The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional protections kick in for an individual when a police dog sniffs under his or her porch door.
We didn’t intend to immediately follow up one blog entry with another featuring the same subject matter. Because a case currently spotlighted in the news seems to logically connect a few dots, though, we discuss its essential details in today’s post.
It wasn’t close to being unanimous, but California legislation signed into law last week by Gov. Jerry Brown easily garnered enough support in both the state’s Senate and General Assembly to ensure its passage.
“Somewhere within the Oakland area.”
Some people asked to evaluate the nature and efficacy of electronic monitoring bracelets used to track the movements of criminal suspects and defendants can speak only in superlatives.
Imagine a California criminal suspect who is innocent of the charges he or she is facing, yet hesitates to go to trial. Many people similarly waver, owing to fears that a jury might see things negatively in their case and deliver a verdict marked by a draconian sentence.
“There’s no question, we just didn’t know any better back then.”
It’s not like simply choosing an individual to play on your team for a pick-up basketball game or making a quick choice from among multiple people volunteering their time at a community project.
We note at the outset of today’s blog post that the following story occurs in a state outside California.
Is the nation’s highest judicial tribunal being clear enough in the signals it is sending regarding individuals’ privacy rights in the so-called digital age?