Dwight Sullivan at CAAFLog has posted this:
On 1 and 2 October, the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force will present a CLE conference at the George Mason School of Law in Arlington, Virginia. The program is open to active duty, reserve, and retired personnel, as well as to civilian attorneys. The program’s cost is $35, payable by 15 September. Requests for CLE credit should be submitted by 10 August.
Contact me for CLE credit information.
July 17, 2009, 10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m; Location: The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium.
Directions.
The officers had PC for a vehicle search based on their surveillance, so Gant has no application. United States v. Almaraz, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54138 (S.D. N.Y. June 26, 2009).*
The stop in this case was not unreasonably extended. The officer’s questioning during the writing of the ticket led to answers that were more hesitant and gave reasonable suspicion. United States v. Suitt, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13769 (8th Cir. June 25, 2009).*
Drug ‘em if you’ve got ‘em.
I’ve argued often that the military drug policy is broken: Alcohol the number one drug of abuse — a killer, a cause of injury, and a cause of physical damage and loss of military property — goes relatively free from regulation and consequence, military pharmacies distribute millions of prescription drugs and put the people back to work, and the one time user of marijuana goes to jail. Now this.
Here is information concerning President Obama’s recent comments on DADT.
Remarks by President Obama at the LGBT Pride Month White House Reception, June 29, 2009.
Here is Volokh Conspiracy’s multiple choice test on the comments.
Here is part of Professor Colin Miller’s recent post about search incident to arrest after Arizona v. Gant was decided by the Supreme Court. This is a good review of the issue.
[Quote] In 1969, the Supreme Court established the boundaries of proper search incident to a lawful arrest in California v. Chimel, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). According to the Court,
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape….And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule.
This seems to be the another post-Rodriguez case in which a petition has been denied.
No. 09-0030/AR. U.S. v. Josh R. RITTENHOUSE. CCA 20050411. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and in light of United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009), said petition is dismissed as untimely filed.
EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):
Here is a link to CAAF’s new decision in United States v. Chatfield. The opinion is valuable for three issues: what is custody, what is coercion, and a reminder to consider jointness of military and civilian investigations.
When does a superiors words of actions create a custodial interrogation situation or make a person’s waiver of rights coercive?
[T]he Supreme Court defined custodial interrogation as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” To answer the question whether an accused is in custody for purposes of Miranda, we consider “all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” to determine “how a reasonable person in the position of the [accused] would gauge the breadth of his or her freedom of action.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 325 (1994) (quotation marks omitted).
Here’s Stan Walters on the issue:
We need to start recording ALL interrogations, stop the abuse of the criminal justice system, and ALWAYS blame the cop first if the bad guy confesses, gets convicted or if Grandma gets tazed because she failed to follow a lawful order and resisted arrest. Juries and ESPECIALLY the public needs to see what really goes on during an interrogation.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog