ACLU Sues Obama Administration Over Domestic Phone Records Collection – CourtSide

ACLU Sues Obama Adminsitration Over Phone Records by FindLaw

View this document on Scribd

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Obama administration Tuesday charging that its collection of vast domestic phone records violates Americans’ constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

Read entire Findlaw report here.

Related articles

• ACLU sues Obama administration over phone log collections (q13fox.com)
• ACLU Sues Obama Administration to Stop “Dragnet” Phone Surveillance(slog.thestranger.com)
• ACLU files lawsuit against Obama Adminstration (guardianlv.com)

Bradley Manning Trial Transcripts | Freedom of the Press Foundation

The US military has refused to release transcripts of Bradley Manning’s trial. In addition, they’ve denied press passes to 270 out of the 350 media organizations that applied. Without public transcripts or a press pass, it’s virtually impossible for media organizations to accurately cover the trial and for the public to know what the government is doing in its name.

In response, Freedom of the Press Foundation has crowd-sourced funding to place a professional stenographer in the media room covering the trial. We will post full transcripts shortly after each day’s proceedings end. The morning session with be posted by 7 pm the same evening. The afternoon session will be posted by 9 am the next morning. The transcripts will be released under an Attribution 3.0 Unported Creative Commons license.

For more information on these crowd-sourced transcripts, click here.

Date	Transcript
June 3, 2013	06-03-13 AM session.pdf
June 3, 2013	06-03-13-PM-session.pdf
June 4, 2013	06-04-13-AM-session.pdf
June 4, 2013	06-04-13-PM-session.pdf
June 5, 2013	06-05-13-AM-session.pdf
June 5, 2013	06-05-13-PM-session.pdf
June 10, 2013	06-10-13-AM-session.pdf
June 10, 2013	06-10-13-PM-session.pdf

Related articles

• Bradley Manning trial transcripts now available online, via crowdfunded stenographers (boingboing.net)
• A small victory for open access: Crowdfunded public stenographers will transcribe Bradley Manning trial (boingboing.net)
• Victory for Press Freedom: Public Gains Manning Trial Transcripts(jhaines6.wordpress.com)
• The Only Public Transcript of the Bradley Manning Trial Will Be Tapped Out on a Crowd-Funded Typewriter (motherboard.vice.com)
• Crowdfunded Stenographer Denied Press Pass To Cover Transcriptless Bradley Manning Trial (infiniteunknown.net)

Members of the Authority Address Internet Sales of Alcoholic Beverages | New York State Liquor Authority

View this document on Scribd

At the April 9, 2012 Full Board meeting, the Members of the Authority issued a declaratory ruling regarding the involvement of licensees, internet technology companies and third party advertisers in online sales of alcoholic beverages. This declaratory ruling provides guidance to licensees with respect to whether such relationships violate the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. In addition, based on information obtained while this matter was being considered, the Members of the Authority also issued an advisory providing guidance to manufacturers, wholesalers and importers with respect to their ability to sell wines featuring the same brand, trade name and vintage with or without the addition of a sticker featuring the wording “Direct,” “Reserve,” or any similar wording. The declaratory ruling and advisory are available on the Authority’s website. Chairman Rosen also announced that the Authority will be hosting meetings with industry members to further examine the issues involved with internet sales of alcoholic beverages.

Advisory 2013-3 – Brand Labeling

2013-01006A Internet Advertising Platform

Mother Ordered to Stop Posting About Her Children on Facebook | Rochester Family Lawyer

 

In Melody M. v Robert M., 103 A.D.3d 932 (3rd Dept. 2013), the Third Department affirmed a Family Court order that among other changes to the prior joint custody, issued an order of protection against the mother that prohibited her from, among other things, posting any communications to or about the children on any social network site.

Read case analysis by Alexander Korotkin here.

Related articles

• When is social media contact criminal? (nylawblog.typepad.com)

Negotiating Justice: The New Constitutional Spectrum of Plea Bargaining | LLRX.com

By Ken Strutin, Published on May 19, 2013

Printer-Friendly Version

 

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, and the upcoming appeal in Burt v. Titlow¹, have put plea bargaining front and center on the national stage.² As a result, they have divided practitioners and scholars into two camps: (1) those who consider the rulings to be a new statement in the law of plea bargaining and right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) those who believe they are only a restatement of established principles.³ In any event, these cases have generated interest in the centrality and regulation of plea bargaining, the ethics and effectiveness of defense counsel as negotiator, the oversight of prosecutors regarding charging decisions, sentence recommendations and pre-trial discovery, and the scope of federal habeas corpus review and remedies.

This article collects high court opinions, scholarship and commentary regarding the themes addressed by the Supreme Court in Lafler and Frye as well as their implications for the administration of criminal justice.⁴

See first link below for entire article:

Related articles

• New on LLRX.com – Negotiating Justice: The New Constitutional Spectrum of Plea Bargaining (bespacific.com)
• “Effective Plea Bargaining Counsel” (sentencing.typepad.com)
• Roberts on Effective Plea Bargaining Counsel (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
• Bowers on Effective Assistance of Plea-Bargaining Counsel(lsolum.typepad.com)
• King of Plea Bargains that Waive Ineffectiveness Claims(lawprofessors.typepad.com)
• “Peeking Behind the Plea Bargaining Process” (sentencing.typepad.com)
• A potent response to a prosecutor’s perspective on Lafler, Frye and the future of plea bargaining (sentencing.typepad.com)

Norse Energy Corp USA v. Town of Dryden, et.al. (App. Div.-3rd Dept)

NYS’s Oil, Gas, Surface Mining Law (OGSML) does not preempt, either expressly or impliedly, a municipality’s power to enact a local zoning ordinance banning all activities related to the exploration for, and the production or storage of, natural gas and petroleum within its borders.

 

 

 

View this document on Scribd

Related articles

• Court rules towns can ban oil and gas drilling, production (wbng.com)
• Appeals court upholds local fracking bans in NY (heraldonline.com)
• Appeals court upholds local fracking bans in NY (seattletimes.com)
• New Ruling On State’s Local Fracking Bans (huffingtonpost.com)
• Appeals court upholds local fracking bans in NY (denverpost.com)
• Appeals court upholds local fracking bans in NY (miamiherald.com)

Rochester Law Digest

The Rochester Law Digest is an independently owned and operated bi-monthly publication covering recent decisions and opinions from all the New York appellate courts, as well as articles of general interest to the legal community.

You can  stay informed about recent appellate decisions from across the state by reviewing their bi-monthly Digest and  ”Just Released” page. You can also sign up for their bi-monthly digest and email notice of updates to their “Just Released” page.

For now all this goodness is free.

UPDATE:

To all those who recently signed-up, thank you for your interest in the Rochester Law Digest mailing list.  The “Just Released” page of the website www.rochesterlawdigest.com was updated on April 27th, 2013, with summaries of selected Appellate Division and Court of Appeals cases released last week. The next issue of the Digest will be out on May 1 and I hope to include summaries of any decisions that are released next Tuesday (April 30) in the Digest.  The next update of the “Just Released” page of the website will include cases released between May 1st and May 3rd.  I hope you find the summaries (and Digest) useful.

Bruce Freeman

Criminal Complaint Against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Filed in Federal (Not Military) Court

Criminal Complaint Against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Filed in Federal (Not Military) Court by FindLaw

View this document on Scribd

Related articles

• Unsealed Complaint and Affidavit – U.S. v Dzhokhar Tsarnaev(legalinsurrection.com)
• Boston Marathon bombing suspect arraigned in hospital bed!(astoldbyjosh.wordpress.com)
• Breaking . . Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Arraigned – WCVB Boston (skydancingblog.com)

Miranda’s Public Safety Exception: | David S. Kemp | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

As Americans are still reeling from the recent Boston Marathon bombing, a debate is brewing over whether the surviving suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, should have been read his Miranda rights. On Friday, April 19, a mere five days after the bombing, Emily Bazelonopined on Slate that “anyone who worries about the police railroading suspects” should be alarmed that the FBI publicly opted not to read the suspect his right to silence or his right to an attorney. On the blog Balkinization, professors Jason Mazzone and Sandy Levinson engaged in a heated discussion as to the proper interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda.

 

Read David Kemp’s full analysis of the issue here.

Related articles

• Miranda’s Public Safety Exception: How It Does and Does Not Affect the Evidence Against the Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect(verdict.justia.com)
• Mirandizing Tsarnaev, Pro and Con (sbmblog.typepad.com)
• The Constitution and terrorism: Why suspect never heard his rights(news.yahoo.com)
• What About The Boston Bombing Suspect’s Miranda Rights? (buzzfeed.com)
• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Miranda, And The Public Safety Exception(outsidethebeltway.com)
• Should the living Boston Marathon bombing suspect be read their Miranda Rights… (theattackmachine.wordpress.com)
• Boston Marathon Suspect Not Read Miranda Rights(alextheprguy.wordpress.com)
• No Miranda Rights for Suspect (huffingtonpost.com)
• Lindsey Graham: Reading Miranda Rights to bombing suspect ‘a bad idea’(rawstory.com)
• Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights? (slate.com)

Warrantless DUI Blood Tests Rejected by Supreme Court

Warrantless DUI Blood Tests Rejected by Supreme Court Police usually must try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.The justices sided with a Missouri man who was subjected to a blood test without a warrant and found to have nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.The high court struck down Missouri’s guidelines giving police broad discretion to forego getting a judge’s prior approval before executing a search. “We hold that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court.Warrantless DUI Blood Tests Rejected by Supreme Court by FindLaw

View this document on Scribd