a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

photo credit: CJ Sorg

In this world of indiscriminating sex offender registries, violent offender registries, lifetime registration, neighborhood notification and posting of pictures, names and offenses online for everyone to see, it was a bit amusing when law enforcement got their collective panties in a wad over a website called ratemycop.com. Reason Hit and Run explains:

The premise is simple: Sesto wrote to police departments across the country, and obtained a list of the names and badge numbers of their officers. He then posted the names online in a format broken down by state and city, and encouraged users to rate their experiences with individual officers. All of the information he posted was already open to the public. He didn’t post the identities of any undercover officers.

Law enforcement agencies freaked out, saying that making public information available on this website threatened their safety. The site does not post home addresses or information about undercover officers, so that claim seems hollow.

Chief Jerry Dyer, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, voices what sounds like a more honest concern: that officers will face “unfair maligning” by the citizens they serve.

Chief Dyer wants to get legislation passed that would make RateMyCop.com illegal, which, of course, wouldn’t pass constitutional muster in any court in America.

Oh the irony. It’s coming down in buckets. But that’s not all. Godaddy, the service he chose to host this website, took it down with barely 60 seconds notice for “suspicious activity” and then changed its tune to exceeding bandwith or some such nonsense.

He then took the site to another host, which initially accepted his down payment. Then:

They turned him down. After initial accepting his down payment for hosting services, a RackSpace lawyer sent a letter to Sesto stating that, “We believe that the website to be found at www.ratemycop.com as described to our sales representative could create a risk to the health and safety of law enforcement officers.”

By allowing people to write about their experiences with particular officers? I’m not buying it.

Curiously, police agencies have no problem with Cops Writing Cops, which is a site for cops to trash other cops for not showing them “professional courtesy”.

So a website where cops can complain about, essentially, getting ticketed, arrested and charged for breaking the law is okay, but a website where the public they serve does that is unacceptable.

I’m not saying this website should be used to harass people or disclose their personal information or any such thing (just like the ban on vigilante action using information obtained from sex offender registries), I just think their reaction is funny, that’s all.

HT: SOI

Your eyes are not deceiving you.

Deputies said a woman in western Kansas sat on her boyfriend’s toilet for two years, and they’re investigating whether she was mistreated.

Ness County Sheriff Bryan Whipple said a man called his office last month to report that something was wrong with his girlfriend.

Whipple said it appeared the 35-year-old Ness City woman’s skin had grown around the seat. She initially refused emergency medical services but was finally convinced by responders and her boyfriend that she needed to be checked out at a hospital.

Two years. Sitting on a toilet.

“We pried the toilet seat off with a pry bar and the seat went with her to the hospital,” Whipple said. “The hospital removed it.”

Whipple said investigators planned to present their report Wednesday to the county attorney, who will determine whether any charges should be filed against the woman’s 36-year-old boyfriend.

“She was not glued. She was not tied. She was just physically stuck by her body,” Whipple said. “It is hard to imagine. … I still have a hard time imagining it myself.”

He told investigators he brought his girlfriend food and water, and asked her every day to come out of the bathroom.

“And her reply would be, ‘Maybe tomorrow,”’ Whipple said. “According to him, she did not want to leave the bathroom.”

Now I’ve seen everything. Thanks to The Saucy Vixen for bringing this to my attention.

If you can figure it out.

Actually, if you do figure it out, let me know. I’ve been listening to this song for over 15 years now and I have no clue what he’s saying. That’s what happens when a Canadian does reggae.

This week’s edition of “biggest waste of governmental money” is not a video, but a story that stems from a Supreme Court case. SCOTUS granted cert. in Keith Lavon Burgess v. United States. The certified question is can a sentence be enhanced on the basis of a prior felony conviction, so as to require a 20-year mandatory-minimum, if the prior conviction is for a misdemeanor under state law. Apparently, Burgess’ petition was filed with the assistance of a fellow inmate - Michael Ray. Ray used to be (still is?) a paralegal and is serving time for a fraud conviction.

The problem, now, is that the Attorney General for South Carolina is investigating whether Ray has committed a crime by doing so. The crime? The unauthorized practice of law. Oh yeah. Apparently they’ve got nothing better to do in S. Carolina. I mean, one inmate helping another to challenge his conviction is not to be tolerated, especially if that inmate is doing something that only a select few in this country can do. It’s not like there are a bazillion lawyers in America. Ray reportedly made a whopping $145 for filing that petition (I’m just guessing - 50 hours’ work seems reasonable. He makes 29c an hour). That’s half an hour that a partner at a law firm could have worked. How will he shine his shoes now?

Seriously, this is stupid. The AG should do some real work.

H/T: WSJ Law Blog

That’s the year 2020. I don’t know if it will become like this, but it’s fun to watch.

Don’t say you weren’t on notice…

My personal favorite is rule #9, which is blank. How appropriate. Update: Fill in the blank contest! Come up with the funniest rule #9 and you get a present!

Read the crack house rules here.

“Mad props” to The Saucy Vixen.

Other titles considered:

“When in Rome”, “8 simple rules for using my crack house” and “The Crack House Rules”.

(Disclaimer: Folks, these are rules posted in a crack house. There’s going to be explicit stuff. That’s your due process.)

This has to be filed under the “what the f*ck is wrong with people today” category.

It’s the digital age and more importantly, it is the social networking age. If you don’t have a MySpace or Facebook account, you’re nobody. Especially teens. Everyone has them and then some. So when middle school resource officer John Nohejl in Florida decided to set up a MySpace account so he could communicate with students in ways they do (with the blessing of the school), it seemed like a brilliant idea.

Too bad he didn’t know Julie Amero. Or remember that in the age of Chris Hansen, people are fucking idiots.

In the goofiest waste of law enforcement time we’ve seen in weeks, an on-campus police officer for a Florida middle school is facing a criminal investigation over his MySpace account. Why? It turns out one of the people on his friends list had a link on his or her profile to an internet porn site.

Or, as the St. Peterburg Times puts it, “kids could navigate from Officer John’s page on the social networking site to ‘Amateur Match Free Sex’ in just three clicks.”

You’re reading correctly. Gulf Middle School resource officer John Nohejl didn’t have porn on his MySpace profile, and he didn’t link to porn. But one of the 170-odd people on his friends list, which seems mostly populated by students at his school, had a link to a legal adult site. Now the New Port Richey Police Department and the Florida attorney general’s elite cyber crimes unit are investigating him for making adult content available to underage children.

The AG apparently thinks inadvertently doing something is the same as intentionally doing something:

Cybersafety “is the attorney general’s highest priority,” said Sandy Copes, the attorney general’s spokeswoman. “I am sure the attorney general would be extremely concerned if a member of the trusted law enforcement community was either inadvertently or directly placing students at risk to being exposed to inappropriate content.”

Yep. You’re now responsible for other people. On the interweb.

So all of you reading out there. If I link to say, CollegeHumor, YOU’RE ALL PERVERTS AND PREDATORS AND ARE CORRUPTING TEH MORALS OF A CHILD !1!1one1!11!1!!!

(Seriously, if you’re at work or if kids are around, don’t Google CollegeHumor. You have been warned. It’s not porn, but there’s adult content.)

The kicker? The school’s website itself linked to some clipart websites which linked to g4y pr0n. Thank you, Chris Hansen, for making the world a crazier place.

If lawyers had intro songs as they entered a courtroom or walked around the well, this would be mine:

What about you?

I try very hard to keep this blog focused on criminal law issues. Sometimes, however, I see something that just blows my mind.

AT & T is considering filtering internet content. Odd, in light of the fact that Comcast might just get hit bigtime. For more on net neutrality (including: “What is it?”) go here.

Here’s a reason for the legalization folks: lawsuits! A woman in Canada successfully sued her drug dealer for giving her bad crystal meth that landed her in a coma.

“It was frustrating not having anything done through the criminal system,” said Sandy Bergen, 23, who has been drug- and alcohol-free since the 2004 incident. “Financially, I’m not really going to gain from it. But it’s a way of holding him responsible.”

Bergen and her parents launched the negligence suit against Clinton Davey in 2005, asking for more than $50,000 in medical costs and other damages. Bergen had a heart attack during the overdose and spent 11 days in a coma.

A Court of Queen’s Bench judge agreed to strike Davey’s statement of defence in the case, which essentially finds him legally responsible.

Get those associates working overtime on this!

A very faithful reader sent along this humorous decision from the Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District. It’s not from today, or yesterday, but a day almost 4 years ago. Yet, it is funny enough for me to pass along.

Here’s the excerpt from Lexis:

Assistance of court-appointed counsel was not rendered ineffective by the fact that counsel was on the indicting grand jury. Apart from bald assertion of conflict, defendant failed to show how attorney could have represented him more effectively.

As they say, only in Texas. At least it wasn’t a death case.

I’m not really big on New Year’s Resolutions (although I do accord them appropriate deference, demonstrated by the Capital Letters), but I’ve seen them being made all around the blogosphere and since I am someone who does not have a single original idea, I have decided to join in on the party and offer my own resolutions and predictions for this blog. SO. Here goes:

1. I will change the blog theme and layout. Or not.
2. I will post more than once a day.
3. I will not post more than 6 times a week.
4. If you figure that one out, I’ll make you honorary co-blogger.
5. I will not keep promise no. 4.
6. This blog will make an initial public offering.
7. This blog will buy Google.
8. There will be 7 appellate decisions in CT that favor defendants.
9. There will be 70 that don’t.
10. This blog will take a sabbatical.
11. 15 new criminal defense blawgs will be to linked to once by me.
12. For 12 of them, it will be the only link.
13. For 10, it will be because they won’t post again.
14. The United States will have a “first” President.
15. Gay marriage will become legal in CT.
16. CT will not execute anyone, but more people will make it onto death row.
17. None of the above will come true.

If any of it does come true, I’ll ask you about it next time on ….

Didn’t chuckle once? I don’t blame you. Still need your laughter fix? Go read Dave Barry.

In light of Carolyn’s tips for the newbie, which she posted last week, I present this educational video:

Because I’m not above it

This holiday season hasn’t been kind to Santa. First, we had the Santa that was pied in the face. Then there was the Santa in Brazil whose helicopter was shot. Not to be outdone by drug traffickers, a young lady in CT decided to up the ante and grope Santa (or so it is alleged).

Sandrama Lamy inappropriately touched a 65-year-old worker dressed as Santa on Saturday while sitting on his lap, police said. She is charged with fourth-degree sexual assault and breach of peace, both misdemeanors.

Lamy is scheduled to appear in Superior Court in Danbury Jan. 3. She was released on a promise to appear.

She denies it. Even fictional Santas don’t have it easy: Last night’s episode [Spoiler Alert!] of Nip/Tuck featured a Santa who was shot through the face by an angry child (or so it seemed).

Dan Schwartz at the CT Employment Law Blog is all over him it this story. Additional thanks to Corr. Sent for the other two Santa stories.

Image license info here