Dominatrix Lawyer Spanks Former Boss

Former New York state prosecutor Alisha Smith, who helped secure a $5 billion settlement from Bank of America, was unceremoniously suspended from her job because she spent her spare time as a dominatrix.

She was suspended from her job because the New York Post questioned whether she was paid for her nocturnal activities. The prosecutor’s office has a policy that prohibits outside employment without prior approval if the prosecutor earns more than $1,000. (source)

The New York Post reports:

Famous in the S&M world for her skillful spandex-clad spankings, Smith, while not denying her freaky ways, says she did not make money trolling the dungeons while working for the state’s top law-enforcement official, a job she’s held since 2002. (source)

Nice of the New York Post to have a positive story about Ms. Smith, since its sloppy reporting on her private life is why she got suspended in the first place.

She appeared at a press conference with Gloria Allred by her side to quit her job. (source) Working for $78,000 a year at a job where your boss doesn’t give you a chance to explain when the New York Post, of all places, writes crap about you — yeah, that’s grounds to say “I don’t get paid enough for this shit.”

Lets keep score:

She kicks the shit out of Bank of America and brings $5 billion into the public coffers.

The New York Post writes a sloppy piece full of muck and innuendo about a her private life.

The prosecutor’s office lacks a spine and suspends her, without so much as giving her a chance to respond to the story.

And now all of us suffer, because a seemingly good prosecutor is now making the Gloria Allred circuit instead of kicking the crap out of criminals.

Quantum Levitation

Wanted: Satyriconista

If we had the time to make an audiovisual ad for this position, it would look something like this:

Since we don’t, you’ll need to settle for this written post.

We are seeking a new contributor. The editor prefers that it be a law student, because to date, two law students who were Satyriconistas eventually became associates at the editor’s law firm. This is not going to be some dead end, if the right person steps forward.

The winner will be able to quickly and coherently organize research presented to him or her, and write an interesting blog post on short notice – often within 3 hours.  A treatise is not necessary, and a few hundred words of lucid thoughts, with maybe a youtube video sprinkled in, will suffice… and probably be better than tl;dr egghead analysis.

You should be internet fluent. Know your memes. Don’t be a flake. If we assign you a post, do the goddamned thing. You should know basic HTML. By “basic” I mean the absolute basics.

HOW TO APPLY:

Send the following items to SatyriconApps AT gmail DOT com:

• A current resume, ONE PAGE ONLY.  Remove your GPA.
• A link to a blog you write, or a sample of prior blogging/journalistic writing.  If it is a blog you write pseudononymously, think of a way to prove your identity to us; we’ll agree to confidentiality. DO NOT send your 1L LRW assignment.
• An email telling us, in 200 words or less, why you should be a Satyriconista
• If you’re attractive, a recent photo. If you are not attractive, send a photo of someone attractive and lie to us and tell us that it is you.

Due to proximity concerns, we have a preference for law students at the University of Nevada – Las Vegas, Boyd School of Law. This is merely a preference; getting the right candidate is more important than regularly taking him or her out to see how much wine our new blogger can drink in one sitting. Although, if you are local to Las Vegas, you will likely be subjected to such experiments.

We have a very strong preference for law students from almost anywhere with backgrounds or degrees in journalism, public relations, or English.

I’ve enjoyed being the proprietor of this blog for several years.  Here’s what DeVoy had to say about his experience:

Blogging has focused my writing.  When restricted to a few hundred words on an area where I might not have any familiarity with the law, blogging helps cut to the heart of the matter and quickly research issues.

Fischer, on the other hand just said:

I blogged. I did it well. It led to a job. Nuff said.

So there you have it.  Applications will be considered on a rolling basis (i.e., they will be reviewed as they are submitted) until November 15, 2011.

We do not accept applications from law students or graduates of the following institutions:

1. Cooley Law (any law school that files a SLAPP suit, especially a FTT, soils the chances of all that put its name on their resume)
2. University of St. Thomas School of Law, because it has no balls. No balls at all. Seriously, fuck that place and its spineless administration, selling out the First Amendment like whimpering mewling cowards. No school with such a weak spine could ever produce a decent lawyer.

NOTE: We reserve the right to have Scott Greenfield vet any applications, and for him to mock them if he sees fit. The weak need not apply. They will be eaten.

Qaddafi Dead

The “Arab Spring” has claimed the life of the Libyan despot. (source). We shall see if what replaces him is any better.

Meanwhile, the House of Saud, worse than Qadaffi ever hoped to be, is still supported by your tax dollars.

Stripper lacks class (status, that is)

She take my money, well I’m in need
Yeah she’s a triflin’ friend indeed
Oh she’s a gold digger way over time
That digs on me

An exotic dancer by the stage name “Ms. Behaved” sought to be a class representative in a class action against Fantasy Topless in Colton, California. Beachemin v. Tom L. Theaters, Inc. No. SACV 11-0394-DOC (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011). Beachemin brought suit against Fantasy Topless in an increasingly-common class action claim against strip clubs — alleging that the club misclassified the dancers as “independent contractors” as opposed to employees. The claim further alleged that as employees, the club failed to pay the dancers minimum wage and forced them to share tips with the management.

Fantasy Topless succeeded in knocking out Beachemin because she was not a proper member of the class she purported to represent.

It is well-settled that Plaintiff must be a member of the class for which she seeks class certification, in order to satisfy both the typicality and adequacy prongs of Federal Rule 23 class certification requirements. “[A] class
representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” (Order at 5)

Ms. Beachemin defined the purported class as follows:

[a]ll individuals, who at any time from the date four years prior to the date the Complaint was originally filed continuing through the present, worked as an exotic dancer at Fantasy Topless in Colton, California, but was designated as an independent contractor and therefore, not paid any minimum wages. (Order at 5-6).

Unfortunately for Ms. Beachemin, the court found that she wasn’t exactly a member of the class that she purported to represent. The Defense showed that Beachemin was never actually hired at the club, she never signed a “Dancer Contract” with the club (as all dancers were required to do), she never had a dancer license from the City of Colton, as all dancers are required to do. See Order at 6-7. The evidence showed that she only tried out to be a dancer, and only performed one dance for approximately three minutes. On the other hand, Beachemin testified that she worked at the club for two days, for a total of less than eight hours. The court was not persuaded and denied the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

Despite the Court’s cold reception to Ms. Beachemin’s claim to represent the class, the Court did not seem hostile to the claims themselves.

Plaintiff has accordingly failed to meet her burden of proving that she is an adequate class representative and that she possesses claims typical of the class. There is no indication that Plaintiff ever signed an independent contractor agreement, Plaintiff was never paid by Defendants, and Plaintiff was not forced to share her few dollars in tips with Defendants or any other Fantasy Topless employee. As such, she could not have been misclassified as an independent contractor, like the remainder of the Purported Class, and she suffered no injury from the Defendants’ tip-sharing policy, unlike the remainder of the Purported Class. This Court does not wish to unduly hamper the potential success of the rest of the Purported Class by approving Plaintiff as class representative when she appears not to fall within the her own definition of the Purported Class. The Court expresses no judgment on the likelihood of obtaining class certification on the basis of the above-described claims with a different member of the Purported Class serving as class representative. (Order at 8)

I ain’t sayin’ she a gold digga. But she does sound like someone looking for an easy payday. The judge saw through it, but once the lawyers find a dancer who was a proper class representative, they may find greater fortune. While most strip clubs traditionally classify their dancers as independent contractors, the employee vs. independent contractor analysis is trending against the clubs. See Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-2082-RWS (N.D. Ga. Sept. 7, 2011); Thompson v. Linda and A, Inc., 779 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D.D.C. 2011).

Strip club owners need to make sure to cover their asses. Just like the protagonist in Golddigger sings “we want prenup,” dance club owners need to have their relationships papered — and papered right. And, if it costs a little more to classify a dancer as an employee vs. an “independent contractor,” they might just need to bite that bullet. The decisions are heavily trending in that direction, and the consequences can be quite expensive.

Receiving DMCA protections while remaining anonymous: Having your cake and eating it too

By J. DeVoy

A significant portion of the blogosphere – or at least what I read of it – acts under cover of anonymity.  I think this is important, especially given the candid statements these authors make about political matters and issues of public concern – particularly because these sentiments are far outside the mainstream.  In some cases, their voices cannot be heard elsewhere.  Society cannot grapple with the truth.  When this ultimately has career consequences, or some psychotic antagonist gets too close to the writer’s identity, he can pull the plug immediately, and then work to purge his writings from Google’s cache and the internet archive – leaving it as if he never existed.

Part of blogging is borrowing – ideas, links, inspiration – and sometimes copying outright, things like images and large chunks of copyrighted (or copyrightable) works.  While possibly frivolous or fair use, such copying could be infringement – and carry a frightening $150,000.00 price tag.  Wordpress and Moniker might not reveal your personally identifying information to some scrawny basement virgin who is outraged that you advocate cheating on your girlfriend, and provide specific instructions for doing it, that he demands your name so he can send you a very erudite e-mail.  Colorable legal demands with a screen shot and copyright registration or application, though, tend to go a lot farther, and an anonymous author’s cloak of anonymity is looking awfully threadbare.  This even bigger pisser comes if the writer is not even liable for the copying, and a full article or image is left by some unknown third party in the site’s comments.  (By the way, this is an excellent way to torpedo blogs you dislike.)  Another option is to create a special purpose business entity to run the blog, such as a LLC, but this requires money, attention, and a public filing with the secretary of state – things that defeat the purpose of anonymity, and even at just a few hundred dollars a year, are not worth the benefit to most anonymous bloggers.

Having established the value – and fragility – of anonymity, the question turns to how one can preserve it and inoculate against liability for copyright infringement.  Technically, this is impossible, and may carry a substantial penalty.  I do not recommend this, but it warrants consideration from an academic standpoint because copyright trolling is real and unlikely to simply disappear.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) requires online service providers, including blogs, to register a designated agent with the copyright office to receive the statute’s protections. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2).  The process for registering this agent, known as an “interim designation,” is governed by the Code of Federal Regulations, and available here.  While the DMCA was passed in 1998, we are still working off of interim regulations – but proposed final rules are pending, and open for comment under the APA until November 28, 2011.

This raises a few issues.  First, the designated agent must provide his or her full legal name, address, e-mail address and phone number, and for this information to be included on the designator’s website.  The precedent that has grown up around the DMCA requires only substantial compliance with the statute in order to enjoy its protections. See Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27541 *18-19 (S.D.N.Y 2011) (noting appearance of DMCA agent’s contact information on website and granting safe harbor partly based thereon); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42341, *20-21 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (holding that failure to provide email address was insubstantial, but only where the agent’s name, address, and telephone number were published on website); see also H.R. REP. 105-551 (II) (1998), at 55-56 (giving examples of insubstantial departures, such as “misspelling a name, supplying an outdated area code if the phone number is accompanied by an accurate address, supplying an outdated name if accompanied by an e-mail address that remains valid for the successor of the prior designated agent or agent of a copyright owner”).

The question then becomes whether using an assumed name for the DMCA agent allows for substantial compliance.  There are two ways of approaching this: On one hand, so long as the address, phone number and e-mail address reach an actual person who can remove infringing content as required by statute, there’s a colorable argument for substantial compliance.  Moreover, there is a significant First Amendment interest in anonymity that should not necessarily be trammeled if the DMCA’s goals are still being effected, with take-down notices being received and honored by an agent, even if misnamed.  Simultaneously, how can there be substantial compliance when the agent is not who the agent claims to be?  This is not a case of the actual agent leaving, with someone else standing in his place and still reachable by the designation form’s contact information.  To the contrary, a false name for an agent gives rise to the inference that the designator was misrepresenting the agent’s true identity to the copyright office – potentially a felony and criminally false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Now, an anonymous site could use an actual person as its DMCA agent, no pseudonyms needed.  This chips away at the author’s anonymity, though, and may bring unnecessary problems onto the DMCA agent.  Those of us who remember what transpired between Roissy and Lady Raine know not to underestimate the psychosis of e-stalkers, nor the damage they can cause.  The relationship between the DMCA agent and his acquaintances/friends, as seen on twitter, facebook or ascertained by other means, would be analyzed and reverse-eningeered until the anonymous blogger’s identity was known. (Or, worse, thought to be known, leading to a false allegation of authorship.)  In a more extreme context, this may arise in litigation – since the DMCA agent’s identity is known, and he or she surely had contact with the blog’s anonymous author, the agent is a subpoena target.

The same issues present themselves if one tries to designate an agent as a representative of the blog, whether anonymously or through a separate party under his or her true name.  Designating an agent under a false name calls into question whether the designation of a DMCA agent substantially complies with the statute, and is another avenue for the designator to risk felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.  Having a third party act as the blog’s representative raises the same issues above, potentially jeopardizing anonymity and giving opponents a good target for harassment and discovery, in the event of litigation – or applying enough pressure that he or she crumbles.  Using someone else as a representative of an anonymous blog can create other headaches.  If the relationship is unclear, the third person’s representations as an authorized actor for the blog (an informal, unorganized entity as it may be) can be used to cloud any claims the author has to the blog’s copyrighted material, trademarks and associated goodwill, and other assets.  Even if the representative for the blog served no other purpose but to authentically designate a DMCA agent, the question of what relationship that person had with the blog should come to an inquisitive litigant.

There are narcissistic reasons not to use an outsider as a designator, too.  Namely, he or she will be accused of writing the blog.  All credit could be given to someone who may not be able to string a sentence together, but stepped in to serve a ministerial function.  Where’s the justice and glory in that?  Depending on the blog, too, one must wonder about the person who would volunteer to be the designator and to have his or her name publicly attached to controversial, politically incorrect content.  It works well for some people – but not the majority.

There are definite risks and problems associated with running an anonymous blog and trying to achieve safe harbor protections under the DMCA.  These risks, however, must be weighed against the sheer volume of service providers with registered agents.  Final rules for agent designation may close the loopholes that could make an anonymous registration with the copyright office feasible (even if legally improper), and possibly even substantially compliant with the DMCA.  The risks being an ineffective DMCA registration, though, and running up through criminal liability, likely do not warrant the effort required to attempt outwitting the DMCA.

Support for Marijuana Legalization Breaks 50%

So says a recent Gallup Poll. (source)

Libertarian Five Star General, Rogier Van Bakel says:

Popular support for legalizing marijuana is now at 50% — “the highest on record,” says Gallup (good pun there, Gallup). And just out of curiosity, what’s up with the 66% of so-called conservatives who insist on keeping the ‘devil weed’ illegal? They’ll wax poetic about personal liberty, and reliably rail against government being overbearing and too powerful … but when it comes to individuals choosing to toke up at home, they find it advisable to bring in the SWAT team, apparently. Cognitive dissonance … it can really harsh my buzz.

The Real Housewives of Southie

The Stolen Valor Act: This Time I Agree with the Government

I think that I am the only member of the First Amendment Lawyers’ Association who thinks that the Stolen Valor Act should be upheld. The Act makes it unlawful to falsely claim that you were awarded a military medal. The 9th Circuit struck down the law:

“The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time,” wrote Judge Milan Smith in a 2-1 decision. “Given our historical skepticism of permitting the government to police the line between truth and falsity, and between valuable speech and drivel, we presumptively protect all speech, including false statements.” (source)

If I put an “Intel Inside” label on a box of used pinball machine parts, I can be held civilly liable for trademark infringement. If I put a fake “Coach” label on a handbag, I can be held civilly and criminally liable for counterfeiting. What is so objectionable about holding an asshole responsible for lying about receiving the Medal of Honor?

Personally, if I wrote the laws, I would not criminalize lying about receiving a medal. I think that we should privatize the justice in that circumstance. If I wrote the law, it would state:

It shall be an absolute defense to battery, if that battery does not cause death or serious permanent injury, if the battered party lied about receiving a military honor that he did not actually earn, and the battering party was a current or former member of the armed forces, and the beating was administered solely as punishment for the lie.

I’ve said it many times: The First Amendment may prohibit the Government from punishing you, but that should not exempt you from an ass kicking.

More Righthaven Fun – Urgent Appeal

Since my firm is handling this litigation, I will keep my comments somewhat neutral.

Our old friend, Righthaven was ordered to pay $34,000 to a guy they wrongly sued. Righthaven didn’t pay. Righthaven begged the court to excuse it from paying. The Court told it to pay or it post a bond for that amount. Righthaven filed an “urgent” motion with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (here)

We, naturally, opposed the urgent motion. Opposition here.

I need not comment where others have done such a good job.

Ken at Popehat gives us an homage to “A Few Good Men,” with Oh, Well, If It’s An URGENT Motion, That’s TOTALLY Different.

Steve Green at Vegas Inc. provides a less opinionated, but very informative article. Righthaven facing fraudulent transfer claim.

We jump back over to the opinionated side of the coin with Mike Masnick, over at Techdirt, and his Righthaven Still Trying To Avoid Paying Any Legal Fees Of Those It Illegally Sued.

Can Connecticut take porn from its prisoners? Should it?

Many concerns come to mind when someone thinks about spending time in prison.  First and foremost, there is always the risk of being shanked with a very, very sharp toothbrush.  For the financial criminals, there is the distinct shame of being bested by Bernie Madoff in a game of badminton.  This is to say nothing for the fable of being made someone’s bitch. But what about a lack of porn?

Connecticut’s prisons were very tolerant of pornography in its prisons until recently. (source.)  Now that the Connecticut prisons are pulling the plug on this entertainment, the inmates are threatening to sue.  This is not isolated to the Northeast, either, as a Michigan man filed suit over a guard’s refusal to provide him with pornography, claiming the guard’s action violated his constitutional rights. (source.)

Not to put too dull of an edge on it, but prisons can basically do what they please to inmates. Correctional facilities have staked out the lowest standard of review available under law.  Prisons can enact policies that run counter to prisoners’ First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are rationally related to a legitimate penological interest, a standard that has consistently led to judicial affirmation of anti-pornography policies in the big house. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989); Smith v. Dept. of Corrections, 219 Or. App. 192, 198, 182 P.3d 250 (2008).  In contrast, the next-lowest standard of review – and generally the lowest for non-prisoners – is rational basis review, where a government action must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest to be constitutional (and intended as such – no post hoc analysis is allowed).

Courts review a prison’s limitation on the inmates’ First Amendment rights by using the three-prong reasonableness test enunciated in Thornburgh:

1. whether the governmental objective underlying the regulations at issue is legitimate and neutral, and whether the regulations are rationally related to that objective;
2. whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates at de minimis cost to penological interests; and
3. the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on others (guards and inmates) in the prison

490 U.S. at 414-18 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987)); Owen v. Wille, 117 F.3d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 1997).

As seem in prong 3, rehabilitation interests of prisoners are not all that may be, or is, considered when evaluating these policies.  Courts have found that preventing the harassment of employees who work in the prison is a valid justification for a limitation on sexually explicit materials among inmates. See, e.g., Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 1999).

The reach of these policies has been broad. In Washington v. Werholtz, 2008 WL 4998689 (Kan. App. 2008), the Kansas appellate court upheld a policy that banned all sexually explicit material, which included any display, actual or simulated, or description of a variety of acts, including intercourse and masturbation.  While such a policy will cover Larry Flynt’s oeuvre, it will also ban trashy romance novels and some important works of fiction, such as L’ Histoire d’ O.

As long ago as 1989, Iowa grappled with this issue, which made its way into the New York Times.  Under Iowa’s policy, only inmates who had been psychologically screened and approved to view the material – with prisoners whom prison psychologists believed would be obsessed with the material being denied access to it. (source.)  The policy drew a bizarre distinction between how various forms of pornography were treated; inmates who could view porn were allowed to keep “soft-core” content in their cells, while hardcore content was only viewable in a well-supervised reading room.  One then-inmate complained that the reading room was impossible to enjoy under this policy, as the guards filed through the area as if it were a freeway – denying him any privacy in which to evaluate the materials.

In 2006, Indiana instituted a similar policy.  The Indiana Commissioner of the Department of Corrections previously explained that state’s pornography prohibition as something in the interest of both inmates and facility employees.  The Commissioner’s explanation appeals to stay at home moms everywhere, exempting medical and anthropological instances of nudity, but adopts an “I know it when I see it” definition of pornography. (source.)  Ultimately, Indiana’s restrictions amount to subjective, content-based limitations determined by what individuals find stimulating, as opposed to some objective standard by which the content can be evaluated, such as penetration. (Id.)

I strongly disagree with these policies.  While I have not been incarcerated in prison, I question the harmful effects pornography can have on its inmates, and am deeply troubled by the broad sweep that these policies can have – swallowing up non-explicit materials that have considerable value.  While prison exists to deny agency to its inmates, one cannot help but wonder if these policies beg the question about pornography’s supposed harmfulness.  In fact, research shows that more porn = less rape.  While there are other covariants at play, as everyone who has read Freakonomics knows, the results of isolating pornography and analyzing the porn-rape relationship have been in porn’s favor.  Beyond rape, the gratification of pornography may replace or inhibit other criminal or undesired activities as well.  In short, the premises that prison guards’ penological interests rest upon – that porn is bad and makes people do bad things – are beginning to be proven as bullshit.

When I debated the Indiana commissioner on Fox News, his rationale was to “promote public safety in Indiana.” Give me a break. Is Mary Homemaker “safer” because a convict doesn’t have a porn mag? He also stated that he wanted to see his prisoners devote their time to more constructive pursuits. This being Fox, I didn’t get a chance to cross examine him, but I presume he didn’t mean ass-raping one another. The biggest load of bullshit he slung was the meme that prisons need to ban porn because they want to promote a non-harassing environment for prison guards.

Seriously? You want to be a prison guard, but you can’t handle the sight of a guy reading Hustler? I got news for you if you’re “offended” by the sight of a guy jacking it to porn — you can’t handle being a security guard at a candy store, let alone being a prison guard.

The rationale for these bans clearly has nothing to do with “safety,” and it has nothing to do with the feminist-imposed “hostile work environment” bullshit. It has to do with an erotophobic attitude, fostered by superstition, and then fertilized with the crap of cheap political points.

Nonetheless, prisons have erected a high wall around themselves, their guards, and their asinine policies.  In a way, it is logically consistent for an enterprise that exists largely as a consequence of unjust and counterproductive policies such as the war on drugs to have special legal protection allowing it to further screw the people entrusted to its care. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 407 (describing moden prison administration as an “inordinately difficult undertaking”).  As such, challenged to these policies, however well deserved and meritorious they are, seldom succeed.

Philadelphia > New York (when it comes to appreciation for the First Amendment)

Say what you want about the merits of the “occupy” movement. Whether you think they are the left-wing tea party, freedom fighters, speaking truth to power, simpleton dirty hippies playing hacky sack, they still have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

And the asshat award winner, Michael Bloomberg, is renting out the NYPD to Citibank, and he takes the position that they are just “taking away jobs.” It doesn’t really sound like the mayor of a place like New York City, does it? But, those dipshit Yankees Fans elected him. They get the mayor they deserve.

Ninety miles to the south, the City administration honors their oaths of office. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and his Police Commissioner, Charles H. Ramsey are our First Amendment Bad Asses.

[Compared to Bloomberg] Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey has struck a markedly different tone, saying police will work with demonstrators and assist with marches. Above all, Ramsey has emphasized that officers are bound to protect the demonstrators’ right to protest peacefully. Ramsey has also had the First Amendment read at roll calls and periodically over the police radio system as a reminder. (source)

And, while Philly has charged parade organizers in the past for police and clean up costs, the Mayor’s office is not seeking these costs from anyone involved with Occupy Philadelphia.

“The difference is that these are First Amendment-driven matters as opposed to a parade,” McDonald said. “They have a right to express themselves under provisions of the Constitution, and we simply don’t, as a matter of policy, attempt to charge citizens for their free-speech rights.” (source)

Mike Krauss of PhillyBurbs.com does a much better job than I of comparing the two cities and their Mayors.

Stupid Unamerican Hippies at Occupy Wall Street Protest

/end sarcasm

Don’t Get a Warrant in Essex County.

The Supreme Court has been tapped to decide if it’s OK to strip search someone who is in custody for a minor traffic offense. Source. Albert Florence had a warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket, which he eventually took care of, but in a “whoops, my bad” moment Essex County didn’t remove the discharged warrant from its computer system. So, when Mr. Florence was pulled over for a minor traffic violation in 2005, that system mistakenly told the arresting officer that Florence had an outstanding warrant.  Despite showing the arresting officer proof of the discharge, Mr. Florence was arrested and taken to jail where a standard intake search was performed (open mouth/lift tongue, lift nuts, squat and cough). A little later he was transferred to another jail where a search was again performed (which is standard anytime an inmate is moved between facilities.) After six days the mistake was realized and he was released. Mr. Florence is rightfully beyond pissed. But it’s for the wrong reasons and at the wrong people. Lemme splain.

He argues that both searches were unreasonable given the nature of his alleged offense and because he was arrested in error. He’s right in that he shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place, but wrong that the searches were unreasonable. Jailers have no way of knowing that the guy that just got brought merely has an outstanding warrant for unpaid parking tickets or is a serial killing drug dealing psycopath. I’m sure from the time he was arrested until he was released Mr. Florence was proclaiming his innocence and that the warrant should have been removed. The problem is that’s what everyone says. Cops and jailers are trained to ignore these protests because they aren’t the ones that determine guilt or innocence- that’s the courts’ job. A cop’s job is to arrest the person that the system tells her to and then to ensure a safe detention facility by disarming inmates­ and taking away any contraband they may have. Jailers have the responsibility to do a thorough visual inspection of inmates to see if they have anything that could be transferred to jailers and other inmates (lice, open wounds, etc.) that might have been missed during the fully-clothed screening.   Every single inmate.  Every single time.  And just so you know-contraband isn’t always just drugs or weapons.  It can also be communications from the outside like setting up a drug deal or ordering a hit on an officer or another inmate or worse.

The county screwed up big time, law enforcement was following protocol, and this poor dude got stuck in the middle. In this case, the jailers didn’t act unreasonably; Essex County did.  Not removing that warrant was catastrophically stupid and inexcusable.   But it sets a dangerous precedent to get rid of random cavity searches in jails because they are an absolute necessity for the safety of both the officers and the inmates.  The court should be called out big time for this because the heat is being improperly thrown at the jail.

Why Good Cops Should Like Citizens Filming Their Activities

Because sometimes the Cops are right. Not only right, but they show incredible restraint when perhaps even more aggressive responses are appropriate.

Source, Carlos Miller.