Fourth Amendment Commercial

By: Alexandra Hollander

Read more:

Fourth Amendment Commercial - Video

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit held oral argument in Smith v. Obama, a Fourth Amendment challenge to the Section 215 telephony metadata program. You can watch a video of the argument here. The panel consisted of Judges Hawkins, McKeown, and Tallman. This was the third argument by a federal circuit involving a challenge to the telephony metadata program. The others are the Second Circuit and the DC Circuit, neither of which has handed down a ruling yet.

To win the case before the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff needs to win on three basic questions: 1) did the plaintiff have standing; 2) did a search occur; and 3) was the search constitutionally unreasonable. There was significant questioning on standing and a lot on what is a search, but very little on reasonableness. On the whole, I think that emphasis is probably a good sign for the government. With that said, Im not sure which way the case will come out. Judge Tallman seemed pretty likely to vote for the government on either or both of the first two questions. I had less sense where Judges Hawkins and McKeown might come out.

I want to focus on an interesting question that Judge McKeown asked Thomas Byron, counsel for the government defendant: When applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test, how do we know what society expects when it comes to a big surveillance program like Section 215s program? Byron gave what I think is the correct doctrinal answer: Smith v. Maryland tells us as a matter of law that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in pen register data from their phones, and there is nothing in Smith that suggests that scale or aggregation can make any difference. Although thats a good doctrinal answer, I think theres a historical explanation that is more satisfying. I cover the historical explanation in this forthcoming article, starting at page 11, and I thought I would give a basic outline here.

As I explain in the article, the original design of Justice Harlans two-part Katz test was to summarize the two basic requirements of establishing Fourth Amendment rights: first, that the intrusion was into the kinds of spaces that the Fourth Amendment protects, like homes or cars or (in Katz) telephone booths; and second, that the person had not openly exposed his protected space to outside observation. The first part was labeled the objective test, as it rested on whether the space invaded was the kind of space that merited Fourth Amendment protection in a general sense; and the second test was labeled the subjective test, as it hinged on whether the person took steps to hide the space from outside observation, manifesting an intent to keep it private in those specific circumstances.

The rule that you cant have any Fourth Amendment protection in what you share with a third-party was originally part of the subjective test. By revealing your information to a third party, the thinking ran, you no longer manifested an intent to keep your information private and gave up your rights in that information. The government therefore could get it from the third party without implicating your rights. Although that was the original design of Harlans test, later opinions of the Court misunderstood this point. Later decisions, including Smith v. Maryland, simply assumed that the test labeled subjective was an inquiry into what a person actually expected to happen. Smith had to fit the traditional rule that a person has no Fourth Amendment rights in what they disclose to third-parties somewhere, however, so the rule ended up being squeezed artificially into the reasonable expectation of privacy test instead. The result has confused law students for decades: We get the strange-seeming announcement that theres no reasonable expectation of privacy in circumstances when a lot of people probably think it feels pretty reasonable to them.

Why does all this matter? I think it matters because it shows that Judge McKeowns question is based on the Smith courts accidental rephrasing of the third-party rule. Understanding the accident explains why the question that seems really difficult at first blush ends up having a simple answer. The reason the government does not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a telephone user when collecting metadata from the phone company should have nothing to do with what society expects. Instead, the reason is that if you knowingly disclose information to a third party, you are not manifesting your subjective expectation of privacy in that information and dont have any way to control it under the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law. From that perspective, we dont need to know what society expects, or what privacy policies say, to apply the third-party doctrine. What society expects is irrelevant, as the doctrine was originally and properly rooted in the subjective test instead of the objective test.

To be clear, the doctrinally correct result Byron offered brings you to the same result in the end. If you say that Smith v. Maryland requires lower courts to say that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in pen register information as a matter of law, you get to the same result that no search has occurred. But I hope its at least a little bit illuminating to see how we got here, and in particular to see why applying Smith does not call for courts to make first-principles inquiries into societal expectations.

Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.

View original post here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Ninth Circuit hears NSA program challenge

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -

Taxpayers are on the hook for at least $307,000 -- and perhaps much more -- to cover legal expenses in Gov. Rick Scott's repeated failed efforts to convince courts that a onetime campaign pledge to drug-test welfare recipients is constitutional.

A federal appeals court last week ruled that the state's mandatory, suspicion-less drug testing of applicants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program is an unconstitutional violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

It was the fourth court decision against the state since the law -- something Scott campaigned on during his first bid for office the year before -- went into effect in mid-2011. A federal judge put the law on hold less than four months after it passed, siding with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Lebron, a single father and Navy veteran.

Thus far, the state has racked up $307,883.62 in legal fees and costs in the case, according to Department of Children and Families spokeswoman Michelle Glady. That does not include potentially hefty charges for legal fees from the ACLU.

Scott has not yet said whether he will appeal the unanimous ruling last week by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The governor could seek an "en banc" review by the full appeals court or take the issue directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Republican legislative leaders said Monday they support Scott on the drug-testing issue.

"I think it's appropriate to defend the law that was passed by a bipartisan majority of members of the House," House Speaker Steve Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island, said. The law was approved 78-38 in the House and 26-11 in the Senate, with support from two House Democrats and no Senate Democrats.

Senate President Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, "supports the policy and the governor's defense of the law, which was passed by a democratically elected legislature," Gardiner spokeswoman Katie Betta said.

But ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon, who blamed the governor and the Legislature for the cost to taxpayers, blasted Scott for refusing to back down.

See the original post:

How long do you

PART 4 - PRIVACY - Celebrating Freedom, Fighting for Justice
The Fourth Amendment protects every citizen #39;s right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion, and ACLU-TN #39;s work to preserve privacy includes lobbyi...

By: ACLU Tennessee

Go here to see the original:

PART 4 - PRIVACY - Celebrating Freedom, Fighting for Justice - Video

I recently participated in a provocative and interesting panel on the Fourth Amendment and new technology during a conference at Georgetown Law. My co-panelists were Judge Richard Posner, Judge Margaret McKeown, DOJs Michael Dreeben, and Georgetowns David Cole. Georgetowns Laura Donohue moderated. You can watch the whole thing here via C-SPAN.

If you only want to watch the highlight, check out this 6-minute excerpt over the value of privacy between Judge Posner and David Cole. We had been talking about searching cell phones, and Posner expressed his view that cell phone privacy was no big deal. Cole disagreed, and the two of them debated the issue. I score this Cole 1, Posner 0.

Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.

Follow this link:

Volokh Conspiracy: Panel discussion on the future of the Fourth Amendment

Walker should push to restrict subsidies for bad behavior.

Posted: Saturday, December 6, 2014 10:00 am

Taxpayers should have rights, too

A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT has upheld a trial court ruling that Floridas law requiring public assistance applicants to submit to drug tests as a condition of receiving aid is an unconstitutional violation of Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure protections.

The court ruled that the collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as unreasonable. ... By virtue of poverty, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy.

During his successful campaign for re-election, Gov. Scott Walker promised to pursue a similar drug-testing policy for Wisconsin. We dont think he should give up.

SUBSTANCE ABUSE IS one of the more common and severe barriers to finding and keeping a job. Its also one of the social pathologies disproportionately affecting at-risk populations. Police officers and prosecutors will tell you its one of the primary drivers behind criminal behavior. And prison officials will say a disturbingly large percentage of those entering the corrections system are substance abusers.

So, explain again: Why is society wrong to raise the bar and insist that people seeking tax-funded assistance are drug-free?

The legal system largely amounts to this: What one clever lawyer can put together, another can tear apart, and vice versa. So maybe theres a tweak or a turn to the Florida approach that could reach the same goal of discouraging drug abuse without running afoul of the Constitution.

We believe in Fourth Amendment protections as much as anybody, but we also believe taxpayers have no obligation to subsidize bad behavior. Governor Walker should continue looking for a way to keep his promise.

More:

Taxpayers should have rights, too

Usually it's the big guys, or at least national and international organizations, that stand up to fight against the government. But on Monday, a nurse from Idaho will continue to fight the case she brought against Barack Obama and government intelligence agencies. Anna Smith says her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the NSA collected data about her from phone records.

A district court ruled against Smith when she first started to fight the case, but now she has the backing of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho.

The original case dates back to June 2013, shortly after the activities of the NSA first came to light. Now the EFF, ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, and Smith husband have worked together to craft an appeal. The case will be heard at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and will center on several areas.

One argument is that "neither Smith nor any other precedent authorizes the suspicionless collection of call records in bulk" and that the collection of such data is an invasion of privacy. The appeal also says that the government's mass collection of phone data violates the fourth Amendment and is unconstitutional "because it is warrantless and lacks probable cause".

This is not the first time the Electronic Frontier Foundation has become involved in a case against the government and the NSA, and it is unlikely to be the last. This appeal starts on Monday 8 December at 9:00 AM PST, and we'll be following along to see what happens.

Photo credit: bikeriderlondon / Shutterstock

Go here to read the rest:

Idaho nurse gains backing of EFF and ACLU in fight against the NSA

The Fourth Amendment by Melissa, Hailee, and Cheyenne

By: Melissa Murray

Read the original:

The Fourth Amendment by Melissa, Hailee, and Cheyenne - Video

Follow CBSMIAMI.COM:Facebook|Twitter

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/ NSF) A federal appeals court on Wednesday, again rejected a Florida law requiring welfare applicants to submit to drug tests before they can receive benefits.

Pushed by Florida Governor Rick Scott, the 2011 law offends the Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches by the government, a three-judge panel ruled in a 54-page opinion authored by Judge Stanley Marcus.

We respect the states overarching and laudable desire to promote work, protect families, and conserve resources. But, above all else, we must enforce the Constitution and the limits it places on government. If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendments prohibition on blanket government searches, we must and we do hold that (the Florida law) crosses the constitutional line, Marcus wrote.

The ruling, which upheld a final judgment late last year by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven, is the fourth time courts have sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran and single father. The lawsuit was filed shortly after the law went into effect in mid-2011. Scott used mandatory drug tests as an issue in his 2010 campaign.

This is a resounding affirmation of the values that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects that none of us can be forced to submit to invasive and humiliating searches at the whim of the government, and that the Constitution protects the poor and the wealthy alike. The court has once again confirmed what we argued all along: that the state of Florida cannot treat an entire class of people like suspected criminals simply because theyve asked the state for temporary assistance, ACLU of Florida associate legal director Maria Kayanan, who argued the case before the court Nov. 20, said in a statement.

Scott can either ask the 11th Circuit for an en banc review by the entire court or pursue an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Scott administration did not comment Wednesday afternoon on the ruling. Despite repeated court decisions finding that the welfare drug testing law is unconstitutional, Scott and his lawyers have refused to back down from their position that the urine tests are needed to make sure poor children dont grow up in drug-riddled households.

But the appeals-court judges again rejected the Scott administrations arguments, saying that the state failed to make its case.

In effect from July 1, 2011, until Oct. 24, 2011, when Scriven issued a preliminary injunction putting it on hold, the law required applicants seeking benefits in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program emergency cash benefits for the poorest of the poor, available to expectant mothers and families with children to submit to and pay for urine tests, which range from $24 to $45. The money would be reimbursed if the tests were negative, and parents who failed the tests could designate someone else to receive cash benefits on behalf of their children.

During the period in which the law was in effect, 4,406 applicants submitted to drug testing. Only 108 less than 3 percent tested positive for drugs. Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.

See more here:

Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Tests Unconstitutional

CLEVELAND, Dec. 4 (UPI) -- The city of Cleveland has agreed to implement sweeping police reforms after the U.S. Attorney General's office uncovered a lengthy history of excessive force and abusive behavior in the troubled department.

"The reality is that there are problems," Attorney General Holder said in an official statement, adding, "But I also think the people of Cleveland should have a sense of hope ... that these problems have been identified and that they can be rectified."

Among the Justice Department's key findings:

-- The unnecessary, excessive or retaliatory use of less lethal force including Tasers, chemical spray and fists;

Excessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called exclusively for a welfare check;

-- The employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable.

"The investigation concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that Cleveland police officers engage in a pattern or practice of unreasonable and in some cases unnecessary force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution," summarizes the Justice Department.

To revamp its department to contemporary standards, the city of Cleveland agreed to "develop a court enforceable consent decree that will include a requirement for an independent monitor who will oversee and ensure necessary reforms."

"Cleveland is not alone in its need to address police reform," Venita Gupta, acting Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

"These investigations are keystones of Attorney General Holder's legacy, and I think it's very significant that he is coming to Cleveland with a backdrop of these national issues to talk about community policing and constructive reforms."

Read more:

Justice Department cites Cleveland police for pattern excessive force and abuse

Fourth Amendment - Blaze, John, Adam

By: John Regula

Original post:

Fourth Amendment - Blaze, John, Adam - Video

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -

Less than two weeks after hearing arguments in the case, a federal appeals court Wednesday again rejected a Florida law pushed by Gov. Rick Scott requiring welfare applicants to submit to drug tests before they can receive benefits.

The 2011 law "offends the Fourth Amendment" protections from unreasonable searches by the government, a three-judge panel ruled in a 54-page opinion authored by Judge Stanley Marcus.

"We respect the states overarching and laudable desire to promote work, protect families, and conserve resources. But, above all else, we must enforce the Constitution and the limits it places on government. If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendments prohibition on blanket government searches, we must -- and we do -- hold that (the Florida law) crosses the constitutional line," Marcus wrote.

The ruling, which upheld a final judgment late last year by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven, is the fourth time courts have sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran and single father. The lawsuit was filed shortly after the law went into effect in mid-2011. Scott used mandatory drug tests as an issue in his 2010 campaign.

"This is a resounding affirmation of the values that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects -- that none of us can be forced to submit to invasive and humiliating searches at the whim of the government, and that the Constitution protects the poor and the wealthy alike. The court has once again confirmed what we argued all along: that the state of Florida cannot treat an entire class of people like suspected criminals simply because theyve asked the state for temporary assistance," ACLU of Florida associate legal director Maria Kayanan, who argued the case before the court Nov. 20, said in a statement.

Scott can either ask the 11th Circuit for an "en banc" review by the entire court or pursue an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Scott administration did not comment Wednesday afternoon on the ruling. Despite repeated court decisions finding that the welfare drug testing law is unconstitutional, Scott and his lawyers have refused to back down from their position that the urine tests are needed to make sure poor children don't grow up in drug-riddled households.

But the appeals-court judges again rejected the Scott administration's arguments, saying that the state failed to make its case.

In effect from July 1, 2011, until Oct. 24, 2011, when Scriven issued a preliminary injunction putting it on hold, the law required applicants seeking benefits in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program -- emergency cash benefits for "the poorest of the poor," available to expectant mothers and families with children -- to submit to and pay for urine tests, which range from $24 to $45. The money would be reimbursed if the tests were negative, and parents who failed the tests could designate someone else to receive cash benefits on behalf of their children.

During the period in which the law was in effect, 4,406 applicants submitted to drug testing. Only 108 -- less than 3 percent -- tested positive for drugs. Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.

Link:

The U.S. PIRG

The Fourth Amendment in Extraterritorial and National Security Contexts
Topics: The Fourth Amendment, extraterritoriality, national security exception, foreign intelligence exception Source: This video is archived from Surveillance Law, first offered by Stanford...

By: Jonathan Mayer

See the original post:

The Fourth Amendment in Extraterritorial and National Security Contexts - Video

LAGRANGE A looming settlement in a federal class-action lawsuit has forced some Indiana jails to change the way they handle bookings, even as similar lawsuits work their way through the states courts.

Lawsuits have been filed in at least five counties alleging violations of Fourth Amendment rights. A lawsuit involving a LaGrange County man and woman who were arrested in 2008 near a meth lab is expected to be the first to be settled. Suits also are pending in Allen, Whitley, Clark and St. Joseph counties.

The cases have focused largely on the cost of loss of liberty and have exposed jail policies that violate the Constitution, The Times of Northwest Indiana reported.

In Whitley County, for instance, Huntington resident Lawrence Bickel sued the sheriff in 2008 after he was arrested without a warrant on a Thursday in 2006. Bickels detention was not judged to have probable cause until the following Monday, because the county had a policy of taking arrestees to court just once a week regardless of when they were detained.

In LaGrange County, where Amanda Strunk and Joshua Cleveland were held for three and seven days, respectively, Sheriff Terry Martin blamed the violations on the countys prosecutor and two judges.

We found out there was a problem. We corrected the problem, Martin said of a new policy he said was crafted with the cooperation of everyone but outgoing Prosecutor Jeff Wible. Everybody agreed on it except for one person.

The new policy requires his officers to sometimes lengthen their shifts to finish paperwork related to arrests by not only their departments officers, but others, as well.

Theres a lot of paperwork in law enforcement as it is, Martin said. Weve just added on.

Attorney Christopher Myers, of Fort Wayne, the lead attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuits, said case law makes it clear that a sheriff is responsible for enforcing Fourth Amendment rights because he holds the key to the jail.

Myers said his law firm researched the issue after hearing from inmates around the state complaining their jail stints were too long.

View original post here:

Suit brings change in jail bookings

Updated: Wednesday, November 26 2014, 07:33 PM CST

A new rule in Texas will stop a warrantless search of a DWI suspect's blood. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals says the move violates the Fourth Amendment.

"We hold that a nonconsensual search of a DWI suspect's blood conducted pursuant to the mandatory-blood draw and implied-consent provisions in the Transportation Code, when undertaken in the absence of a warrant or any applicable exception to the warrant requirement, violates the Fourth Amendment," the court said in its decision released Wednesday.

This shouldn't impact Austin's "no refusal" blood draws during DWI crackdowns because those blood draws are done with a warrant by having a judge present.

CLICK HERE to read the court's decision.

We'll have more on this story in our 5 and 6pm newscasts.

Follow us on Twitter @keyetv and LIKE us on Facebook for updates!

Read more:

Court: Texas Nonconsensual DWI Blood Draws Unconstitutional

Updated: Wednesday, November 26 2014, 07:33 PM CST

A new rule in Texas will stop a warrantless search of a DWI suspect's blood. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals says the move violates the Fourth Amendment.

"We hold that a nonconsensual search of a DWI suspect's blood conducted pursuant to the mandatory-blood draw and implied-consent provisions in the Transportation Code, when undertaken in the absence of a warrant or any applicable exception to the warrant requirement, violates the Fourth Amendment," the court said in its decision released Wednesday.

This shouldn't impact Austin's "no refusal" blood draws during DWI crackdowns because those blood draws are done with a warrant by having a judge present.

CLICK HERE to read the court's decision.

We'll have more on this story in our 5 and 6pm newscasts.

Follow us on Twitter @keyetv and LIKE us on Facebook for updates!

Read more:

Court: Texas Warrantless DWI Blood Draws Unconstitutional

Private Members #39; Business | Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 3) Bill 2014
Deputy ine Collins speaking in Private Members #39; Business on the Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution, November 2014.

By: Aine Collins TD

Link:

Private Members' Business | Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 3) Bill 2014 - Video

Family tased, assaulted, pepper sprayed

A court in Missouri has ruled a raid staged against a homeschooling family in 2011 violated their constitutional rights.

Police entered the home of Jason and Laura Hagan without a search warrant. The couple were shot with tasers and Laura Hagan was slapped in the face by a police officer. Police also threatened to shoot the family dog when the couple refused to cooperate with social service workers. Pepper spray was also used on the couple.

The Hagans were charged with child endangerment and resisting arrest following a previous visit by state officials who claimed their home was messy. The family complied with a first inspection but refused a second, resulting in the police raid.

The Hagans lost custody of their children for months following the raid. The children witnessed the police assault on their parents.

The court ruled the police raid was unconstitutional. The court will not allow [an] exception to sanction warrantless entry into a private residence by pepper spray and Taser. If the officer had a warrant in hand and such force was necessary, that is a different story, but those are not the facts of this case, the court stated.

The Fourth Amendment strikes a carefully crafted balance between a familys right to privacy and the governments need to enforce the law, a report by the Home School Legal Defense Association states. In most situations, government agents cannot simply force their way into a home. Instead, they must explain to a neutral magistrate why they need to enter the home, and they must provide real evidence to support that need.

This rule applies to all government agents. Court after court has agreed that there is no social services exception to the Fourth Amendment.

All too often, law enforcement officers and child-welfare workers act as if the Fourth Amendment does not apply to CPS investigations. They are wrong. The Fourth Amendment is a legal shield that protects people from exactly the kind of mistreatment the Hagans endured.

Continue reading here:

The Fourth Amendment | Nwo Report

An attorney has filed a motion to dismiss all charges stemming from the arrest of the Lake County Leader editor on Oct. 1 while he was taking photographs of an accident on Montana 35.

Editor Vince Lovato, of Polson, was charged with resisting arrest, obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. An omnibus hearing is scheduled Monday morning.

Lovatos attorney, Mike Meloy of Helena, filed the motion to dismiss Nov. 6 on the basis of his clients First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.

Meloy claims that Lovato, as a photographer, had a right to record, through his photographs, the actions of the police officer, the accident scene and the driver of the vehicle.

Meloy alleged that the arresting officer, Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Anthony Isbell, had no probable cause to make a warrantless arrest and he arrested the defendant for the sole purpose of preventing him from exercising this well-settled constitutional right.

In addition, Meloy said there was no yellow crime scene tape nor any other visible boundaries demarking an investigation site, and that at no time did anyone advise the defendant that he had entered a crime scene.

Deputy Lake County Attorney James Lapotka, in the states response to the motion to dismiss filed Nov. 21, said that the motion must be denied because there is probable cause to charge and arrest the defendant for obstruction of justice and even if there were not, dismissal of the case is not an appropriate remedy.

Lapotka argues that officers on scene were still trying to evaluate the danger of a leak from a truck involved in the accident a diesel cargo tanker hauling hazardous flammable material that was leaking brake fluid when emergency vehicles arrived. The tanker had been hit head-on by an allegedly drunk woman driving a Toyota Camry on Montana 35 northeast of Polson that afternoon.

Lapotka states that emergency personnel were working to extricate the drunk driver and ensure there was no leak of potentially hazardous material onto the roadway creating a risk to the public and to Flathead Lake. He also says that the stability of the dangerous tanker had yet to be determined and the drunk drivers injuries had yet to be assessed.

The states response continues, Trooper Isbell noticed several items of evidence inside the drunk drivers vehicle and was attempting to control the scene, preserve evidence, protect public and environmental safety and assist with an ongoing medical emergency. Officers from the Montana Highway Patrol and Lake County Sheriffs Office had blocked traffic on the highway and parked patrol cars with flashing lights on the road to create a perimeter.

See more here:

Polson editor wants charges dismissed

Near midnight on Sept. 29, 2008, Amanda Strunk and Joshua Cleveland were arrested together near a meth lab in rural LaGrange County and booked into the LaGrange County Jail.

The two, in their 30s, became the representatives of a federal class-action lawsuit filed in 2010 that has inspired new policies and will soon result in a million-dollar settlement for them and 237 others who were jailed past 48 hours without probable cause being established, violating their Fourth Amendment rights.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Or, use your facebook account:

Individuals who have a print subscription of the South Bend Tribune can activate their digital account to gain unlimited access to SouthBendTribune.com.

You need the 10 digit phone number without dashes on the account and your ZIP code to complete this process.

Questions? Please write tosubscriberservices@sbtinfo.comor call our Subscriber Services Department at 574-235-6464.

Long distance (outside St. Joseph County, Ind.), call toll-free 1-800-220-7378.

Need an account? Create one now.

Continued here:

Jails scramble to abide by 48-hour rule after lawsuits