Morning Docket 05.11.09
* We are not the only ones talking about the problems women have with each other at the office. The New York Times says women bully women. [New York Times]
* Ex-Judge of the Day Hall of Famer Samuel Kent, the first federal judge to be charged with a sex crime, will be sentenced today. He could have gone to the big house for up to 20 years, but his two decades on the bench have made him sentence-savvy. He’ll face three years max thanks to a plea agreement. [Houston Chronicle]
* Former Ohio AG Marc “the Dannimal” Dann has found a new niche. [Legal Newsline]
* A cobbled-together article suggesting that suicide is a trend for stressed attorneys. [National Law Journal]
* Every move you make, every turn you take. A Wisconsin appeals court says the police can slap a GPS tracking device on your car. No warrant needed. [CNet]
* SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS. Trying to get into President Obama’s head when it comes to his judiciary thinking. [New York Times]
* White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel may be heading up the SCOTUS nominee search but Vice President Joe Biden is enjoying his grand poobah role in the process. [Washington Post]
* The gambling odds on the nominees. Sotomayor’s the favorite with odds of 13-8. Michelle Obama’s odds? 500-1. [Fox News]
* A guide to the YouTube moments of potential SCOTUS nominees — gaffes and brilliance. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s clip is the “best” of the bunch — short, concise, and damaging. [Slate]
* The New York Times wants readers to pick Souter’s replacement. Vote Lat! [The New York Times]
(23) Comments
Comments
First?
*BLAM*
The Wisconsin appeals court ruling isn't surprising in light of U.S. v. Knotts and U.S. v. Karo. I don't see what's newsworthy about it. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your public location.
2 - And what about when my vehicle is parked at my home? Is that still considered public? Or other times when on private property such as parking garages, other homeowners driveways, etc?
No Victor/Tammy post?
No posts about the lowly McDermott Will & Emery?
Eli needs to do a post on Orrick borrowing against its future profits for partners. This type of financial squeeze is going to be more common as time goes by and is usually accompanied by an implosion by the firm.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202430579829
No posts about R. Lee Ermy?
3 - You might have reasonable expectations of privacy in parking garages, and you certainly have them at home (though the driveway is probably another story) but Knotts and Karo make clear that so long as the LEOs aren't monitoring the device while the object being searched isn't located in a zone of privacy, then there's no 4A violation. In those cases they used beepers, whereas here they're using a GPS tracker. That distinction is virtually negligible. This is why I don't see any controversy here, really. Except, perhaps, that some people feel the logical progression of Knotts is becoming too uncomfortable.
women in a professional workplace are just aweful; I mean, I guess you gotta have them in fashion/ marketing/ nurse- type setting
Amazing Race sucked; why does a brother-sister team that couldn't even dive straight have to win?!
Wanda Sykes for SCOTUS!
2, 3, and 8 - This is not lawschool hypothetical/how smart can I sound time. Please shut the fuck up.
I don't care about your opinions. I bet you are mouth breathers and you smell like rotten pickles.
"He'll face three years max thanks to a plea agreement."
Plea agreements are not binding on federal judges... so you might want to change that.
5 - What did MWE do now?
Although it is extremely offensive and a real sign of the times, police have been putting GPS devices on cars for years without warrants. Police in my city used to do it all the time, it was no big deal.
15 - i laughed
I wish Kash and her lobster would enter the great race. They make a really good team.
If it's cars this time, next year it'll be you with a permanent GPS affixed on your forehead.
The national security wet dream. With no rights to privacy a la Scalia, that's what you get.
2, 3, and 8, you're overlooking that the constitution guarantees privacy, and guarantee is just another word for promise. To the extent the tracked citizen relied on that promise to his detriment, he would then have a promissory estoppel claim against the police (who are subject to state law, which is subordinate to federal law by the supremacy clause) and against the court that upheld the breach of privacy. His damages would, of course, be capped to the extent of his reliance. Section 90 of the Restatement is very clear on this. Does anybody have any experience suing under the Wisconsin Tort Claims Act?
19,
According to Scalia, there's no right to privacy. No such thing as prenumbra or emanations (although there's that stench from your mouth -- smells like ass) in the Constitution that explicitly or implicitly guarantees privacy.
20: Yes, I've read that from him. As I recall, never in a majority opinion.
I don't see why you're calling that Youtube video "damaging". One prospect talking about the results of consistency in applying "federalism", another saying appellate courts *shouldn't* engage in policy making but sometimes do....And the African American speaker said nothing about same sex marriages or anything else particularly controversial. Stoopid.
I'm disappointed that Paddy Power did not list the odds on Harriet Miers. She's more qualified than any of these jokers.