United States Supreme Court says government can be sued over guards’ actions

March 30, 2013

The United States Supreme court ruled unanimously that the federal government can be sued for abuse claims against prison guards.

The high court ruled for Kim Lee Millbrook, a prisoner at the federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa. who had accused prison guards of sexually assaulting him in May 2010. Prison officials said Millbrook’s claim was unsubstantiated.

The court accepted his appeal and appointed him a lawyer-Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court that the lawsuit can move forward.

The Federal Torts Claim Act waives the United States immunity against lawsuits for civil wrongs intentionally caused by federal representatives, including federal law enforcement officers. But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said immunity is only waived when the law enforcement officer is executing a search, seizing evidence or making an arrest.

Thomas said those terms describe what federal law enforcement officers can do, not what they can be sued for.

The exception waiving immunity from lawsuits against the government “extended to acts or omissions of law enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence or making an arrest,” Thomas said

You can read more on this case at Millbrook v. United States 11-10362

Do law enforcement officers need to have a search warrant to search your cell phone during an arrest

As I was doing a research paper on searches and seizures I came across a recent California Supreme Court case involving whether or not police can search cell phones during any arrests.

First lets start with a definition of 4^th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

It states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describes the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Recently the California Supreme Court made a ruling in which they stated that a search of a defendant’s cell phone during an arrest without a search warrant was legal and constitutional.  The ruling apparently applies to the entire contents of your cell phone, including emails, passwords, voicemails and etc.

The California Supreme Court specifically ruled:

“We hold that the cell phone was “immediately associated with defendant’s persons” and that the warrantless search of the cell phone therefore was valid”.

In this case the defendant was arrested for selling Ecstasy to an undercover officer, they seized his cell phone. During interrogation, an officer searched the phone and found a text message that stated: “6 4 80” which the officer interpreted as an offer to sell 6 pills of Ecstasy for $80.

The trial text was used against the defendant in his criminal trial.  His defense attorneys attempted to have the text message evidence suppressed on the grounds that the search of the cell phone was an illegal search because there was no search warrant for the phone.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werderer noted that the decision to permit police “to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because they device was taken from an arrestee’s person.”

Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote for the majority” Objects failing under the banner of ‘closed container’ have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects… Even the more basic models of modern cell phones are capable of storing a wealth of digitized information wholly unlike any physical objects found within a closed container.”

The only way that this issue will be solved is for the United States Supreme Court to hear this issue and make a final decision.

I look forward to hearing your comments or questions on this matter.

Frank Osekowsky

August 13^th, 2011

NEW LAWS THAT WILL TAKE EFFECT IN CALIFORNIA IN 2011.

HERE IS A LIST OF JUST SOME OF THE NEW LAWS THAT WILL BE GOING INTO EFFECT IN CALIFORNIA IN 2011.

 Possession of up to one once of marijuana becomes an infraction. No more serious than a speeding ticket.  Reducing the crime from a misdeameanor to an infraction means you can no longer worry about being arrested, have a criminal record or having to appear in court.

The Amber Alert notification system can be used when there is an attack on a law enforcement officer and the suspect has fled.

 Anyone under 21 who wants to drive a motorcycle must complete a safety course before being issued an instruction permit.

 Impersonating someone online through fake social network pages, texting, or emails becomes a misdemeanor punishable by fine of up to $1,000.00 and a year in jail.

 Automakers and owners can place video recording devices on their vehicles which will monitor when there is a crash or unusual vehicle motion.

 Courts can seize property used in human trafficking and traffickers can face civil penalties up to $25,000

 State prison inmates who are incapacitated by health problems can shift some of their cost of care to the federal government.

 Plaintiff/Defendants can agree to one-day expediate jury trials.

 Foster youths are eligible to state service until they are 21.

 Restaurants/Vendors can again sell Asian rice noodles at room temp.

 Landlords will not be allowed to evict tenants who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.

 California’s “Chelsea’s Law” authored by Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego increases penalties for forcible sex acts against minors, creates a penalty of life without the possibility of parole for specific sex acts against minors, creates safe zones around parks, and mandates lifetime parole for certain sex offenders.

 Anti Paparazzi law will provide for liability under the civil invasion of privacy statute along with other damages and remedies. It’s suppose purpose is to crack down on those who falsely imprison celebrities by driving recklessly or blocking sidewalks in order to take photographs or make recordings of the “stars”.

  Under California’s new truancy law, parents of K-8 children who miss more than 10 percent of the school year without a valid excuse can be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine.  The bill also authorizes local districts to require whatever family services are needed to get the children back to school.

 These are just some of the laws that will be taken into effect in California in 2011.

Big Drug bust in Southern California

On October 22, 2010 over 800 police officers and federal agents took part in raids at dozens of homes in the south bay.  40 people were taken into custody, 10 street gangs were targeted in the raids, 60 homes were raided.  This operation was called “Operation Red Rein” which was designated to target the midlevel drug supplies.

During the raid, police discovered a methamphetamine lab, more than 1 ½ pounds of methamphetamine 5 pounds of marijuana, nearly 100 marijuana plants and more than $20,000 in cash.  Also confiscated were 17 illegal firearms.

 Six federal indictments, including two major cases for conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine and cocaine.

 It just goes to show that if both the state and federal governments can work together things can get done.  A lot of drugs and firearms were taken off the street at this raid.  Now I only hope that the courts do not let these men get away with just a slap on the wrist.  Then need to go to jail for a very long time.