The State of Georgia executed Warren Hill today, despite arguments that Mr. Hill was intellectually disabled. Last minute arguments made to the Supreme Court were unsuccessful.
The Constitution didn’t come with built-in exceptions; courts have created them. It wasn’t until 1921, in Amos v. United States, that the United States Supreme Court first recognized the possibility of a consent exception to the Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement. It took another 25 years, in Zap v. United States, for the Court to turn the possibility into a reality.
I am presenting at the upcoming GMA Conference on the risk of criminal liability in Foodborne Illness Outbreaks.
After creating a false Facebook profile for a New York women in order to lure in drug dealers, the DEA has settled to the tune of $134,000 in damages. But unless there’s bigger changes coming, this sort of double standard will turn to full boil.
Regardless of the protections intended by Atkins v. Virginia, executions continue to proceed in this country of Death Row inmates with significant mental challenges.
“Equitable Sharing” sounds so reasonable. Who could argue with it? Here’s what it is, and what it does: The Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing program allows federal law enforcement agencies to “adopt” seizures of property conducted by state and local law enforcement agencies.
Nearly two years ago, the United States Supreme Court held in Missouri v. McNeely that police must obtain a search warrant in most DWI alcohol test cases because the dissipation of alcohol in the body is not enough to make an exception to the warrant requirement.
Judges might be appalled to know how much parties theorize that the judge ruled against them because “the other side got to the judge” or “the fix was in.” It doesn’t happen all the time. But it’s not particularly unusual either.