assets forfeited, and in El-Ali v. Texas the Court refused to review its previous ruling. Courts, attorneys general and other entities may attempt to defend civil asset forfeiture, yet they stand in perpetual contempt of natural law enshrined within the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment states, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, which represents a restatement of natural law existing before ratification.

Sessions has promised reforms to curb previous abuses, yet law enforcement will still have perverse incentives to seize assets, which they regularly retain for local funding. Nonetheless, a ray of hope has emerged through Rep. Beto O'Rourke and Rep. Randy Webers bipartisan sponsorship of legislation guaranteeing legal representation for those whose assets have been seized, and redirecting seized assets into the U.S. Treasurys general fund. One hopes bipartisan legislative opposition and an engaged citizenry will quickly stymie civil asset forfeitures, because un-natural laws cannot be gradually reformed: They must be actively abolished.

Wayne R. Beckermann is a member of the Texas Law Class of 2020 from Brenham, Texas.

The rest is here:
Civil asset forfeiture: Un-natural law - UT The Daily Texan

On July 17, 229 years after ratification of the Constitution, Jeff Sessions, the honorable attorney general of the USA, issued his recommendation that asset forfeiture be increased.

Meanwhile in middle town USA, a collective shrug of the shoulders was the response. Who cares if a few drug dealers have their ill-gotten gains taken from them? Yet, it is a shame if innocent Americans happen have their property and cash taken from them without due process of law. There must be a good reason for this gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.

As a matter of fact, thanks to Sessions, we now know the Founding Fathers had it all wrong. We are not innocent until proven guilty, and we owe Sessions our gratitude for correcting a 200-year-old mistake in our justice system.

Since he has determined we are all inherently guilty, it is futile to try to prove our innocence. Therefore, the only patriotic thing to do is to voluntarily forfeit our assets so he won't waste our tax dollars seizing them.

Donald Harris

Whitehall Township

See original here:
Attorney General Sessions ignores 4th Amendment - Allentown Morning Call

WisBar

Refusing Interior Inspection: Right to Challenge Property Assessment Not Lost WisBar Kelly concluded that the Milewskis had a constitutional right to refuse the tax assessor's entry, because government entry to obtain information would be a search under the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

See more here:
Refusing Interior Inspection: Right to Challenge Property Assessment Not Lost - WisBar