MAJ Hasan’s UCMJ Article 32 hearing and likely court-martial is drawing and will continue to draw lots of attention — of course, duh. But just as we have seen in other high profile cases there are opportunities for what I call teachable moments. Here are two from the item posted by CAAFLog about the witness…
Continue reading ›The U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Ontario v. Quon today. Quon is a case about searching pagers and cellphones. Our clients convicted of child pornography offenses and certain other offenses in which the internet is case related are restricted in computer access post-release. I mention Quon because of an interesting comment at Sentencing Law…
Continue reading ›SCOTUSBlog has a podcast of today’s oral argument.
Continue reading ›SCOTUSBlog reports that: At about 11 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in City of Ontario, et al., v. Quon, et al. (08-1332). Arguing for the California city and its police department will be Kent L. Richland of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in Los Angeles. The federal government,…
Continue reading ›Gazette.com reports that: An Army prosecutor Tuesday opened the trial of an Iraq war veteran by accusing him of the “ultimate betrayal” — raping a comrade’s wife. Spc. Philip C. Vermeiren, 28, is accused of assaulting the woman early Oct. 31 during an alcohol-fueled party at the Fort Carson apartment she shared with her husband.…
Continue reading ›Here’s a case from New Jersey of some interest, Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 2010 N.J. LEXIS 241 (March 30, 2010). [W]e find that Stengart had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails she exchanged with her attorney on Loving Care’s laptop. Stengart plainly took steps to protect the privacy of those e-mails…
Continue reading ›Haven’t posted on this for a while. There’s a lot going on out there in terms of state and federal litigation. A significant issue relates to the types of restrictions on a sex offender. So, what are the limits on computer and technology use for those convicted of sex offenses? Although rules may vary, many…
Continue reading ›Ohio holds today (4-3) that a cell phone search requires a warrant without exigent circumstances. Therefore, it was not subject to a search incident. Today’s cell phones are analogous to a computer. State v. Smith, 2009 Ohio 6426 (December 15, 2009). FourthAmendment blog reports. Seems there ought to be similar results for a military search…
Continue reading ›
