Sure they are. That's just part of pleading the case and the cause of action. The department failed to properly train, supervise, etc. And it certainly looks like they did. In fact, given that the department itself cleared the officer involved of any wrongdoing, it certainly appears that the department condones roadside rectal exams, at least as long as the officer thinks he remembers the one being violated from a prior drug case.
Take Two will get another chance to file a motion for summary judgment, and at that point the judge will consider evidence and arguments that she really can't consider now. Lindsey ain't out of the woods yet.
4. Is Cy Vance a bloviating hopeless tool? Yes No X
5. What kind of bloviating tool is Cy Vance? Select all that apply. [This question requires an answer] __ helpless __ dickless __ the kind that sodomizes livestock __ one that is obsessed with the "backdoor" __ one with better hair than Donald Trump but far less money __ Other
I like this line from the Supreme Court's opinion:
"A United States District Court found that there was probable cause to believe that the Company’s facilities were being employed to facilitate a criminal enterprise on a continuing basis. For the Company, with this knowledge, to refuse to supply the meager assistance required by the FBI in its efforts to put an end to this venture threatened obstruction of an investigation which would determine whether the Company’s facilities were being lawfully used."
So, what was at stake was the refusal "to supply the meager assistance required by the FBI." Meager. I don't think that word can be applied to anything that Apple is being asked to do.
That the DOJ has asked the district judge to basically overrule the magistrate is not at all surprising. It is routine. While I admittedly have not read any of the actual court documents, I presume that the case in question is actually pending before the U.S. District Court. It is common to assign discovery and pre-trial matters to a magistrate judge, who then issues a "report and recommendation" resolving whatever is in dispute. The parties then have a certain amount of time (maybe 30 days, I can't remember) to request that the district court review the magistrate's findings, and they support the request with a brief raising arguments in support of whatever outcome they think is warranted. Here, Apple will also get to present argument on why the magistrate was correct. This isn't a case of forum shopping or the DOJ looking for a sympathetic judge.
I've bought two tubes of this product and found it very useful. But on both occasions, after having the Bondic for a few months, I went to use and found that the top had basically disengaged from the body of the tube, spilling the glue in the case. It happened to both tubes I bought. Too bad I could use the spilled glue to affix the top back to the body of the tube.
I wonder if Sen. Whitehouse's amendment could be used to go after him when his campaign inevitably begins robe-calling potential voters and sending spam email asking for donations? Maybe I'd be for the amendment then.
I recall a movie with (I think) Michael Keaton and Henry Winkler where Fonzie ends up strapped down and some bad guys were going to shove a firehose in his mouth and turn it on. I'd like to see somebody strap Juravin down and force a gallon or so of this abdominal concrete into his gullet.
My first job out of law school was clerking for a federal judge. We had a case where hidden camera video made the difference. But not in the way the police thought.
The undercover officer was a dark-skinned black man, and he made a drug buy from a young, light-skinned black man. The proof was right there. Only the defendant showed up to court in a nice suit, with his hair styled more conservatively. Some of the jurors may have questioned whether the person on the screen was the same guy at the defense table on that basis. But the bigger problem for the prosecution was that the hidden camera was designed for use in low light settings, so the dark-skinned undercover officer ended up looking light-skinned on the screen, while the defendant ended up looking almost white. That turned out to be the sticking point, no matter the testimony from the undercover officer that it was in fact him in the video making the buy from the defendant.
The jury ended up acquitting the defendant, which probably was the worst thing that could have happened to him. Only 19 or 20 at the time, he'd already had a few run-ins with the law, and had maybe already beaten a state charge. Beating a federal charge emboldened him, I guess, because he went right back to the life, and within a few months he was back in federal court. Only this time he got convicted, and with his criminal history, his sentencing guidelines were pretty significant. He ended up getting sentenced on the low end of the guidelines, but that was still about 20 years. With time off for good behavior, he was still looking at a release date when he was about 40. Had he gotten convicted on that earlier charge, he might have done 2-4 years and gotten a new start on life. But that damn video . . .
I don't know anything about the TSA administrative process, but I certainly hope that at some level there can be appellate review by somebody not employed by the agency. I want to see the Circuit Court's take on the TSA decisions.