News Cut Category Archive: Crime and Justice

Tribe sues beer makers over alcoholism

Posted at 3:21 PM on February 9, 2012 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Whose fault is the high rate of alcoholism on Indian reservations?

The Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota today filed suit again beer makers, seeking$500 million in damages for the cost of health care, social services and child rehabilitation caused by alcoholism.

The AP reports:

The lawsuit alleges that the beer makers and stores sold to Pine Ridge's Indian population, knowing they would smuggle the alcohol into the reservation to drink or resell. The beer makers supplied the stores with "volumes of beer far in excess of an amount that could be sold in compliance with the laws of the state of Nebraska" and the tribe, tribal officials allege in the lawsuit.

The Connecticut-sized reservation has struggled with alcoholism and poverty for generations, despite an alcohol ban in place since 1832. Pine Ridge legalized alcohol in 1970 but restored the ban two months later, and an attempt to allow it in 2004 died after a public outcry.

The lawsuit says one in four children born on the reservation suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The average life expectancy is estimated between 45 and 52 years, the shortest in North America except for Haiti, according to the lawsuit. The average American life expectancy is 77.5 years.

Comment on this post

'Stand your ground bill' advances at Capitol

Posted at 10:37 AM on February 9, 2012 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

One of the first floor debates of any significance in the Minnesota Senate this session isn't going to be about football stadiums. It'll be something far more important: Do Minnesotans have an obligation to flee when faced with danger?

A Minnesota Senate committee this morning sent the so-called Defense of Dwelling and Person Act to the Senate floor on a party-line vote.

There are many elements of the bill (full text here), but this is the big one:

Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(b) The use of deadly force is not authorized under this section if the individual knows that the person against whom force is being used is a licensed peace officer from this state, another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United States, who is acting lawfully.
Subd. 3. Degree of force; retreat. An individual taking defensive action pursuant to subdivision 2 may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense. The individual may meet force with superior force when the individual's objective is defensive; the individual is not required to retreat; and the individual may continue defensive actions against an assailant until the danger has ended.

In many ways, the legislation wouldn't be possible, if not for a man in Apple Valley who shot a gang friend to death.

In 1999, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that there is no such requirement in Minnesota to retreat inside a dwelling. It ruled in the case of Tony Carothers, who shot a gang enforcer six times in his mobile home in Apple Valley after an argument over $20 in a card game in 1967. He was given a 14-year sentence.

In instructing a jury, a trial court judge said Carothers had a duty to first flee a self-defense situation, but Justice Russell Anderson overturned the conviction, warning, however, that it's not a license to kill:

We emphasize that a person claiming defense of dwelling is still subject to strictures insuring the reasonableness of his or her behavior. Defense of dwelling and self-defense within the dwelling serve a defensive and not offensive purpose, and do not confer a license to kill or to inflict great bodily harm merely because the offense occurs within the home. It may be more reasonable for a person to advance towards or retreat from a danger within his or her home in different circumstances, and that decision should be left to the jury. When faced with a defense of dwelling claim, the jury must determine (1) whether the killing was done to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling, (2) whether the defendant's judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances, and (3) whether the defendant's election to defend his or her dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended.

This is the Castle Doctrine. Anderson's decision gave Minnesotans the right to kill someone invading a home, removing the obligation to flee first. The latest legislation extends the protections in the home to a person outside of it.

The bill was heading to the Senate floor last year, too, until several police chiefs and county attorneys held a news conference objecting to it.

Comment on this post

Judge orders man to take his wife on a date

Posted at 2:31 PM on February 8, 2012 by Bob Collins (16 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Is this cute or horrifying? You decide

In Broward County, Florida, a judge has ordered a man to take his wife to dinner, bowling, and then marriage counseling.

"He's going to stop by somewhere and he's going to get some flowers," Judge John "Jay" Hurley said during the first appearance hearing, as the story is told by the Orlando Sun Sentinel. "And then he's going to go home, pick up his wife, get dressed, take her to Red Lobster. And then after they have Red Lobster, they're going to go bowling."

The man was charged with domestic violence, but, as the judge sees it, not the serious domestic violence kind.

"He didn't actually hit her," the judge said.

If you grab your wife's neck and threaten to hit her because she complained you didn't wish her a "happy birthday," you'll probably be back before the judge again.

(h/t: Two Way blog)

Comment on this post

Family members blame system, Internet in Washington killings

Posted at 10:30 AM on February 8, 2012 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

After your relative has killed two little boys, apparently because one of them drew a picture of daddy driving and mommy (whom is missing and presumed dead) in the trunk, and set fire to the house to which they were lured, it's probably not the best time to issue an indictment of the Internet and the legal system.

Relatives of Josh Powell, the man suspected of killing his wife and, subsequently, both of his children and himself, issued a statement today blaming the tragedy on the system.

The dead kids merited a "PS" in the statement:

We are grievously saddened at the loss that the Cox and Powell
families have suffered. There is no justification for the loss of two
innocent children, Charles and Braden.

Josh had asked us to step in and offer our support in helping him as
the next patriarchs of the family with the absence of Steve, his
father. We were also asked by Josh if we would offer a safe haven for
his sons should the need arise; our answer was absolutely yes.

We felt that Josh represented himself using a great deal of restraint
with patience and dignity at his children's custody hearing, even
though it did not work out in his favor. Our family's suggestions to
Josh both before and after the hearing were that if he had any
credible facts, no matter how disturbing, he should present it so that
due process would be possible. We believe that Josh continued to use
this restraint because of the fear of losing his sons and the love he
had for all of his family members that he so desperately tried to
protect.

When we arrived in the state of Washington we believed in America's
legal system. After witnessing how broken the system was and the
events that took place before our eyes, both inside the court room and
outside, we left for home in disillusionment of the legal system and
concern for our family's posterity.

In our hearts and minds we feel that this family tragedy was set into
motion from the beginning due in part to the various questionable
government agencies' practices, religious bias, the internet kangaroo
courts, and sensationalized news media, all of whom have circumvented
the laws that protect all of our rights to due process. We believe
that the stewardship of the responsibilities that have been entrusted
to those organizations and individuals has been completely
compromised.

America, this is not only a tragedy, Sunday was a dark day for all of
our families.

Uncle Maurice, Aunt Patti

P.S. Josh, Susan, Charles, and Braden, you will always remain in our hearts.

There is one system that clearly did not work: The 911 system.

Comment on this post

Supreme Court to driver: Urine trouble

Posted at 10:36 AM on February 8, 2012 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Supreme Court today upheld a man's conviction for drunk driving, rejecting the man's claim that a urine sample is unreliable proof.

Herman Tanksley Jr., who was arrested after an accident on I-35W in 2009, claimed that the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension testing of so-called "first-void urine samples" is unreliable, inaccurate, "and not generally accepted in the scientific community because it does not require an individual to empty his or her bladder, wait a certain period of time, and then provide a second sample for testing purposes." The problem with testing first-void urine samples, according to Tanksley, is that, because such samples contain urine that has 'pooled' in an individual's bladder over time, alcohol concentration levels obtained from the tests may not be indicative of the driver's actual blood alcohol content, the standard for determining whether someone is drunk.

A lower court rejected Tanksley's request for a hearing on the issue and sentenced him to 45 days in jail.

Today the state's Supreme Court said Minnesota doesn't need a urine test to prove a driver is drunk; it's just one of three ways the law provides for determining blood alcohol level.

"Under Tanksley's theory" Justice David Stras wrote," the State would be required to prove, in effect, that an individual's blood alcohol concentration is at or above 0.08 for all alcohol-concentration offenses, even if the individual's urine alcohol concentration meets or exceeds 0.08. Yet ... in defining the alcohol-concentration offense, the Legislature set forth three methods for proving alcohol concentration without expressing a preference for one method over another."

Here's the ruling.

Comment on this post

The marriage ruling in prose

Posted at 12:35 PM on February 7, 2012 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Many times, an important legal decision comes with its own language, indecipherable by mere mortals. Today's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld a lower court's ruling that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is not one of them.

Consider, for example, this passage on the word "marriage," which invokes Frank Sinatra, Groucho Marx, Abraham Lincoln, Marilyn Monroe, and Shakespeare. We dare guess it's the first time in the history of this nation, that a legal ruling has done that.

We need consider only the many ways in which we encounter the word "marriage" in our daily lives and understand it, consciously or not, to convey a sense of significance. We are regularly given forms to complete that ask us whether we are "single" or "married." newspapers run announcements of births, deaths, and marriages. We are excited to see someone ask, "will you marry me?", whether on bended knee in a restaurant or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see "will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?"

Groucho Marx's one-liner, "marriage is a wonderful institution... but who wants to live in an institution?" would lack its punch if the word "marriage" were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeare's "A young man married is a man that's marr'd," Lincoln's "marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it simply purgatory," and Sinatra's "A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's too late." We see tropes like "marrying for love" versus "marrying for money" played out again and again in our films and literature because of the recognized important and permanence of the marriage relationship. Had Marilyn Monroe's films been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is not different. The name "marriage" signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring and intimate relationships."

Here's the full ruling:

Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 decision

Comment on this post

In the military, a suicide attempt is a crime

Posted at 12:41 PM on February 2, 2012 by Bob Collins (10 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Should the military consider a suicide attempt a crime?

A Marine from California is appealing his conviction on several charges, including trying to kill himself.

Pvt. Lazzaric Caldwell, who was never deployed but has been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, slit his wrist in a suicide attempt, while awaiting trial on charges of stealing a belt in Okinawa. He was then charged with trying to kill himself.

Why does the military consider it a crime? The answer is in the decision of a Navy court which reopened the 2010 case last November:

As to the public policy argument, I'm not persuaded that criminal prosecution of genuine suicide attempts should be prohibited under military law. As both parties note in their briefs, self-injury has long been a chargeable offense in military jurisprudence. Conceivably, many instances of malingering or self injury could be concealed in the guise of a sincere suicide attempt. My own personal experience over the past 25 years of active duty service leads me to believe that self-injury, whether it results in an intentional suicide or not, has the potential to cause tremendous prejudice to the good order and discipline within a unit. If a convening authority feels it necessary to resort to court-martial to address this type of a leadership challenge, he or she should be allowed to do so, at least until the executive or legislative branches of government have proscribed this approach by law or regulation.

Comment on this post

Court: DNA search is not an invasion of privacy

Posted at 1:47 PM on January 25, 2012 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that requiring people convicted of a crime to submit a DNA sample does not violate a constitutional right against an unreasonable search.

The ruling comes in the case of Randolph Johnson, who was charged in September 2008 with felony domestic assault. Before his trial, the state reached a plea bargain agreement with Johnson in which the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor domestic assault in exchange for a guilty plea.

Johnson was placed on probation, but fought the search for DNA as an invasion of privacy.

The Minnesota database of DNA can be used in crime investigation to match samples collected at a crime scene with the DNA stored in the database.

Citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Christopher Dietzen wrote in today's opinion that people like Johnson "do not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled. Just as other punishment for criminal convictions curtail an offender's freedoms, a court granting probation may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender of some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens."

Dietzen said the process for collecting the DNA from Johnson "is minimal, especially when compared to other intrusions Johnson is subjected to as part of his probation, including random urinalysis." Authorities obtained the DNA by swabbing his mouth.

The Supreme Court also rejected Johnson's complaint that if he'd been charged with a misdemeanor initially, he would not have been subject to a DNA search. Justice Dietzen says the fact a judge found probable cause to charge Johnson with a felony initially, indicates a behavior different from someone charged only with a misdemeanor.

But in a dissent, Justice Helen Meyer suggested the DNA obtained in a search contains private information beyond those of the person who was searched. "DNA is often referred to as the 'blueprint' for life," she wrote. "'DNA stores and reveals massive amounts of personal, private data about that individual,' including information about that 'person's health, propensity for particular disease, race and gender characteristics, and perhaps even propensity for certain conduct.' Genetic information is not only 'information about us,' but also 'information about our parents, our siblings, and our children.'"

"Given the potential of DNA technology to expose extremely private information, I find these full-scale personal DNA searches highly intrusive," Justice Meyer wrote in the dissent, joined by Justice Alan Page and Justice Paul Anderson.

Justice Dietzen, however, rejected the argument saying there's no evidence "the state has or intends to use the biological specimens to extract highly personal genetic information."

Today's decision -- available here. -- came one day shy of the two-year-anniversary of a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling in the case that upheld the DNA search.

Related: A second Supreme Court decision also affirmed that requiring DNA of a juvenile charged with a felony does not violate the Constitution. Read the decision.

Comment on this post

The meaning of 'conceal'

Posted at 10:26 AM on January 23, 2012 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Every so often -- and too often -- a case hits the Minnesota Court of Appeals that is an example of how children are caught in the middle of custody disputes between adults. Equally often, the Court illustrates why legislators have to be precise when passing laws. Today, a case related to both.

The Court of Appeals today overturned the conviction of a woman on charges she hid her children from their father a custody dispute.

The case stems from an argument in 2010 between Tammy Fitman of Austin and the father of her two children. After an argument over the father's intention to claim the children as dependents on his taxes, Fitman did not allow the father to have custody of the children for the following weekend, though he was supposed to have custody every other weekend.

Later, Mrs. Fitman refused to allow the father custody on Easter, even though the divorce decree spelled out where the children would go on each Easter.

Today's court ruling tells the rest of the story:

The Fitmans expressed concern that M.B.'s (the father) residence was unfit for children, referencing a specific allegation that had previously been investigated and found to be without merit. The lieutenant explained that the allegation had been investigated and that the Fitmans could be charged with a crime if they did not allow M.B. visitation. The Fitmans continued to refuse. M.B. then agreed to allow the matter to go through the courts rather than to have the police physically remove the children from the home. Again, although the police and M.B. were not allowed to see or speak with the children, there is no evidence to suggest that they did not know the children were at the Fitmans' residence.

Fitman was charged with concealing minor children from a parent. She was found guilty.

In its decision today, the Court focused on the meaning of one word: "conceal."

The common definition of the word "conceal" is "[t]o hide or keep from observation, discovery, or understanding; keep secret." The American Heritage Dictionary 304 (2d ed. 1985).

The evidence does not support the conclusion that appellant concealed the children, and the state did not attempt to prove that she did conceal them. Concealing children requires actively hiding them or attempting to keep another from discovering their whereabouts. While neither M.B. nor the police saw the children at the Fitmans' house on March 12 or on April 2, there was no evidence that appellant intentionally prevented M.B. from observing them or discovering their whereabouts. The record does not suggest that the children were not at appellant's home, that appellant was hiding them, or that M.B. did not know they were there.

Moreover, two facts indicate the contrary. First, M.B. and the police came to the Fitmans' home on March 12 and on April 2 because they assumed the children were there; second, the police and M.B. discussed the possibility of forcibly removing the children from the home, which they would not have done if they had not thought the children were in the home. This evidence supports the conclusion that appellant was not concealing the children.

The Court said "conceal" in custody cases generally means parents who go into hiding with the children.

Here's the full opinion.

Comment on this post

Who should carry a gun in court?

Posted at 10:43 AM on January 23, 2012 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Should county attorneys in Minnesota carry guns in the courtroom?

That's one of the bills to be debated this week at the Capitol in the wake of last months' shooting in a courthouse in Grand Marais, Minnesota Lawyer reports.

Rep. Tony Cornish, a police officer himself, has filed two bills. One would increase the penalties for assaulting or causing the death of a prosecuting attorney (but not the defense attorney?). Another would authorize the county attorney to carry a gun.

Comment on this post

No clarification in anti-bullying constitutional question

Posted at 4:12 PM on January 17, 2012 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

How far reaching can schools be in policing the behavior of students?

The U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to settle once and for all whether school officials can discipline students for their off-hours, off-school-property activities on social networking sites.

Instead, it punted.

The Court refused to hear two cases, one that said school officials could discipline the students, and one that said school officials cannot.

In Pennsylvania, the parents of a 17-year old senior sued a principal who suspended the student because she created a MySpace page that described him as a "hairy sex addict" and a "pervert" who liked "hitting on students" in his office.

In that case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said the school cannot discipline students for their conduct outside of the schoolhouse.

But in another case, the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals ruled a West Virginia senior could be suspended for her MySpace profile that made fun of another girl as a "slut" who had herpes.

In Kowalski's appeal, her lawyer described her as a cheerleader and "the reigning 'charm queen' of her school," but the appeals court threw out her free-speech suit. She "used the Internet to orchestrate a targeted attack on a classmate," the judges said.

"The court needs to explain when school officials have the power to regulate off-campus student speech," David L. Hudson, a First Amendment scholar at Vanderbilt told the Los Angeles Times last week. "The phenomenon of cyber-bullying ratchets up the importance of the issue."

By the way, with the Supreme Court rejection of the appeal in the Pennsylvania case, the school district of the principal who was falsely accused of being a "hairy sex addict" now has to pay the ACLU's attorney fees and damages to the parents who fought it their daughter's suspension..

If you're a school official, is it worth fighting when the parents start calling?

Comment on this post

Is a drive-by shooting a 'victimless crime?'

Posted at 12:29 PM on January 11, 2012 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Supreme Court today ordered a harsher sentence for a drive-by shooter.

Michael Ferguson had earlier successfully appealed a sentence not only for one count of a felony drive-by shooting, but also for eight counts of assault against the eight people -- six of them children -- who lived in the Saint Paul apartment house where the shooting took place.

An Appeals Court had tossed out the assault sentences, but today the Supreme Court reimposed the additional three-year sentence for the assaults.

Minnesota law "prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident," Justice Helen Meyer wrote. "But the legislature did not intend... to immunize offenders in every case from 'the consequences of separate crimes intentionally committed in a single episode against more than one individual.'"

Unlike the crime of assault, the drive-by shooting statute does not require that the occupants of the building be injured, put in fear, or even be aware of the shooting, the court said. Justice Meyer suggested that sentencing Ferguson on just one count of the shooting toward one person means the other people in apartment were not victims.

In his dissent, however, Justice Paul Anderson, argued that the additional sentence for assault makes a drive-by shooting "a victimless crime."

"The majority's approach to the sentencing of Ferguson is erroneous for two reasons," Anderson said. "First, the majority's conclusion that occupants of a building are not victims of the offense of drive-by shooting at an occupied building is unsupported by Minnesota law. Second, contrary to the majority's assumption, the multiple-victim exception does not support a sentence for a victimless crime that arises from the same conduct as other sentenced crimes."

Here's the entire opinion.

Comment on this post

Supreme Court: Challenge to Red Wing rental law is appropriate

Posted at 11:41 AM on December 28, 2011 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Supreme Court today cleared the way for a constitutional challenge to a Red Wing ordinance that requires the inspection of rental properties.

Red Wing adopted the law in 2005 amid allegations that absentee landlords were providing unfit rental properties.

But a property rights group, the Institute for Justice, challenged the requirement that landlords unwilling to voluntarily allow their properties to be inspected would face an "administrative warrant" allowing such inspections.

Red Wing's rental inspection program has been in place for five years. During that time, inspectors have searched the rental homes of hundreds of residents, going into their closets, looking under their beds, and inspecting their bathroom cabinets. They have required "correction" of terrifying health and safety hazards like "a dirty stovetop," a damaged bedroom doorstop and a bathroom door without a lock. After losing two attempts to get warrants to search rental homes without tenant and landlord consent, the city enacted a more limited program. Now inspectors don't go into medicine cabinets or refrigerators. The most recent court decision seems to eliminate closets and cabinets as well, but inspectors still go into every room and still have access to all the personal information one can tell about a person from entering their living room, bathroom and bedroom. It is time for Minnesota courts to uphold the rights of ordinary residents to exclude unwanted visitors from their homes.

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned lower courts in ruling the ordinance presents a constitutional question that should be decided.

"The constitutional issue that the landlords and tenants have raised is neither hypothetical nor abstract," Justice Helen Meyer wrote. "The City has actually begun enforcing the rental inspection ordinance against appellants. The City has sought not just one but three separate administrative warrants over a four-year period to insect their properties, which appellants have been forced to defend."

Lower courts had ruled that a constitutional challenge to the Red Wing ordinance was not appropriate because the landlords had successfully quashed the city's attempts to forced inspections.

"The legal interest at stake here is the right to be free from allegedly unconstitutional searches," Justice Meyer said in ordering the case sent back to the courts. "In this situation, the landlords to not have to wait until such a search is ordered or carried out to establish ripeness."

Read the full opinion.

Comment on this post

Court upholds 50-year order for protection

Posted at 11:02 AM on December 27, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled a 50-year order for protection against a man does not violate his First Amendment rights.

The Court today upheld the order that prevents James Bergstrom, a Washington County man, from contacting his former wife and his two children for 50 years, an order imposed by the court after he was jailed for abuse and stalking.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals upholds the 2008 law passed by the Legislature permitting such lengthy extensions of orders for protections in cases in which a person violates an existing or previous order, engages in stalking, or is incarcerated or about to be released.

Bergstrom argued the order constitutes a "prior restraint" on free speech. But the Court said "an injunction that restricts speech in a content-neutral manner is not a prior restraint... like a protest buffer zone, an OFP extension ... that includes a no-contact order is content-neutral because it restricts contact with the abuse victim initiated by the abusing party without regard for the message the abusing party intends to express."

Read the full decision.

Comment on this post

Drone leads to arrest of U.S. citizens

Posted at 8:30 AM on December 12, 2011 by Michael Olson (9 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It was another quiet summer day in Nelson County, North Dakota last June when a few cows and their calves meandered onto Randy Brossart's farm. But when police showed up at the farm to retrieve the cattle, County Sheriff Kelly Janke says that he and his deputies were chased off by three gun-toting Brossart boys.

Here's what happened next according to an item ran in the Grand Forks Herald:

Fearful of an armed standoff, Janke called in reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, the Grand Forks regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three counties.

He also called in a Predator B drone.

The call for a drone was received by the Border Patrol which fulfilled Janke's request. The McClatchy story explains what happened next.

As the unmanned aircraft circled 2 miles overhead, its sensors helped pinpoint the suspects, showing they were unarmed.

Janke said he and other officers rushed in and made the first known arrests of U.S. citizens with help from a Predator, the spy drone that has helped revolutionize modern warfare.

The use of drones on U.S. citizens within American borders is alarming to privacy and civil liberty advocates. "Only the guilty have reason to fear!," writes Brian Doherty on the libertarian site Reason.

Here's an enthusiastic explainer on the Predator's use in combat.

Comment on this post

Minnesota court upholds gun ban

Posted at 12:16 PM on December 5, 2011 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A lifetime ban on handgun ownership by people who have committed a crime of violence does not violate the Constitution, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court ruled today in the case of Andrew Craig, who was stopped by Mounds View police on suspicion of domestic assault in 2009. Police found a gun in the car, which he claimed was put in his backpack by his girlfriend. Craig had previously been convicted of possession of drugs, which Minnesota considers a crime of violence.

Craig appealed the ban on gun ownership but the court said "... the Supreme Court did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right, so that restrictions on this right are subject to a strict-scrutiny standard of review."

The court said Minnesota law, which declares "a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms," does not bolster Craig's appeal because the 2003 concealed carry law recognizes persons the Legislature "has deemed ineligible to possess a firearm."

Judge Natalie Hudson said protecting the public from offenders who use guns is "an important governmental objective."

Although the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban (the Heller case) in 2008, Judge Hudson said that case made clear that the right to own a gun "is held by 'law-abiding, responsible citizens.'"

"A person convicted of a felony, particular one that is listed as a 'crime of violence' ... has demonstrated that he or she is not a law-abiding, responsible citizen," she wrote.

Here's the full opinion.

Comment on this post

The ordeal of Gulnaz

Posted at 12:23 PM on December 1, 2011 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Long before 9/11, human rights groups tried to get Americans to pay attention to the human rights abuses suffered by women in Afghanistan at the hands of the Taliban. Then the war started, the Taliban was ousted from power, over 1,800 U.S. soldiers died, and it's still a struggle to get any attention paid to the human rights abuses suffered by women in Afghanistan.

But, today, one story is getting some attention.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has pardoned a woman who was jailed for adultery after she was raped by a family member.

All she has to do is marry the rapist.

The BBC reports...

Gulnaz's lawyer told the BBC she hoped the government would allow Gulnaz the freedom to choose who to marry.

"In my conversations with Gulnaz she told me that if she had the free choice she would not marry the man who raped her," said Kimberley Motley.

The case has drawn international attention to the plight of many Afghan women 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban.

Earlier this month, Gulnaz told the BBC that after she was raped she was charged with adultery.

"At first my sentence was two years," she said. "When I appealed it became 12 years. I didn't do anything. Why should I be sentenced for so long?"

Comment on this post

Court: Expired tabs good enough reason for drunk driving arrest

Posted at 10:12 AM on November 28, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

You've stopped at a stop light when a police officer pulls up behind you and notices your license tabs, while current, don't match his computer which reports your car's registration expired two years ago. He pulls you over and confirms your car is legally registered, but also notices you smell of booze and look drunk. Can you be arrested?

The Minnesota Court of Appeals today said "yes," ruling that pulling a driver over in Sartell in January 2010 was a legal stop, even though it was based on bad information.

It ruled in the case of Shaun Cox, who was driving with nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol and who was unsuccessful getting that fact suppressed at his district court trial.

"The stop cannot be 'the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity,'" the court said, in ruling it wasn't. "When a license plate displays 2010 tabs, but a computer check indicates that the vehicle's registration expired in 2008, it is objectively reasonable for an officer to infer that the 2010 tabs may have been stolen."

Mr. Cox argued that once the officer's curiosity about the expired tabs was satisfied, the "investigation" could not be broadened to include his possible drinking.

The court hinted that Cox would be correct if the officer were only concerned about expired tabs...

But as we have noted, the basis for the officer's stop was his suspicion of stolen tabs. This suspicion would not have been dispelled based solely on the observation of current tabs. As a result, the officer properly approached the vehicle to talk with Cox about the discrepancy. Because Officer Thompson immediately observed signs of Cox's intoxication when he approached him to inquire about the tabs, we conclude that Officer Thompson lawfully developed additional reasonable suspicion that supported the expanded scope of the initial stop.

Here's the full opinion from the Court of Appeals.

Comment on this post

Another Taser death

Posted at 2:10 PM on November 23, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Just a few days after a 60 Minutes segment chronicled the misuse of Tasers by police, another man has died at the hands of a cop with a Taser.

It happened Tuesday in Halifax County, North Carolina when a man fell off his bike, prompting calls to the cops that he might be drunk. When an officer tried to stop him, he rode away on his bike. That's when the officer used the stun gun, which caused the man to fall off his bike, hit his head, and eventually, die.

Sometimes, an officer is questioned for not using a Taser. In Farmington, Maine, for example, a veteran reportedly suffering from post traumatic stress disorder was shot and killed last Saturday by a police officer who decided not to use his Taser.

Comment on this post

Court: Duluth can cut health benefits for retirees

Posted at 11:41 AM on November 23, 2011 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Supreme Court today ruled a city can cut the health benefits of retirees when it cuts the health benefits of its current workforce.

The court upheld two lower court rulings that insisted Duluth can change its retiree health insurance benefits to match those of its current employees.The city said it saved $60 million over 30 years by cutting the retiree benefits. The retirees said the benefits should be the ones the city agreed to when they retired.

The court said a clause in the city's contracts that requires the city to offer the same benefits to retirees as "active" employees, refers to the employees now, not the city employees at the time of retirement.

The clause requiring a retiree to select a single health insurance plan at the time of retirement does not guarantee the retiree the selected plan throughout retirement. That initial election of a health insurance plan is effective for as long as the City offers the selected plan to current City employees.

In a dissent, however, Justice Paul Anderson says the contracts were ambiguous on the question of "current" vs. "active."

For example, if a newspaper article refers to "the current Minnesota Governor," it is unknown which governor the article references without knowing more details, such as the publication date of the article. The same is true of the active-employees clause. Without context, "active" or "current" employees as used in the CBAs could mean "current" on a specific date in the past.

It is essential for any court deciding this case to answer the following question: what is the exact time period to which the active-employees clause refers?

The court, however, did not touch the question of whether Duluth -- or any other city in Minnesota -- could eliminate health insurance for all retirees by eliminating it for all current employees. It said it was not asked that question.

Here's the full opinion.

Comment on this post

Court of Appeals preserves farmers' right to hunt on own land

Posted at 11:55 AM on November 21, 2011 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Baiting deer -- attracting deer with grains, fruits, vegetables or other food -- is illegal in Minnesota. Unless you're a farmer, the Minnesota Court of Appeals clarified today.

The court overturned the conviction of Donald Hansen of Hibbing, who was charged by the Department of Natural Resources with deer baiting. Hansen had tossed unsold vegetables near his deer stand in a field he owns.

The DNR had used aerial photography on two occasions to monitor Hansen's vegetable farm. On one flight, there were no pumpkins in his field. Photographs on a flight just before last November's deer season showed "a substantial pile of pumpkins." Hansen maintained that it's accepted agricultural practice to use unsold vegetables as "green manure," and he denied he was baiting deer. The DNR ticketed him and took his rifle.

The district court found him guilty. Today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals declared Minnesota's law too vague to uphold Hansen's conviction, because a phrase in the law -- a requirement that food be "placed by a person" and not result from normal farming -- could prevent most farmers from hunting on their own land:

Conceivably, this restriction could apply to any movement of crops due to human volition, including harvesting corn with large machinery or moving pumpkins from the field where they were grown to another place on a farm for storage, further processing, or another farm-related purpose. Here, under the language of the statute, appellant was prohibited from hunting within the vicinity of any crops he had transported on his own land. The word "placed" is also ambiguous within the factual context presented here.

Further, as applied to farmers, by exempting from the statutory prohibition "[f]ood that has not been placed by a person and resulting from normal or accepted farming . . . activities," the statute apparently gives with one hand and takes with the other. By including the "normal or accepted farming activities" language in the list of activities that do not meet the definition of deer bait, the legislature expressed an intention to make astatutory exception for farmers who transport their crops as part of carrying out their livelihoods. However, farmers meet the definition of deer baiting during harvest and at other times when they hunt within the "vicinity" of crops that constitute deer food that has been "placed" by them. Thus, the phrases "food . . . placed by a person" and "food . . . resulting from normal or accepted farming . . . activities" are inconsistent with each other, and the juxtaposition of these two phrases creates an ambiguity in the statute.

Court of Appeals Judge Roger Klaphake wrote that the law as enforced would "so restrict the right of a farmer who hunts on his own property that the farmer's right to hunt would not exist." He called that "absurd."

Here's the full opinion.

Comment on this post

And now, a moment about the victims

Posted at 10:30 AM on November 10, 2011 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

"Everybody's talking about (Jerry) Sandusky and everybody's talking about Joe Paterno and, you know, what's the university going to do for these boys?" hockey star Theo Fleury told CBS News this morning.

Fleury, who was sexually abused as a young player by a coach, suggests people should be less concerned about the legacy of football coach Joe Paterno, and more concerned about getting some help for some kids who probably need it.

"I'm sure they have a psychology and psychiatry faculty there where they can draw on those resources and get these boys the help that they need. It took me 27 years to come to a place of... being comfortable in my own skin again. And, you know, my wish is that...somebody takes the bull by the horns here and reaches out to these boys who have gone through what they have gone through," Fleury said.

We've yet to hear from any of the victims of the Penn State sexual abuse scandal, but the sister of one victim says she's stopped going to most classes at Penn State because her brother's misery is the stuff jokes are made of:

"I've been going to minimal classes, because every class I go to I get sick to my stomach. People are making jokes about it. I understand they don't know I'm involved and it was my brother, but it's still really hard to swallow that."

Comment on this post

Why Paterno needed to go

Posted at 10:17 AM on November 9, 2011 by Bob Collins (9 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Sports

Penn State University football coach Joe Paterno has quit amid the child abuse scandal rocking the university.

It's this paragraph of his statement, that raises eyebrows:

"This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Two university officials have been charged with failing to report to authorities that someone saw coach Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a naked boy in the showers of a team practice facility in 2002 (pennlive.com).

But Paterno's earlier statement after the grand jury indictment showed why he had to go:

"The fact that someone we thought we knew might have harmed young people to this extent is deeply troubling... If this is true we were all fooled, along with scores of professionals trained in such things, and we grieve for the victims and their families. They are in our prayers."

Paterno's statement tilted toward the "I thought it was only one kid" excuse. There were (at least) eight, which doesn't make one any less pathetic.

The grand jury report says Paterno had been told about the sexual abuse of an 11-year old boy in the Penn State locker room in 2002, told the university's athletic director about the incident, but did not tell police.

In the intervening 9 years, Paterno apparently never said to a school official, "hey, whatever happened to that thing with my assistant coach sexually abusing a boy in the shower?"

In hindsight, that seems hard to believe.

Update 2:41 pm - This article, from April 2011, questions whether the relatively early "retirement" of Sandusky suggests a deal based on knowledge of pedophilia.

Comment on this post

Tracking the health care law appeals

Posted at 11:40 AM on November 8, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Health, Politics

You have to love the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia for its practicality in today's decision that upholds the health care law pushed by President Barack Obama.

Before writing its opinion (available here), the justices acknowledged that what they think isn't going to matter much, anyway, since it's going to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since so much has already been written by our sister circuits about the issues presented by this case-which will almost surely be decided by the Supreme Court-we shall be sparing in adding to the production of paper.

The opinion and dissent then went on for 103 more pages.

That's 51 more pages than the 4th District Court of Appeals decision in September tossing out a challenge to the suit, 43 of which were spent listing the names of people, states, and organizations that had submitted briefs in that case. (See opinion)

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Cincinnati) took only 64 pages to uphold the law in June (opinion here).

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Florida) declared the law unconstitutional in August and it is so far the granddaddy of opinions at 305 pages (Opinion here) .

Kaiser Health News is tracking all of the various appeals of the law here.

Comment on this post

Does a Minnesotan own New Hampshire's history?

Posted at 11:30 AM on November 7, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has sided with New Hampshire in a fight a Minnesota man is having with the state of New Hampshire over a copper plate used to print the bonds, which New Hampshire printed to fund the Revolutionary War.

Gary Lea bought the plate (a picture of it is available at the Winona Daily News) at an estate sale in Spring Valley, but just before he was going to sell it at an auction -- he was asking a minimum of $50,000 -- the state of New Hampshire claimed to be the rightful owner because it claims it paid John Ward Gilman to make the plate in 1775. Nobody seems to know how it ended up in Minnesota, and there's a dispute over which states' courts will figure it out.

Today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned a Fillmore County (Minnesota) judge who ruled last March that Minnesota courts had jurisdiction to decide the rightful owner of the plate. The Court of Appeals cited a Supreme Court case that would appear to undercut Minnesota's jurisdiction in the case, merely because the man who owns the plate lives here and the plate is currently stored here.

That could pave the way for New Hampshire courts to decide who owns its history, or at least, a small part of its history.

The issue has even made the editorial pages of New Hampshire's Concord Monitor, which called for the plate to be returned.

The collector did nothing wrong, and his desire to profit from his find is understandable. But one way or another, the plate must come home. A state that can't afford to care for its needy certainly can't spend a five- or six-figure sum on a piece of its history. But the public, aided perhaps by a modern history-loving patriot of means, can. A fund should be created, perhaps under the state historical society or division of charitable trusts, to accept contributions to purchase the plate. A fund drive should be held. If the money can't be raised, or if the seller is unreasonable, then by all means, the state should go to court.

Though he has been unable so far to locate records that prove it, former state archivist Frank Mevers is likely correct that the plate was removed from the vault in the State House. Records do, however, show that a former state representative and then-head of the New Hampshire Hospital for the Insane loaned the plate to a Boston doctor and currency collector who used it in the mid-19th century to print commemorative copies of the notes used to fund the War of Independence. So it's more likely that the plate was not stolen, but borrowed, not returned and then forgotten.

Comment on this post

Grocery chain drops charges against sandwich-eating shoplifters

Posted at 1:06 PM on November 2, 2011 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The supermarket chain, Safeway, knows a public relations blunder when it sees one.

A company executive at Safeway has decided not to press shoplifting charges against a Honolulu couple whose arrests over stolen sandwiches led state workers to take custody of their 2-year-old daughter, the Associated Press reports.

Marcin and Nicole Leszczynski ate a sandwich while shopping last week, and walked out of the store after checking out without paying. They said they forgot and offered to pay but company policy apparently forbids settling up in such a matter.

Their daughter Zofia was taken away by state Child Welfare Services officials. She was returned to her parents 18 hours later.

That touched off a national debate on whether law enforcement, store officials, and child welfare workers went a little overboard.

Comment on this post

Anatomy of a bike theft

Posted at 1:05 PM on October 18, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Someone -- well, these two kids, actually -- stole Kathy Anderson's son's bike a few months ago, the Inver Grover Heights Patch reports. They didn't know she had rigged up a a surveillance camera outside her home and got video of the perps.

The model citizens left their half bottle of brandy on her neighbor's patio before riding off on the bike, which hasn't been recovered, she says.

"I'm sure we will never see the bike again, but I can only hope the parents of these 2 morons see this," she wrote.

(h/t: Randy Greenly)

Comment on this post

The secret world of the 'innocent' detainee's effort to be free

Posted at 3:34 PM on October 17, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif is being held at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

In July 2010, a federal judge ordered his release -- he's been there for almost nine years -- because of lack of evidence that the man was part of al Qaeda.

The man, who is from Yemen, says he went to Afghanistan because he was promised free medical care for head injuries he received in a car accident. The judge says that's a plausible explanation.

Since then, the Justice Department appealed the ruling. A hearing on the question was opened last spring, and then everyone was tossed out of the courtroom while it continued in secret.

And the judge has now ruled:

That opinion is making the rounds on the Internet, but this document is not:

The Lawfare blog got a copy of it, but doesn't translate what it means.

A docket entry explains that there is a classified opinion consisting of a 53-page opinion for the court by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a 14-page concurring opinion by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, and a 45-page dissent by Judge David Tatel.

At some point, a redacted opinion will be issued and we might be more informed about what we're not supposed to know.

Comment on this post

Forrest Gump and the First Amendment

Posted at 1:15 PM on October 17, 2011 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Tom Hanks, as Forrest Gump, didn't really win the Medal of Honor. Is it a crime to say he did?

Of all the things you can say in this country under the First Amendment, there's still a law on the books that says you can't say you were awarded a military honor when you weren't.

The Supreme Court today said it will review the law passed by Congress -- the Stolen Valor Act. It calls for a fine and/or six-month jail term for anyone who "falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States." It increases to a year in prison for lying about a Purple Heart, a Medal of Honor or another particularly high honor.

Filed in 2005, it passed the House of Representatives in December 2006 on a voice vote. No member of House, therefore, could be on the record one way or the other. That followed a September 2006 voice vote in the Senate that similarly avoided a record for any senator on the question.

As with most First Amendment issues, the question isn't whether people who lie about their medals and service diminish the contributions of those who actually served. They do. The question is whether there's a danger in giving the government the authority to regulate lies, and whether lies as a rule do enough damage to be constitutionally unprotected.

""The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time," Ninth Circuit Judge Milan Smith wrote when his panel overturned the law last year, in the case of a water district board member in California who claimed he'd been awarded the Medal of Honor (Read decision).

"The government's approach would give it license to interfere significantly with our private and public conversations," he wrote. "Placing the presumption in favor of regulation...would steadily undermine the foundations of the First Amendment... How, based on the principle proposed by the government, would one distinguish the relative value of lies about one's receipt of a military decoration from the relative value of any other false statement of fact."

And that's the question, too; if this lie can be regulate, what other speech might soon follow?

The decision included references to Jon Stewart's Daily Show, Stephen Colbert's Colbert Report, and even a scene from Forrest Gump as examples of speech that might be threatened under the law.

But in a dissent to the decision overturning the law, Judge Jay Bybee said not all speech is entitled to First Amendment protection -- defamation, for example -- but Stewart's, Colbert's, and Forrest Gump's are.

"I must, that the Act will be applied with some modicum of common sense, it does not reach satire or imaginative expression," the judge said.

Comment on this post

They didn't tell me I couldn't have a gun

Posted at 10:45 AM on October 17, 2011 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

You're charged with domestic assault and your attorney works out a deal in exchange for a guilty plea. But your attorney doesn't tell you that by pleading guilty, you'll no longer be able to possess a firearm in Minnesota. Can your guilty plea be invalidated because of ineffective counsel?

Thomas Sames was arrested in Shakopee in May 2010 during a fight with his wife at their home. He admitted to slapping and kicking her. Officers also found a small bag of marijuana.

Under a plea deal, the marijuana possession charge was dropped, and Sames was placed on probation for a year on assault charges. He didn't show up at a domestic abuse assessment meeting and shortly thereafter he appealed his conviction on the basis of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

Today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the conviction citing, a 1970 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that " a defendant's guilty plea is voluntary if the defendant is 'fully aware of the direct consequences' when entering the plea." Not being able to buy a firearm is not a direct consequence, the Court of Appeals said. Instead, it is what's known as a "collateral consequence."

Mr. Sames claimed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that overturned a man's conviction because he was not advised that pleading guilty would result in deportation is, essentially, the same thing (I wrote about a similar case in Minnesota last May).

The claim is not without logic, the Court of Appeals said, "but the (Supreme) Court did not clearly state that the direct-collateral distinction should not be applied in cases not involving the risk of deportation. In the absence of such a statement, we are obligated to follow the precedent that binds us on that issue."

Here's the full opinion.

Comment on this post

Is a cross just a cross?

Posted at 2:03 PM on October 14, 2011 by Bob Collins (11 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Religion

By the end of the day -- maybe -- we'll know whether the Supreme Court wants to answer the question, "is this a violation of the separation of church and state?"

These are white crosses erected by a private group -- an association of state troopers from the Utah Highway Patrol -- on public land, the side of highways where officers were killed.

Of course, we see generic white crosses often where someone has died, as Nikki Tundel pointed out in her photo essay of makeshift memorials last year. If they're placed by the side of the road -- public land -- by private individuals, does that convey a government endorsement of a religion? The Supreme Court could settle that question once and for all.

The court is holding a hearing today to decide whether to accept an appeal of a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that, at least in the Utah case, ruled the practice unconstitutional.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could overturn the test -- the "reasonable observer test," as it's known -- used to decide these things: does a symbol that is widely recognized as a religious symbol promote that religion.

Would a "reasonable observer" see it as promoting, in this case, Christianity? Or simply a spot where someone probably died?

In its request for the Supreme Court to take up the case, the Utah Highway Patrol Association says the cross is meant only to communicate, "the simultaneous messages of death, honor, remembrance, gratitude, sacrifice, and safety."

But in ruling the crosses do convey government endorsement of religion, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said a cross "is not a generic symbol of death; it is a Christian symbol of death that signifies or memorializes the death of a Christian.

Comment on this post

Supreme Court explains rejection of Seward killer's age appeal

Posted at 3:02 PM on October 12, 2011 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Three weeks after Mahdi Ali was found guilty of killing three men during a failed robbery attempt at the Seward Market in Minneapolis last year, the Minnesota Supreme Court has explained why it allowed him to be tried as an adult.

The Supreme Court ruled that Ali should have been allowed to immediately appeal a Court of Appeals decision that rejected his attorney's call for the indictment against him to be thrown out based on the dispute over his age. It was a fairly unusual move last April when the Supreme Court agreed to hear Ali's appeal immediately.

The state claims that Ali was born on January 1, 1993, which would have made him 17 at the time of the killings, and eligible to be tried as an adult. Ali, however, claimed he was only 15 and should have been tried in the state's juvenile justice system instead.

Ali argued that Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman should have been required to prove Ali's age beyond a reasonsable doubt rather than merely through the preponderance of the evidence, as a district court ruled.

The Supreme Court today officially rejected the argument, noting it's fairly impossible to prove beyond all doubt, the age of people from countries that don't keep birth records. Ali was born in Kenya:

.. because the criminal defendant and the State have an equal interest in trying the defendant in the proper court, preponderance of the evidence is the proper standard of proof in determining the defendant's age for jurisdictional purposes. It is also significant that, although a defendant's age may be rarely open to debate, when it is, it is the defendant who has direct knowledge and control over the information necessary to resolve the dispute. Requiring additional procedural safeguards puts an even greater burden on the State in a situation in which it is already at a disadvantage. Indeed, it is questionable in situations in which the defendant's country of origin does not maintain birth records whether, in a case in which a defendant's age is open to question, the State could ever meet a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence.

Ali's attorney had filed papers in Hennepin County, asking for a new trial. Ali will be sentenced for his role in the killings later this month.

Here's the full opinion.

Comment on this post

Drunk driving: It's a man's world

Posted at 12:30 PM on October 4, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Centers for Disease Control says drunk driving is down. In a report released today, the CDC says a nationwide survey of adults shows 1 in 50 acknowledged driving drunk in 2010, for a total of about 112 million instances of drunk driving.

The report says most of the drunks were men, who were responsible for 4 of every 5 episodes, and men ages 21-34 were responsible for about a third of all instances, even though they make up just 11 percent of the adult population.

Guess what section of the country is the poster child for drunk drivers?

The Midwest Census region had the highest annual rate of alcohol-impaired driving episodes at 643 per 1,000 population, which was significantly higher than the rates in all other regions (Figure 2). Excluding 12 states and DC with small sample sizes and potentially unstable rates, four of the seven states with rates of alcohol-impaired driving that were significantly higher than the U.S. rate overall were in the Midwest (Table 2). The Midwest also had the highest prevalence of binge drinking at 16.5%, which was significantly higher than the prevalence in the Northeast (15.1%), West (14.3%), or South (12.6%).

This isn't surprising, considering that the upper Midwest is the biggest binge-drinking section of the country and binge drinking is responsible for a large share of the drunk driving episodes, according to the CDC.

The agency also reported that people who say they don't always use seatbelts are four times more likely to drive drunk.

Seventy-six percent of persons living in states with a primary seatbelt law (which allows police to stop drivers and ticket them solely because occupants are unbelted) reported always wearing a seatbelt, whereas 58% of their counterparts living in states with a secondary law (which only allows police to issue seat belt tickets if drivers were stopped from some other violation) or no seatbelt law (New Hampshire) reported always wearing a seatbelt.

Minnesota has a primary seat belt law, although there was an effort in the Legislature this year to repeal it.

The CDC report on lower instances of drunk driving corresponds to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's statistics for 2010, which showed a drop in drunk driving deaths in the state to the lowest number on record. Last year, 131 motorists were killed in alcohol related crashes, a 21-percent drop from 166 deaths five years ago.

But the percentage of total traffic deaths in Minnesota related to alcohol has not budged much, according to the Department of Public Safety.

One in seven current Minnesota drivers has a DWI on record, and one in 17 has two or more DWIs, according to the DPS.

Why the drop? The DPS says stronger DWI sanctions for all repeat offenders and for first-timers who blow .16 on the tests for alcohol-concentration level is part of it. "Under the new sanctions (effective since July 1), these offenders must use ignition interlock for at least a year or face at least one year without driving privileges. Interlock requires the driver to provide a breath sample in order to start the vehicle," the DPS said in a news release last month.

Comment on this post

On refusing to stand for a judge

Posted at 11:34 AM on October 3, 2011 by Bob Collins (25 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Religion

One of two Somali women charged with funneling money to a terrorist group in Somalia was taken out of a federal court in Minneapolis today because she refused to stand for the judge as the trial opened.

An attorney for Amina Farah Ali, 35, says she refused to stand on religious grounds.

This is a new experience for the justice system here, but there are several instances of this dilemma facing judges in Europe.

In 2008, Mohammed Enait refused to stand for a judge in the Netherlands because he considered all men equal. The court agreed to allow him to sit, although members of Parliament were outraged. "It can't be so that an individual with extreme ideas can tackle general manners," Sybrand van Haersma Buma.

Last year in the UK, several Muslim protesters who were accused of insulting soldiers returning from Iraq also refused to stand. They were threatened with contempt of court but the judge backed off, eventually allowing the defendants to enter after she was already in the courtroom.

The men claimed it would be a "grave and cardinal sin" to show anyone other than Allah respect by standing.

The Islam Q&A website addresses the question of whether Muslims should stand as a sign of respect:

The one who claims that there is any created being for whom one should stand out of respect have given that created being one of the rights of Allaah.

Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever likes men to stand up for him, let him take his place in Hell." Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2755); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi. That is because this is part of the might and pride that belongs only to Allaah.

In further clarifying whether it's permissible to stand as a sign of respect, the site also says it is "not permissible for the Muslim to stand out of respect for any national anthem or flag, rather this is a reprehensible innovation which was not known at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or at the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (may Allaah be pleased with them), and it is contrary to perfect Tawheed and sincere veneration of Allaah alone."

Still, when hundreds of people -- many of them Muslim people from Somalia -- took their oath to become U.S. citizens last July, everyone stood.

Comment on this post

Is an RC airplane a threat?

Posted at 4:11 PM on September 28, 2011 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A Massachusetts man has been indicted today for conspiring to blow up the Capitol and Pentagon with a radio-controlled (RC) airplane.

This should spawn a series of TV reports on the dangers of the suspiciously innocuous toy.

Someone should ask, "is this even possible?" In its indictment, the Justice Department said, "Remote controlled aircraft are capable of carrying a variety of payloads (including a lethal payload of explosives), can use a wide range of takeoff and landing environments, and fly different flight patterns than commercial airlines, thus reducing detection."

It's not a new concern, perhaps. Check out this 2004 thread on an RC forum in which a person asks what RC model of airplane could hoist the most amount of weight. By the middle of the thread, at least one participant was starting to get suspicious of why someone was asking about the payload capacity of RCs.

Prosecutors said the suspect "ordered a remote controlled aircraft. He also received from undercover agents on Tuesday C-4 explosives (or at least he thought) , six fully-automatic AK-47 assault rifles (machine guns) and grenades."

According to the indictment, the man ordered a miniature F-4 Phantom jet, and an F-86 Sabre jet, capable of carrying 25 pounds of explosives. Anyone could order one, although this particular company reports the $179 model is sold out:

But the manufacturer says the flying weight of the model is 13 pounds, thanks primarily to its very large motor.

Stuffing it full of 25 pounds of explosives? It's unlikely an aircraft whose flying weight is 13 pounds could perform well in the air at 38 pounds, if it could get off the ground at all, but maybe.

The amount of fuel it would require -- unless it was going to be launched from the front steps of the Capitol -- would need to be considerable.

Certainly, 25 pounds of C4 is a considerable blast. This is what 20 pounds would look like:

That's if the explosive were inside blowing out. Ferdaus, who majored in physics, must also have been aware that if you fly something as light as a balsa-wood RC airplane into a granite dome, it's (a) going to be bounce off and (b) if it does explode, the impact of the blast would be away from the structure in question. On 9/11, the jetliners had the mass and speed to penetrate inside the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and then explode.

In his planned attack on the Pentagon, the man allegedly intended to use only 5 pounds of C4 per plane.

In any event, there's no indication from the indictment, which is quite detailed, that Ferdaus ever did a flight test with his toy to see whether it could carry the payload he wanted to deliver. That would be a great story for an enterprising reporter who wouldn't mind getting a visit fro the FBI.

Far more serious, perhaps, than the threat posed by the RC, is what Ferdaus allegedly intended to do after the Capitol dome collapsed: storm the Capitol and shoot everyone still alive.

Comment on this post

What was in Cassie Gordon's head?

Posted at 2:16 PM on September 28, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

When Katherine "Cassie" Gordon was killed on I-394 in Golden Valley last week, it wasn't the first time she saw the business end of a police officer's gun, according to her brother.

The Star Tribune reports the woman tried to get help eight weeks earlier from Fairview Southdale Hospital after telling police the "spirit" of Satan was inside her, but the hospital, citing privacy policy, isn't saying what treatment she received, if any.

That information has gotten her brother, David Stollbrack, wondering what else was in his sister's head and when it all started to go wrong for her? He says he hadn't seen her for some time, but knew she had been troubled. Today, he says, he's been thinking about an incident following the 1972 killing of Minneapolis police officer Inno Suek, that he says his sister occasionally talked about.

"My family went on vacation over the Thanksgiving holiday. While we were away, (brothers)Michael, Johnny, and Cassie were home and a guy named Frank Gavenda committed a liquor store robbery, and killed an off-duty cop. As the search went on, they came over to my family home because he was associated with my brother, Johnny. They came to the door and knocked on the door. Cassiee came to the door and they said, 'Open the door! We're looking for Frank.'"

"She said, 'Do you have a warrant?'"

"The cop drew his pistol, banging on the glass, pointed it at her and said, 'Open the door, bitch, or I'm going to blow you away.' And you know what? I don't think that ever went away. Was that the voices in her head that wouldn't go away? The demons? She was only 18 then," he recalled.

"All I know is she was successful. Very smart, and very beautiful and when she wanted to do something, she got it done," he said.

Mr. Stollbrack says his sister had been driving back and forth between Minnesota and California. "She raised a good family," he said, noting a son is a music producer in California.

Comment on this post

The Jackson trial

Posted at 11:28 AM on September 28, 2011 by Bob Collins
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Despite our tendency to avoid all coverage of celebrity-related trials in Los Angeles, there's no way any fan of pop culture can ignore the tape that was played in the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor yesterday.

The brain can process complex things. But it will certainly struggle with the notion that this person...

... is also this person...

Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney David Walgren blamed Dr. Conrad Murray for Jackson's death, saying he abandoned "all principles of medical care" when he used the surgical anesthetic propofol to put Jackson to sleep every night for more than two months.

Revenge in the digital age

Posted at 2:03 PM on September 26, 2011 by Bob Collins (10 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A high-tech pushback is underway against the New York City police officer who pepper sprayed a group of people who were protesting in the city's financial district over the weekend.

One of the photographers who filmed the scene identified the officer by his name badge. Then the group, "Anonymous," d0x'd the officer -- seeking out personal information online and then spreading it:

As we watched your officers kettle innocent women, we observed you barberically pepper spray wildly into the group of kettled women. We were shocked and disgusted by your behavior. You know who the innocent women were, now they will have the chance to know who you are. Before you commit atrocities against innocent people, think twice. WE ARE WATCHING!!! Expect Us!

"Anonymous" provided employment data, but also provided "possible" home addresses as well as the names of "possible relatives."

This could certainly go badly.

Comment on this post

Texting laws making little difference

Posted at 8:13 AM on September 25, 2011 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

I don't text while driving. I don't have text services on my cellphone plan and I've never developed the talent to press the proper key on first try. Still, I admit to being distracted by the phone, especially when I use the GPS function. You have to push a button and you have to look at the phone. What's the difference in the danger of distraction between looking at it and pushing a few buttons when you're trying to find your destination, and looking at it and pushing a few buttons when you want to send a text? Probably not much except, perhaps, in the eyes of the law.

North Dakota's new ban on texting while driving is proving difficult to enforce, the Fargo Forum reports today, because it's too easy to say to the cop who just stopped you, "I was looking up a contact to make a phone call," which is still legal.

Minnesota is apparently finding the same difficulty in enforcing a similar law that went into effect in 2008.

Sgt. Jesse Grabow, the patrol's public information and safety officer serving the Detroit Lakes and Thief River Falls districts, said he personally has issued "maybe a dozen" tickets and probably twice as many warnings.

"There's no doubt about it; it's a difficult law to enforce, just because of the nature of (trying to) prove whether they're texting on their phone or just simply browsing through their address book to call somebody," he said.

In Clay County (Moorhead), only a few dozen tickets have been issued for texting-whilte-driving in the last three years. Statewide in North Dakota, only two tickets have been issued in the month or so since the law went into effect.

It may well be that short of banning cellphone use in cars (would that ban portable GPS use, too?), there's no legislation that's going to make a big difference.

Comment on this post

Court: There's no 'CSI Effect'

Posted at 1:11 PM on September 23, 2011 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It had to happen sooner or later. CSI, the TV show about forensics and crime, has become the center of a court case in Massachusetts.

There, The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a man was not denied a fair trial, because a judge questioned jurors about the "CSI effect," which is the assertion that because more people watch television than go to law school (apparently by a slim margin, anecdotal evidence suggests) , people have unreasonable expectations of prosecutors when it comes to the evidence presented.

The trial judge asked potential jurors whether the state "is never able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt unless it presents scientific evidence to corroborate witness testimony."

Thirty-eight people said "yes," and were excused.

Nonetheless, the SJC not only appeared to rule the man received a fair trial, but suggested that there is no CSI effect, the Boston Globe reports.

The court said that while anecdotes have circulated and the media has reported on it, there is "little empirical evidence" supporting the theory that jurors who watch forensic science TV shows such as CBS-TV's popular CSI franchise will hold prosecutors to an unreasonably high standard of proof.

But the court also said some jurisdictions allow judges to ask jurors about their views on forensic or scientific evidence. And the court noted a state appeals court decision upholding a conviction where a similar question was posed to jurors.

The high court said judges are allowed a large degree of discretion in the jury selection process and concluded that the trial judge had not abused his discretion and tilted the case toward the prosecution.

"The questions were tailored to ensure that seated jurors were capable of deciding the case without bias and based on the evidence," the court said.

In a 2008 paper, Michigan trial judge Donald Shelton revealed his study showed that jurors had expectations for real court evidence based on the TV shows they watched, but they were also better to distinguish good evidence from bad.

For all categories of evidence--both scientific and nonscientific--CSI viewers (those who watch CSI on occasion, often, or regularly) generally had higher expectations than non-CSI viewers (those who never or almost never watch the program). But, it is possible that the CSI viewers may have been better informed jurors than the non-CSI viewers. The CSI viewers had higher expectations about scientific evidence that was more likely to be relevant to a particular crime than did the non-CSI viewers. The CSI viewers also had lower expectations about evidence that was less likely to be relevant to a particular crime than did the non-CSI viewers.

The study also found that jurors were not more likely to acquit a defendant without scientific evidence being presented:

In the "every crime" scenario, CSI viewers were more likely to convict without scientific evidence if eyewitness testimony was available.

In rape cases, CSI viewers were less likely to convict if DNA evidence was not presented.

In both the breaking-and-entering and theft scenarios, CSI viewers were more likely to convict if there was victim or other testimony, but no fingerprint evidence.

Comment on this post

How to be sure the guilty are really guilty

Posted at 3:23 PM on September 19, 2011 by Bob Collins (8 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Unless something changes, Troy Davis is going to be executed on Wednesday for killing a police officer in Georgia. Seven of the nine non-police witnesses have recanted their original testimony identifying Davis as the killer.

"Police went to the scene, and they took quite a lot of witnesses -- and all of the witnesses talked to each other -- and they showed a single photo to various witnesses," recalls Barry Scheck, the co-director of The Innocence Project. "You're now in this difficult situation of asking, 'Is this a reliable case?' It's an eyewitness case and now we have this terrible doubt surrounding it."

What could have prevented it? Possibly, a witness identification procedure advocated by a group of scientists, including one at Augsburg College in Minneapolis, who officially released their study today showing that a traditional "lineup" method of identifying suspects in a crime is less reliable than a so-called "double blind" method.

Their study, first reported in the New York Times recently, found witnesses made fewer mistakes in identification if they're shown members of a lineup one at a time rather than as a group.

Dr. Gary Wells of Iowa State University, the lead researcher, said the problem with the group lineups, known as simultaneous presentation, is that witnesses tend to compare people in the lineup to each other "and to decide who looks most like the perpetrator and then they identify that person," he said.

"There's always someone who looks more like the perpetrator in the lineup than others in the lineup, even when the perpetrator isn't there," he said.

"If they look at six pictures (at once), they pretty much assume one of them is a suspect," according to Dr. Nancty Steblay of Augsburg College. "None of the six pictures looks exactly like memory, there's this subtle shift away from, 'is the culprit in the lineup?, do I see the person who robbed me?', to 'which one is closest to what I remember?' And that is usually a sound procedure if the culprit is in the lineup. What we worry about is when the culprit isn't in the lineup. Witnesses are very bad at recognizing when someone is not there."

In DNA exoneration cases, 75% of those who were exonerated after being convicted by juries, are cases involving cases of mistaken identification.

In a "double blind" lineup, the researchers said, witnesses/victims are shown photos of suspects (or so-called "filler photos) individually, and not by someone who is an investigator in the case.

It's a method used now in Hennepin and Ramsey counties. Dr. Steblay has been researching the method since the 1990s and worked with then Hennepin County district attorney Amy Klobuchar in 2004 to see if it provided more accurate identification and, hence, stronger cases.

"We didn't run a comparative test like the one released today," she said. "Amy Klobuchar had asked for volunteers just to see if it was possible for implementation to work. At the time there was a lot of worry about 'the sky will fall if we start doing something different,' or 'it will be too expensive." The question was can it be implemented, and they were implemented and ... it all went well."

"I became involved in this in the early 1990s, about the same time that these DNA exonerations began to pop and more and more we recognized that scientists have something to say about why these wrongful convictions occurred and how we can reduce the likelihood they happen in the future," she said.

Some states -- Texas for example -- are now requiring law enforcement agencies to develop a plan for ensuring that the lineup procedures used are most likely to result in an accurate identification of a suspect. Minnesota is not one of those states.

"I wish it were because Ramsey County, Hennepin County, and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension all use double-blind sequential procedures and there would be leaders in how to put together and initiate model legislation," she said.

The third researcher on her team, Dr. Jennifer Dysart of John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, was in Atlanta today, hoping to detail her findings to the Georgia board that is deciding whether Troy Davis lives or dies.

"The Pardon and Parole Board limited the defense portion today to three hours and because of the number of questions that the Board had for other witnesses, I was not permitted to testify this morning," she said.

Comment on this post

Charges in the Senser case

Posted at 3:16 PM on September 15, 2011 by Bob Collins (35 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Mike Freeman, the Hennepin County attorney, is holding a news conference this afternoon at 1:30, to discuss charges filed in the case of Amy Senser, who has acknowledged driving the SUV that struck and killed Anousone Phanthavong in August.

update 11:39 a.m. - Star Tribune reports Senser will be charged with criminal vehicular operation.

I'm outside the Hennepin County Government Center where County Attorney Mike Freeman is holding a news conference (1:30 p.m.) and the charges will be detailed. Feel free to comment and ask questions.

There's been an ongoing discussion about why it's taken so long for charges to be filed and the role of "high-priced lawyers" in the case going on here (I'll turn the comments off on that post at 1:30 and things will move over to this page).

TIMETABLE OF THE CASE

Here's the timetable of the events leading up to today's charges:

Tues. August 23 - Anousone Phanthavong, 38, of Roseville, is run over while filling his car with gasoline on the ramp from westbound Interstate 94 to Riverside Avenue.

Wes Aug 24 - Attorney for Senser family contacts State Patrol and turns over car (SUV) involved. Does not indicate who was driving.

Thurs. Sep 1 - Fox 9 breaks story that vehicle belonged to Joe Senser.

Friday Sept 2 - Amy Senser is identified as the driver of the vehicle in a statement released by the family lawyer.

Tues. Sept 5 - Family files civil suit against Senser.

Wed. Sept 14 - Medical examiner lists official cause of death.

Thurs. Sept 15 - Mrs. Senser is charged with criminal vehicular homicide.

WHAT IS VEHICULAR HOMCIDE?

Here is the Minnesota statute:

.Criminal vehicular homicide or operation; crime described.

A person is guilty of criminal vehicular homicide or operation and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 1a, if the person causes injury to or the death of another as a result of operating a motor vehicle:

(1) in a grossly negligent manner;

(2) in a negligent manner while under the influence of:

(i) alcohol;

(ii) a controlled substance; or

(iii) any combination of those elements;

(3) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more;

(4) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, as measured within two hours of the time of driving;

(5) in a negligent manner while knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance;

(6) in a negligent manner while any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body;

(7) where the driver who causes the accident leaves the scene of the accident in violation of section 169.09, subdivision 1 or 6; or

(8) where the driver had actual knowledge that a peace officer had previously issued a citation or warning that the motor vehicle was defectively maintained, the driver had actual knowledge that remedial action was not taken, the driver had reason to know that the defect created a present danger to others, and the injury or death was caused by the defective maintenance.
Subd. 1a.Criminal penalties.

(a) A person who violates subdivision 1 and causes the death of a human being not constituting murder or manslaughter or the death of an unborn child may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.

(b) A person who violates subdivision 1 and causes great bodily harm to another not constituting attempted murder or assault or great bodily harm to an unborn child who is subsequently born alive may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

(c) A person who violates subdivision 1 and causes substantial bodily harm to another may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

(d) A person who violates subdivision 1 and causes bodily harm to another may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
Subd. 1b.Conviction not bar to punishment for other crimes.

A prosecution for or a conviction of a crime under this section relating to causing death or injury to an unborn child is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct.
Subd. 2.

[Repealed, 2007 c 54 art 3 s 15]
Subd. 4a.Affirmative defense.

It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge under subdivision 1, clause (6), that the defendant used the controlled substance according to the terms of a prescription issued for the defendant in accordance with sections 152.11 and 152.12.
Subd. 5.Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the terms defined in this subdivision have the meanings given them.

(a) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning given in section 609.52, subdivision 1, and includes attached trailers.

(b) "Controlled substance" has the meaning given in section 152.01, subdivision 4.

(c) "Hazardous substance" means any chemical or chemical compound that is listed as a hazardous substance in rules adopted under chapter 182.

Comment on this post

NY v. 9/11 families

Posted at 10:45 AM on September 14, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Now that the 10th anniversary commemorations at the World Trade Center site are over, many families of the victims of the attack are back trying to settle a dispute that has raged in one fashion or another since: What to do with the remains of their loved ones.

Years ago, for example, I wrote about one of the original insults the families felt they'd suffered: the harboring of the remains at a city dump.

Now, they're protesting the intention to put the unidentified remains in the 9/11 Museum.

"No other memorial would give the indignity of putting human remains in the basement of a private museum," said Sally Regenhard, whose son Christian was a firefighter and died in the attacks.

"In 2002 we were told by the mayor and everyone else that the remains were going to be separate and distinct from any museum or any visitor center," said Deputy Chief Jim Riches, a retired firefighter who lost his son Jimmy, 29, also a member of the FDNY, in the North Tower. "I guess they lied to us because In 2009 we found out that they intended to put them seven stories below grade in a museum where they're going to charge $20."

The families want an above-ground tomb that is available to them at any hour, not for $20 when the museum is open.

They'd like to tell other families about the plan, but the City of New York refuses to give them the names and addresses of next-of-kin of 9/11 victims.

A hearing on a lawsuit they've filed is being heard in New York this morning.

Comment on this post

The Senser case

Posted at 4:37 PM on September 13, 2011 by Bob Collins (8 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

I couldn't figure out why this post -- the Lynch mob mentality -- was suddenly attracting comments again, 10 days after it was first posted in this space.

The column suggested that the legal system be allowed to work -- or prove it can't -- in the tragic case of Anousone Phanthavong, who was struck and killed by an SUV we now know was being driven by the wife of former Minnesota Viking Joe Senser (the original post was written when the twitterverse assumed it was Mr. Senser).

The mystery was solved when I saw City Pages posted an interesting story about an op-ed from Anna Prasomphol, owner of a restaurant where Mr. Phanthavong worked.

For her part, Prasomphol is sick of local media taking the point of view of the Sensers, and not the Phanthavongs. She writes that coverage has been from that perspective since the Sensers admitted it was Joe Senser's Mercedes SUV, driven by Amy, that killed Phanthavong.

In her piece, which you can find here, Ms. Prasomphol says...

But I do not think the local news media cares about Ped's side of the story. Gail Rosenblum's column does not allow people to leave comments. You can leave a comment at Bob Collin's (sic) MPR News Cut blog, but if you defend Ped, he will argue with you in the comments.

I can surely understand Ms. Prasomphol's pain. Who couldn't?

But my "arguments" have nothing to do with defending Mrs. Senser nor failing to understand the position of the family of Mr. Phanthavong. My post and subsequent comments were strictly on behalf of the investigatory process and, ultimately, the judicial process.

What we don't know yet are the details surrounding that acknowledgement. Clearly one side believes it's unmistakable to have known she hit a man. The other side would appear to be positioning for a defense she didn't. That's was investigations and -- if necessary -- subsequent trials are for.

I get that it's not popular. There are certain constitutional protections that are guaranteed to people, even the ones who may be detestable to some people. Extending those protections to the popular isn't where the strength of the constitution comes from.

"There's the notion that someone else, whoever else that would be, a normal citizen, would be in jail right now," Eric Roeske of the Minnesota State Patrol told MPR's Tim Nelson last week. "We're not focused on putting someone in jail right now. We're focused on gathering evidence for a criminal conviction. And if it takes a couple of weeks to do that, we recognize that it's just going to take that long. We don't want put together a shoddy case and rush through something."

In journalism, there are only 6 elements to any story: Who, what, why, when, where, and how. Whatever action is eventually taken against Mrs. Senser will depend on the "why," the one question for which we do not yet have an answer. In the absence of an answer to any of those questions, we're not ethically licensed to make them up.

Anyone who's not a journalist, is under no such restriction.

Comment on this post

Judge: Horn-honking is not protected speech

Posted at 11:56 AM on September 12, 2011 by Bob Collins (10 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

This just in from Wisconsin: You have no constitutional right to honk your horn.

As with everything in Wisconsin that doesn't stem from the Packers, this stems from Gov. Scott Walker's move last spring to limit the collective bargaining rights of some public employees, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Azael Brodhead, a 35-year old Iraq war veteran who works for the Department of Corrections, regularly drove by the governor's house, honked his horn, stuck his middle finger up (in Packerland, that means "we're number one." Outside of the governor's house, it means something different), and shouted "recall Walker."

State troopers assigned to the governor eventually gave him a ticket and last week he lost his court case, where he argued a First Amendment right.

A judge said she could find no precedent declaring horn honking to be protected speech (Note to judge: I don't think that necessarily precludes you from making one).

Now, the the paper reports, his state employers are trying to determine if he should be disciplined.

But supervisors in his office have initiated an internal investigation to see if he violated workplace rules with his actions. In particular, Brodhead said, they are trying to determine whether he should be disciplined for being abusive toward state troopers when he was pulled over. He has contacted his public employees union to represent him in the matter.

"I'm sure this was politically motivated," Brodhead said.

In fact, the police summary of the incident does accuse Brodhead of using repeated profanities, such as saying the troopers protected the "piece of (expletive) governor" or saying "your boss is a (expletive) (expletive)." The trooper also quoted Brodhead as directing strong language at the police, calling them "(expletive) cops" and more.

Comment on this post

The Mall of America's surveillance society

Posted at 11:57 AM on September 7, 2011 by Bob Collins (9 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

This is the kind of suspicious activity that can get you an interview with the FBI. The video was shot from the parking ramp at the Mall of America.

The Center for Investigative Reporting has pulled the curtain back from the world of counterterrorism at the Mall of America.

Their story, which is posted on its website and airs on NPR this afternoon, says many Mall of America visitors have ended up in counterterror reports without their knowledge, after private security officers interviewed them.

The report raises the possibility that the mall guards are using racial and ethnic profiling, a charge the mall denies.

In some cases, the questioning appears to have the hallmarks of profiling - something that officials at the mall deny. In nearly two-thirds of the cases reviewed, subjects are described as African American, people of Asian and Arabic descent, and other minorities, according to an analysis of the documents.

Mall spokesman Dan Jasper said the private security guards would not conduct interviews based on racial or ethnic characteristics because "we may miss someone who truly does have harmful intent."

A mall spokesman, however, acknowledged to the reporters that the guards' activities "may infringe on freedoms."

"We're charged with trying to keep people safe. We're trying to do it the best way we can. You may be questioned at the Mall of America about suspicious activity. It's something that may happen. It's part of today's society," mall spokesman Dan Jasper said in a statement.

Here's an example of a report that ended up in the hands of law enforcement. The suspicious behavior? The man took pictures inside the mall.

"For all the 30 years that I have lived in the United States, I've never been a suspect," said Emil Khalil of California. After being questioned for taking pictures, the FBI stopped him and his brother at the airport for more questioning.

Another man, an Army veteran, was "caught" videotaping in the mall. He was questioned for two hours, the report said.

(Francis) Van Asten said it was not clear to him at the time why he was stopped. After all, he was told nothing prohibited him from taking photographs or footage of the mall. But the mall's guards still called Bloomington police, and they alerted the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. Van Asten was given a pat-down search, and the FBI demanded that his memory card be confiscated "for further analysis."

Exhausted and rattled, Van Asten had trouble finding his car after the ordeal was over.

"I sat down in my car and I cried, and I was shaking like a leaf," Van Asten said in an interview at his home. "That kind of sensation doesn't leave you real quickly when you've had an experience like that."

Another person was questioned because he was writing in a notebook while waiting for his lunch date.

"Before the male would write in his notebook, it appeared as though he would look at his watch. Periodically, the male would briefly look up from his notebook, look around, and then continue writing," the security guards' report said.

Subsequently, he was photographed, his information recorded, and he ended up in a police report as a person of interest.

"Everybody that lives in this country," one mall visitor said, "is a person of interest as far as these reports are concerned."

There's no indication that any terrorist activity has been uncovered at the mall.

Ever been questioned at the Mall of America? Tell me about it below.

Comment on this post

Caught in the middle of Rice County child protection case

Posted at 3:34 PM on September 6, 2011 by Bob Collins (9 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Health

A heartbreaking case in Rice County is a compelling example of how a child can get caught in a tug-of-war in the child protection system in Minnesota.

Today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that a juvenile court and the county coerced parents of a child apparently in need of mental health treatment to admit that the need for intervention "are (is) due to deficiencies in their parenting."

The story starts in November 2010 when the teenager ran away from home. Police brought him home but the police officer thought he'd be at risk there, so he was placed on a 72-hour emergency "hold." Rice County, through a social worker, petitioned the juvenile court to determine that he was a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS).

At a hearing last winter, a juvenile court judge told the parents, "If you want to admit that your son has special care needs and you're unable to provide those, that is not saying that you're not a good parent. That's saying (the child) has special care need and you're not ... the Mayo Clinic and you're not a psychiatrist ..."

"I am a damn good mother," the woman insisted.

The parents admitted to the petition for services, believing their son would be placed at Gerard Academy, a residential treatment facility, at county expense. Instead, their child was put in foster care. The county, according to the Appeals Court, then claimed the placement "was necessary to keep him safe from his parents."

The parents tried to withdraw their petition, but a court refused.

In a decision today, Appeals Court Judge Terri J. Stoneburner suggested the county was threatening to withhold any services unless the parents admitted to the petition, writing that "a threat to act in a manner that is not in a child's best interests constitutes a manifest injustice" in ordering the decision overturned.

In a dissent, however, Appeals Court Judge Heidi S. Schellhas said the father of the child had been charged with physical abuse and that the parents had previously told Rice County "they did not want him back in their home." And that the teen didn't want to return home after running away because he was afraid of punishment.

She said the juvenile court was clear that the parents would not be able to dictate the services their child would get once they signed the paperwork, and that the parents were free to place their child in a treatment program of their choice at their own expense instead.

"The district court considered all of the parents' argument in connection with their motions to withdraw their admission, and, in my opinion, properly rejected their arguments and denied their motions," she said.

The case settles who won the right to withdraw the petition for services. What it doesn't clear up is what happens to the teenager caught in the middle. I've placed calls to his public defender for clarification.

Find the entire opinion here.

Comment on this post

Journalism and the lynch mob mentality

Posted at 10:53 AM on September 2, 2011 by Bob Collins (38 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Media

I've never been a big fan of the policies in some Twin Cities newsrooms -- including ours -- of (generally) not naming suspects in criminal cases until charges are actually filed. It's not that I don't agree that doing so may lead to the destruction of reputations when facts aren't known, it's that the policies -- generally -- are filled with hypocrisy. The news that broke yesterday that an SUV owned by former Vikings player and broadcaster Joe Senser was involved in the hit-and-run death of a man is a sadly perfect example.

When charges are filed, charging documents are usually released to the public, giving us more facts to provide a somewhat more credible picture of what happened. But there's nothing in the journalist's book of ethics that says these are the ones you extend to average people, and these are the ones you extend to famous people -- whether they're white and rich or not.

Why? Because ethics don't work that way; you either have them or you don't. "Everyone else is doing it" has always been a poor foundation for a good argument. The entire philosophy of fairness depends on an equal application.

What we do know, based on some digging by reporters, is that the SUV is probably the one that killed Anousone Phanthavong and that it is owned by Joe Senser.

On Twitter this morning -- and other media, too -- it doesn't matter what we don't know.

Meanwhile, the Star Tribune is already running a poll saying Senser's is a moral dilemma, even though we don't know exactly what dilemma that is. No matter. Seventy-five percent say they'd turn in a family member involved in a hit-and-run. Good to know, but it doesn't really tell us what's going on here. It only implies that the Sensers are actively engaged in stonewalling an investigation. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. Certainly, we don't know.

There's nothing wrong with speculation per se. I do it all the time when writing about aviation incidents. But we have a responsibility to be informed and connect dots that are facts. We're not doing that here and we in the news media are willing accomplices by pretending all of the reasons for protecting the identity of someone who hasn't been charged with a crime don't also exist here.

We don't know that Senser and his family are getting preferential treatment. We don't have any evidence that investigators are cutting him a break because he's rich and/or white. We don't know who was driving. We don't know why they didn't stop. We don't know what the advice of their attorney is, although it's worth pointing out that the attorney contacted the State Patrol.

What we do know is that investigators in these parts have a good track record of figuring out why someone ends up dead. The rest is up to a jury that, hopefully, isn't on Twitter today.

The Senser family promises a statement "in a day or two," and perhaps then we'll have a clearer picture of what's going on here. In the meantime, reality will be created by the dribs and drabs of information from people who have an interest in the reality dribs and drabs of information create.

Update 3:18 p.m. - The attorney for the Senser family reports the SUV was driven by Amy Senser, Joe Senser's wife.

Update 5:04 p.m. - Here, for background, is MPR's policy:

In cases where law enforcement officials arrest or otherwise detain an individual without charging that person with a crime, MPR News may name such individuals in its reports. It will be up to the News Director or editor(s) overseeing the story to determine whether the situation warrants naming the suspect. Editors should consider whether MPR's naming of an uncharged suspect will do irreparable harm to the suspect's reputation if authorities decide not to charge and whether the public's right to be informed is worth taking that risk.

In cases where a decision to name an uncharged suspect is made it is incumbent on MPR News to provide as much context as possible to let the audience determine whether an arrest was justified. Such context must include the fact that charges have not been filed, an explanation of why not, and how long the law enforcement agency can legally detain the suspect. and like any story, mpr news will make every effort to contact principles in the story. Stories should also include any information about evidence implicating the suspect or any other information that will allow the audience evaluate the validity of an arrest. and finally, if MPR News produces a story about a suspect's dentention or arrest without charges, it is committed to giving similar coverage in the event the suspect is released.

Comment on this post

Is Dominique Strauss-Kahn owed an apology?

Posted at 12:48 PM on August 24, 2011 by Michael Olson (8 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A New York judge yesterday dismissed the rape charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, He is free to return to France. This comes after he was forced to give up his job leading the International Monetary Fund. The allegations brought against him are likely to complicate his chances to win the French presidency.

Columnists including Janis Turner of The Times were quick to jump on Strauss-Kahn as the allegations emerged.

If an apology is due, Fox News' Lis Wiehl says it shouldn't come from the prosecutors.

Did the prosecutors do the right thing in arresting DSK, and taking the evidence to a grand jury? Absolutely. They had a complaining victim with a compelling story, physical evidence of a sexual encounter, and a possible rapist about to board a plane for France. They had to act fast and ask more questions later. And the grand jury found the evidence convincing enough to meet the lower standard of probable cause, and to issue the charges.

James Cohen, a professor of law at Fordham University, tells BBC News, "The system is supposed to get it right and it did get it right. There was a charge made and no reason not to accept it. The defense raised the consensual sexual encounter issue, the [district attorney] investigated the background of the victim and found she had credibility issues. ... So it's not a perfect process, but it worked as it's supposed to."

Tracy Clark-Flory examined the case against dismissal in Slate.

Jaclyn Friedman, author of "Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape," says the major problem here is "the way the adversarial justice system works," she told me by phone. "Prosecutors only like to bring to trial cases they feel they can win, which makes them reluctant to bring difficult cases, which usually works against anyone alleging rape." As a result, that "sends the cultural message that most rape victims are lying, which makes it even harder to convince a jury because we're all jurists."

The system is imperfect writes U.S. News' Susan Milligan.

Sexual assault is the one crime in which the victim is as much on trial as the alleged attacker, and Diallo learned this lesson about U.S. jurisprudence the hard way. Strauss-Kahn got his own unfortunate lesson as well about the criminal justice system here, the perp walk and media frenzy surrounding his arrest were appalling and prejudicial. But while Strauss-Kahn was indeed unfairly treated in that manner, that doesn't mean he didn't attack anyone.

Comment on this post

Poverty and riots

Posted at 2:15 PM on August 16, 2011 by Michael Olson (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

"These riots were not about poverty" -- Prime Minister David Cameron.

Unequivocal statements like Cameron's implore journalists to dig deeper.

It is striking when you look at the data to see the poverty rate of the neighborhoods in the UK where people were arrested for looting and riot-related activities.

The Guardian found:

• The majority of areas where suspects live are deprived - and 66% of them got poorer between 2007 and 2010, when the last survey was published
• 41% of suspects live in the 10% most deprived places in England

Poverty and riots are complex matters that shouldn't be viewed through the lens of a data map alone. But interacting with the Guardian's data map here provides another opportunity to think deeply about what unfolded on the other side of the Atlantic last week.

Comment on this post

Social shaming

Posted at 3:18 PM on August 11, 2011 by Bob Collins (9 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Tech

Talk about swift justice. Manchester police have not only already gotten convictions of people arrested in this week's riots in the UK, they're also using Twitter to publicly shame them.

Check out the punishments being handed out. Four months for stealing a violin. Four months for swearing...

The constabulary is also using Flickr to try to identify people who may have also been involved in the rioting. They plan to use facial recognition software in the effort.

And the police organization's Facebook page is being used for people to provide tips about the rioters.

So far, it's going over big with the masses...

Would this idea work here?

Comment on this post

Rioter: 'I'm getting my taxes back'

Posted at 10:43 AM on August 9, 2011 by Bob Collins (11 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

SkyNews' Mark Stone challenged looters in London to explain why they were rioting and found that just about any behavior can be excused by making it about taxes.

Reality, of course, is different. This 89-year-old barber didn't collect any taxes from the people who destroyed his store and livelihood. And what on earth would you loot from a barber shop? Shaving cream?

Find more pictures at the Boston Globe's Big Picture blog.

Comment on this post

Social networking and the hoodlum

Posted at 2:08 PM on August 8, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Tech

Twitter may have had a role to play in the rioting in looting that took place over the weekend in London, some officials say.

Last night, police battled rioters and looters in several areas of London after a man was shot and killed by police in the northern suburb of Tottenham.

"The police are ahead of the curve in information technology and would have experience of the use of social- networking sites by troublemakers," Steve O'Connell, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, which monitors London's Metropolitan Police Service, told Bloomberg News. "The bad guys were using these sites to target areas quickly. Small bands of ne'er-do- wells were descending on high-quality stores to loot."

Where would ne'er-do-wellers learn such a thing?

Maybe in the USA.

Since late last spring, Chicago authorities, for example, have been trying to combat flash mobs of crooks and thugs who've used social networking to coordinate their attacks and stay one step ahead of the cops.

Today, the mayor of Philadelphia warned parents that they'd be held responsible for the flash mob ne'er-do-welling by their kids.

"It is your responsibility to know where they are, what they are doing and who they are with. They are your children. You need to raise them. You are responsible for them," Mayor Michael Nutter said while announcing a curfew for kids.

He said parents who are called to pick up a child breaking curfew will be issued a warning on the first occasion. On subsequent violations, fines can increase to $500.

"The fascinating thing about technology is that once we open the door, it's going to move in ways that we can't always predict and are slow to control, because we are reacting rather than [being] proactive," Scott Decker, a criminal justice professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, told the Christian Science Monitor.

Comment on this post

Tuffy v. Bruno

Posted at 11:40 AM on August 8, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

You're walking your small dog, Tuffy, down the street when a dog named Bruno runs out of a house, picks up Tuffy in his jaws and won't let go. While you try to free Tuffy, you fall and break your hip.

Are Tuffy's owners liable for damages?

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled a definite "maybe" today when it reinstated a case a district court threw out. Gordon Anderson, Tuffy's owner, sued Dennis Christopherson and his son, who were in charge of Bruno

In throwing the case out, a District Court ruled that Minnesota law shields a dog owner from liability if the dog isn't focused on the person who was injured. In this case, the lower court said, Bruno was only interested in hurting Tuffy, not Tuffy's owner.

The state law reads:

If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained.

The Court of Appeals, however, cited a Minnesota Supreme Court case in which a nine-year old boy was killed when a dog riding in a car distracted a driver, who ran off the road, killing him. In that case -- Lewellin v. Huber -- the high court overruled a lower court that ruled the dog's owners were liable for the boy's death. But the Supreme Court declined to address the issue of whether actual physical contact between the dog and an injured person is required for the statute above to apply.

In Tuffy v. Bruno (actually called Anderson v. Christopherson), the Court of Appeals said only a jury can answer the question. "It is possible that a jury could conclude that (Tuffy's owner's) decision to intervene in a dog fight interrupted the chain of causation wuch that his injury was not a direct and immediate result of Bruno's action," the court said.

Here's the full opinion.

Comment on this post

The crimes on Danziger Bridge

Posted at 11:29 AM on August 5, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A federal jury in New Orleans is about to reveal its verdict in the trial of five current or former police officers who opened fire on unarmed people on the Danziger Bridge in New Orleans at the height of the post-Katrina agony in the city.

All five are charged with participating in a cover-up that prosecutors say included a planted gun, falsified reports and fabricated witnesses.

It's tempting to recite the old cliche, "it's not the crime, it's the coverup." But as this late June Frontline investigation showed, it is the crime.

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

Update 12:15 p.m. -- (AP) - A federal jury on Friday convicted five
current or former police officers in the deadly shootings on a New
Orleans bridge after Hurricane Katrina.

Comment on this post

Bridge memorial defaced

Posted at 12:02 PM on August 3, 2011 by Bob Collins (23 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The I-35W bridge disaster memorial in Minneapolis was a lovely tribute to the people who died in the collapse four years ago.

It's a pity it took only a few hours for vandals to deface it.

The Star Tribune reports someone stole two-dozen stainless steel (pricey stuff) letters from the memorial, including the names of those who died in the 2007 disaster.

All the letters and names are now being removed until the memorial can be repaired.

Company policy prevents me from actually writing the last sentence of this post. But there's nothing that says you can't.

Update 3:15 p.m. - The press release from the city of Minneapolis:

Minneapolis police this morning responded to an incident of vandalism at the new Remembrance Garden dedicated to the victims and survivors of the I-35W Bridge collapse. The memorial, which was dedicated on Aug. 1, features a "survivor wall," which includes the names of collapse survivors and a message. Vandals removed 22 letters from the message.

Mayor R.T. Rybak said, "When the bridge collapsed and people were suffering, hundred of thousands of Minnesotans surrounded them with compassion. Now one or more individuals, through a single act of remarkable ignorance, are prolonging that suffering. That can change: I call on those responsible to immediately return the stolen letters. It's beyond description how wrong this act is, but it does not change the thousands of acts of compassion and support that this community has shown."

Police are investigating the vandalism, and in the meantime, the remaining letters are being removed from the wall until new ones can be installed. It is expected that it will be approximately two weeks before the new letters are in place.

Anyone with information on this act of vandalism is asked to call the police department's First Precinct at (612) 673-5701 and ask for the property crimes division.

The message on the survivor wall was crafted by survivors and the loved ones of those who were lost. It reads, "Our lives are not only defined by what happens, but by how we act in the fact of it, not only by what life brings us, but by what we bring to life. Selfless actions and compassion create enduring community out of tragic events."

Whoever I
However I
Viewer Ho
Viewer Oh
Review Ho
Review Oh
Rewove Hi
Heir Wove
Hire Wove
Hive Wore
Hero Wive
Hero View
Hoer Wive
Hoer View
Whore Vie
Hove Wire
Hove Weir
Hew Vireo
Here I Vow
Ere Hi Vow
Veer Hi Ow
Veer Who I
Veer How I
Ever Hi Ow
Ever Who I
Ever How I
Eve Hi Row
He Ire Vow
He Rive Ow
He Vie Row
He Wive Or
He View Or
Eh Ire Vow
Eh Rive Ow
Eh Vie Row
Eh Wive Or
Eh View Or
Hie Re Vow
Hie Rev Ow
Hive Re Ow
Hive We Or
Hover We I
Her Vie Ow
Her Wove I
Hew Vie Or
Hew Rove I
Hew Over I
Rive We Ho
Rive We Oh
Vie Re Who
Vie Re How
Vie We Rho
Wive Re Ho
Wive Re Oh
View Re Ho
View Re Oh
Rove We Hi
Over We Hi
Wove Re Hi
Woe Rev Hi
Owe Rev Hi
He Re I Vow
He Rev I Ow
Eh Re I Vow
Eh Rev I Ow
Rev We Ho I
Rev We Oh I

I'm thinking the perpetrators weren't trying to make some statement here.

Comment on this post

Lottery math made easy

Posted at 11:13 AM on August 3, 2011 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

If I were a math teacher -- a statistical impossibility, by the way -- I would ask the class today:

"If a lottery game required you to pick all six numbers and the odds of winning are 1 in 9,366,819, how many $2 lottery tickets would you have to buy to make a profit if the jackpot was $2 million or more and the rules say if nobody gets all six numbers, the pool goes to ticketholders who picked four or five numbers?"

While they struggled with the answer, I would read more of the Boston Globe article that details why the lottery in that state is now limiting stores to selling no more than $5,000 worth of the lottery tickets in a single day.

And I'd silently pray that none of the kids asked me how I came up with the answer.

Comment on this post

Why do cops hate cameras?

Posted at 2:22 PM on August 1, 2011 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Media

Yet another case of police ordering someone to stop videotaping them has surfaced. This happened Friday on Long Island, according to Poynter.org.

The problem here is the law give the police broad authority to define what constitutes "obstruction," for example. In this case, obstruction appears to be the fact the police couldn't do their job because an open society was making it an impossible task.

The person being threatened with arrest in this case was a member of the media. But there are more cases of this now, of course, because just about everyone has a video camera with them all the time.

"We are reviewing the circumstances surrounding the arrest," a police spokesman told the Long Island Press.

update 4:46 p.m. Poynter updates to include this letter from Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association:

According to news reports Mr. Datz complied with your officer's unreasonable request to move away from the scene while the general public was allowed access. In the video - uploaded to YouTube -- your officer acts in an angry and unprofessional manner and appears to have no concept of the first amendment rights granted to the press under the United States and New York Constitutions. Although Mr. Datz contacted your PIO officer your department was unable to do anything to rectify the situation.

...While in some situations the press may have no greater rights than those of the general public, they certainly have no less right of access on a public street, especially where a crime scene perimeter has not been clearly established.

Comment on this post

Court: School board shouldn't have spent money campaigning for referendum passage

Posted at 12:17 PM on August 1, 2011 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Schools

There's a chance you might see fewer of those "newsletters" that school boards send to taxpayers when they're trying to get voter approval for an increase in school spending.

School boards can spend money to inform voters about issues, but it's a fine line between providing information and politicking. Today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals sided with a complaint from the mayor of Tower, Minnesota, that the St. Louis County School Board crossed the line in 2009 when it distributed newsletters about an upcoming bond referendum.

The newsletters contained assertions, such as this:

If residents vote no, their taxes will most likely still increase -- in some cases, by a large amount. That's because if the plan is not approved, the school district would enter into "statutory operating debt" by June 2011, which means the State of Minnesota recognizes that the school district can no longer balance its expenditures and revenues, and would need to dissolve. Children in this school district would then go to neighboring school districts.

The Appeals Court backed a voters group, which asserted the school board intentionally distributed statements in its "educational material" that it knew were false.

The court also ruled that a school board and its members constitute "a committee," and are required to reveal political disbursements under the state's campaign finance laws. It also ruled that using taxpayer money to campaign for passage of a referendum was not authorized.

In making its ruling today -- a full copy of which is here -- the Court of Appeals overturned an administrative law judge (the original ruling is here).

The $78.8 million referendum passed on a 51-to-49 percent vote. It authorized spending the money on two new schools, the remodeling of the Cherry and Babbitt-Embarrass schools and changing the Tower-Soudan School to K-6.

Comment on this post

Bradlee Dean's revenge

Posted at 12:44 PM on July 27, 2011 by Bob Collins (12 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Bradlee Dean (whose real name is Bradlee Dean Smith), the controversial pastor who runs a "ministry" called "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International," is suing MSNBC talk host Rachel Maddow and a Twin Cities writer for defamation.

You may recall Dean/Smith from his May appearance at the Minnesota House of Representatives, when he gave a controversial prayer before a session in which a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was to be debated.

Dean is suing Maddow because he says she disparaged his name and appearance in an August 2010 broadcast:

According to a statement posted on his website:

The $50 million suit, announced at a news conference in Manhattan, claims MSNBC and Andy Birkey of the Minnesota Independent, took his comments out of context In the course of his ministry, Dean once made a statement on radio criticizing his fellow Christians for not taking a stronger stand about the gay rights lobby promoting homosexuality in the schools. He made a strong reference to Muslims taking the issue more seriously in the context of Shariah law, but did not condone their practices. It was Bradlee's intent to focus attention on the issue, not to advocate harm to anyone.

Despite the very clear disclaimer by Bradlee Dean on his ministry's website and elsewhere regarding the false accusation that he was calling for the execution of homosexuals, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and others seized on and accused Dean on her show of supporting the killing of homosexuals, as is the practice in some radical Islamic countries. This seriously has harmed Dean and the ministry, who pride themselves on respect and love for all people.

In a May 2010 column, the Minnesota Independent's Birkey quoted Dean's (Smith's) statements on his radio show:

Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America," Dean said on YCR's May 15 radio show on AM 1280 the Patriot. "This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination."

"If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that," Dean continued. "That is what you are seeing in America."

"The bottom line is this... they [homosexuals] play the victim when they are, in fact, the predator," Dean said, before going on to make a claim that has no basis in fact: "On average, they molest 117 people before they're found out. How many kids have been destroyed, how many adults have been destroyed because of crimes against nature?"

Dean (Smith) has been no shrinking violet on the issue. He posted a YouTube video responding to Rachel Maddow's August 2010 show, which is now the target of his suit.

The pastor says the targets of his lawsuit are using his comments to hurt the presidential aspirations of Michele Bachmann, the complaint said:

Comment on this post

Norway searches for a punishment to fit the crime

Posted at 11:23 AM on July 25, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Anders Behring Breivik , the Norwegian terrorist, made his first court appearance in Oslo today, indicating he expects to spend the rest of his life in prison.

Theoretically, the "rest of his life" can be defined as 16 years.

That was the most shocking -- to me -- nugget that came out of Scott Simon's interview on Saturday with Halvard Sandberg, a reporter for the Norwegian broadcasting corporation.

"This person, he will be convicted," Sandberg said. "with the harshest penalty we can give him, which is 21 years. That means he is out after 16 years. He might be out after 14 years. He might be a free man. And he killed so many. We don't have laws that can lay out a penalty for what he has done."

Sandberg says that's the biggest topic of conversation in Norway right now.

The Associated Press reports that it might be possible for Norway to continue to incarcerate the man behind Friday's attacks by declaring him a threat to society.

Comment on this post

Norway's terrorist is a Norwegian

Posted at 11:26 PM on July 22, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

There's a suspect in the horrible shootings on Norway's Utoeya island in which at least 80 people are said to have been killed. He's not an Islamic militant (the stereotype of the terrorist as portrayed by the early speculation); he's a Norwegian Christian.

Anders Behring Breivik, 32, reportedly acted alone in the shooting and the earlier bombing in Oslo.

He's got a Twitter account with one tweet he made last week:

For some reason, 518 people are following Breivik on Twitter.

Mashable says the man also had a Facebook page, but it's been removed:

In Breivik's Facebook account, now removed, the suspect identifies himself as a Christian conservative. However, that was far from his only interest. Breivik also listed himself as a fan of World of Warcraft, Modern Warfare 2, bodybuilding and stock analysis. The account, which appeared to have only been started last week, was mostly filled with music videos. Breivik, who listed himself as single, said he had completed "3,000 hours of study in micro and macro finance, religion."

Reuters says the man's arrest may signal new fears that right-wing extremists will be a growing threat in Europe:

"If true this would be pretty significant - such a far-right attack in Europe, and certainly Scandinavia, would be unprecedented," said Hagai Segal, a security specialist at New York University in London.

"It would be the European/Scandinavian equivalent of Oklahoma City - an attack by a individual (with extremist anti-government views, linked to certain groups) aimed at the government by attacking its buildings/institutions."

Prior to the 9/11 attacks nearly 10 years ago, the threat of domestic extremist groups was the number-one security concern in the United States, too. Terrorism can be its most terrifying when the perpetrator looks like you.

Comment on this post

Netflix price hike an attempt to move further away from DVDs

Posted at 9:00 AM on July 13, 2011 by Jon Gordon (23 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Those tap-tap-tap noises you hear are DVD coffin nails. Netflix is trying like mad to get out of the DVD business.

Peter Kafka of All Things D nails it:

Even though the majority of Netflix's 24 million subscribers are still paying it to get DVDs by mail, Reed Hastings and company see themselves as Internet guys, not putting-discs-in-envelopes guys.

Now they're making it even more clear, by raising the prices in a way that makes it much more expensive to get both Web streaming and DVDs from the service.

(deletia)

Netflix explains the rationale for the price hike in a blog post, but the short version is that it would like its DVD customers to move to the Web, or pay up. Doing so helps it cut down on discs costs and/or generate more money to help buy digital titles, which are only going to get more expensive.

Are you willing to ditch DVDs? Have you moved away from them already?

Comment on this post

Computer security war "can't be won"

Posted at 11:00 AM on July 13, 2011 by Jon Gordon (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Tech, War

A Blaine man who hijacked his neighbor's Wi-fi and then made threats to Joe Biden and distributed child pornography using his victim's identity has been sentenced to 18 years in prison. It's just one more nasty incident -- albeit a very small one -- in the long war between forces of good and evil online. And it's a war that cannot be won, according to a prominent security expert.

Anti-virus pioneer Evgeny Kaspersky tells Der Spiegel about his fear of a worse fights ahead. Excerpt:

SPIEGEL: You and your company are the winners of a new era in warfare.

Kaspersky: No, because this war can't be won; it only has perpetrators and victims. Out there, all we can do is prevent everything from spinning out of control. Only two things could solve this for good, and both of them are undesirable: to ban computers -- or people.

SPIEGEL: You once described yourself as an extremely paranoid person. What is the worst possible disaster that a computer viruses could cause?

Kaspersky: In the Soviet days, we used to joke that an optimist learns English because he is hoping that the country will open up, that a pessimist learns Chinese because he's afraid that the Chinese will conquer us, and that the realist learns to use a Kalashnikov. These days, the optimist learns Chinese, the pessimist learns Arabic...

SPIEGEL: ...and the realist?

Kaspersky: ...keeps practicing with his Kalashnikov. Seriously. Even the Americans are now openly saying that they would respond to a large-scale, destructive Internet attack with a classic military strike. But what will they do if the cyber attack is launched against the United States from within their own country? Everything depends on computers these days: the energy supply, airplanes, trains. I'm worried that the Net will soon become a war zone, a platform for professional attacks on critical infrastructure.

SPIEGEL: When will that happen?

Kaspersky: Yesterday. Such attacks have already occurred.

What's your computer security story? What's the worst thing that's happened to you online?

Comment on this post

Court of Appeals: Facebook posts were grounds for U of M to discipline student

Posted at 1:37 PM on July 11, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals today upheld the University of Minnesota's right to discipline a student in a mortuary sciences class who made jokes about a cadaver and made threats on her Facebook page.

In a series of posts in 2009, Amanda Tatro first posted a reference to a cadaver:

Amanda Beth Tatro Gets to play, I mean dissect, Bernie[2] today. Lets see if I can have a lab void of reprimanding and having my scalpel taken away. Perhaps if I just hide it in my sleeve . . . .

In a subsequent Facebook post, Tatro appears to have threatened someone...

Amanda Beth Tatro: Who knew embalming lab was so cathartic! I still want to stab a certain someone in the throat with a trocar though.[4] Hmm..perhaps I will spend the evening updating my "Death List #5" and making friends with the crematory guy. I do know the code . . . .

After the posts, the University banned her from campus for a time, then flunked her out of the course.

Tatro claimed the action violated her right to free speech, but the Court of Appeals said schools may limit or discipline student expression if school officials 'reasonably conclude that it will materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.'"

Her Facebook posts did just that, the court said:

Beyond the university‟s concern for the safety of its students and faculty, Tatro‟s posts presented substantial concerns about the integrity of the anatomy-bequest program. Tatro‟s posts eventually reached families of anatomy-bequest-program donors and funeral directors, causing them to contact the university, expressing dismay and concern about Tatro‟s conduct and to question the professionalism of the program in general--a program that relies heavily on the faith and confidence of donors and their families to provide necessary laboratory experiences for medical and mortuary-science students. Indeed, the rules requiring respect and professionalism in the sensitive area of mortuary science appear designed to ensure ongoing trust in this relationship, and Tatro agreed to be bound by these rules as a condition of her access to a human donor. Because Tatro‟s Facebook posts materially and substantially disrupted the work and discipline of the university, we conclude that the university did not violate Tatro‟s First Amendment rights by responding with appropriate disciplinary sanctions.

Tatro also argued that the U of M didn't have authority to discipline her because the activity to which it objected took place off campus. "Whether or not Tatro intended her posts to be satire or mere venting does not diminish the university's substantial interest in protecting the safety of its students and faculty and addressing potentially threatening conduct," the Court of Appeals said. It added that in these times, schools need to watch for and respond to student behavior that indicates a potential for violence.

Here's the full opinion from the court.

Comment on this post

Appeals Court: Death of fetus is death of a human being

Posted at 1:07 PM on July 5, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals today upheld the 40-year prison term of a man who paid another person a few hundred dollars to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach because he didn't want to pay child support.

Dameon Gaston said his second-degree murder conviction was invalid because he intended to kill a fetus, not a human being. The six-month-old fetus was delivered by C-section after the mother was punched in the stomach in 2007, but she died less than two weeks later.

Under Minnesota law, a person is guilty of intentional second-degree murder if he or she 'causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another.'"

But in 1986, the Minnesota Legislature enacted homicide statutes that criminalized the unlawful killing of an unborn child after the state Supreme Court ruled Minnesota's vehicle homicide laws do not consider a fetus to be a human being.

Gaston argued that he can't be held responsible for killing the child once she was born alive because he "did not intend to kill a human being; rather he intended to kill an unborn child," which would be attempted murder.

"This was no attempt," the Court ruled today. Gaston's actions "resulted in the death of a human being."

It said Gaston's "intent was to cause injuries to (the fetus) that would result in her death in utero, but the injuries instead resulted in (the baby's) death only after she was born alive. This variation is too slight for the law to shrink from imposing criminal liability for the intentional killing of a human being," the Court said.

(Here is the full opinion)

Comment on this post

Are violent video games the same as fairy tales?

Posted at 11:39 AM on June 27, 2011 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Today's Supreme Court decision throwing out California's ban on selling "violent" video games to people under 18 contains an unintended invitation to News Cut readers. What children's book contains violence akin to the video games in question?

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the opinion delivered today, said video games are no different from books, plays, and movies and, thus, are deserving of First Amendment protection. "Our cases have been clear that the obscenity exception to the FirstAmendment does not cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of 'sexual conduct.'" Scalia wrote in explaining why laws against obscenity cannot be used in this case.

Besides, Scalia argue, kids' books are violent, too, and we're not banning them...

Certainly the books we give children to read--orread to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of gore. Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers "till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy." The Complete Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales 198 (2006 ed.). Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. Id., at 95. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven. Id., at 54.

High-school reading lists are full of similar fare. Homer's Odysseus blinds Polyphemus the Cyclops bygrinding out his eye with a heated stake. The Odyssey ofHomer, Book IX, p. 125 (S. Butcher & A. Lang transls.1909) ("Even so did we seize the fiery-pointed brand and whirled it round in his eye, and the blood flowed about the heated bar. And the breath of the flame singed his eyelids and brows all about, as the ball of the eye burnt away, and the roots thereof crackled in the flame"). In the Inferno, Dante and Virgil watch corrupt politicians struggle to stay submerged beneath a lake of boiling pitch, lest they beskewered by devils above the surface. Canto XXI, pp.187-189 (A. Mandelbaum transl. Bantam Classic ed.1982). And Golding's Lord of the Flies recounts how a schoolboy called Piggy is savagely murdered by other children while marooned on an island. W. Golding, Lord of the Flies 208-209 (1997 ed.).

Scalia's interpretation of the application of the First Amendment led to an unusual dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who is usually on the same side Scalia's on.

Thomas said the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to speak to children without their parents' permission...

Adults carefully controlled what they published forchildren. Stories written for children were dedicated to moral instruction and were relatively austere, lackingdetails that might titillate children's minds.

. John Newbery, the publisher often credited with creating the genre of children's literature,removed traditional folk characters, like Tom Thumb, from their original stories and placed them in new morality tales in which good children were rewarded and disobedient children punished.

Thomas noted the doomed California law did not prevent a child from getting violent video games with the assistance of his/her parents.

Here's the entire opinion from the Supreme Court.

Update 3:51 p.m. - Here's a really great review of the decision from the always-informative ScotusBlog.

Comment on this post

Police may collect urine without warrant, court says

Posted at 11:04 AM on June 27, 2011 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Here's a factoid you can use at your next dinner party, courtesy of the Minnesota Court of Appeals:

"The alcohol concentration of urine in the bladder can decrease from .081 to .079 in 15 minutes."

This would be an important fact if you were, say, stopped for drunk driving and your blood alcohol level was barely over the standard by which Minnesota defines drunk driving.

In a ruling today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals provided quite an analysis of the biological method by which the body disposes of its alcohol, ruling that police can require a urine sample from suspected drunk drivers without needing a warrant to do so.

The Court ruled in the case of Kim Ellingson, who was charged with drunk driving after a breathalyzer showed her blood alcohol level was .09. In Minnesota, .08 is legally drunk. A subsequent urinalysis showed she was, indeed, drunk.

She lost her license but sued because the collection of her urine was an unreasonable search and seizure. The Court disagreed, saying, "... the rapid change in alcohol concentration through the body's natural processes... justify the warrantless collection of a urine sample."

Comment on this post

Big-screen villains and real-life crooks

Posted at 11:41 AM on June 24, 2011 by Eric Ringham (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

There's a kind of disconnect every time we get to compare a big-screen villain to a real-life crook. Reading this morning's news accounts about the capture of James "Whitey" Bulger, I was struck by this tidbit: that Bulger, 81, had served as the inspiration for Jack Nicholson's character Frank Costello in "The Departed."

Even in a Jack Nicholson film festival, the Costello character would stand out as truly scary. And so would Bulger, with a string of 21 murders to his alleged credit. The Boston mob boss had retired to Santa Monica and was sharing a third-floor apartment with a small arsenal of guns, a fortune in cash and a woman with expensive tastes in grooming. (In a plot twist worthy of Hollywood, it was the beauty that did him in. The FBI reportedly caught him by focusing on his companion's use of beauty parlors and teeth-whitening services.)

Yet for all his bloody history, Bulger doesn't look frightening - certainly not as scary as Nicholson. Give him a longer beard and he might make a good Santa. Whereas Nicholson ... well, he looks like Nicholson. You wouldn't cast him as Santa, but he does make a great crime boss:

Comment on this post

When grandparents, parents fight

Posted at 11:46 AM on June 20, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals settled -- at least for now -- a case that's the very definition of a child caught in the middle.

The Court of Appeals today overturned a visitation schedule for a grandmother whose daughter was murdered. In so doing, the court reaffirmed the right of parents to decide the extent to which a child may visit grandparents. It also reaffirmed that in matters of child custody, parents and grandparents are not the same.

The case involves the 2009 murder of Brittany Givens-Copeland, who was killed in Burnsville by her ex-boyfriend. Her son, Christian, was just four months old.

Givens-Copeland's mother, noted Twin Cities philanthropist Roxanne Givens filed for custody of the child without notifying the child's father, Anthony Michael Darst. A district court granted Givens' request until Darst, having proved paternity, sued -- and eventually won -- custody.

For nine months, the Appeals Court said, Given allowed the father "only tightly restricted opportunities to see the child, primarily under Givens' supervision in her home. Once the district court granted Darst custody of his son, he did not allow Givens' any visitation.

Givens then petitioned for grandparent visitation under Minnesota law. While Darst agreed to allowing one weekend of visitation from Saturday morning to Sunday evening once a month, the district court awarded visition every Tuesday afternoon and every Saturday for the first 90 days, then twice a week with a Saturday sleep-over for the next 90 days, and finally every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon and every other weekend.

That, the Court of Appeals ruled today, was too much. It agreed that the order "essentially establishes a parenting-time schedule rather than grandparent visitation and that it interferes with his relationship with the son. It said under the arrangement, the father couldn't take any trips with his son longer than four days.

"This sort of hopscotch calendar may sometimes be the best solution to accommodate equal and competing parental rights between unmarried or divorced parents who have demonstrated a capacity to engage civilly," the Court said. "But it cannot be imposed to satisfy the limited rights of grandparents without interfering with the parent-child relationship."

In sending the case back to the district court, however, the Court of Appeals did not give it much choice how it should settle the matter. "We predict on this record that remanding for additional extensive argument and a new hearing and further analysis would do little more than to prolong and intensify this now two-and-a-half-year acrimonious contest over time with (the child)," the Court said, in telling the district court to adopt the father's suggestion of one weekend a month visitation and holidays as negotiated.

It also scolded the warring factions.

"The limits of the law and the specific terms of judicially ordered visitation are no substitute for flexibility and cooperative arrangements in the child's best interests," it said.

(Read the entire opinion)

Comment on this post

Drunk man on a scooter can't be charged with drunk driving, court says

Posted at 10:50 AM on June 13, 2011 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

If you are physically disabled and rely on a motorized scooter to get around, can you be charged with drunk driving if you become intoxicated?

"No," the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today, overturning the conviction of James Brown Jr., who was charged while driving his scooter on the sidewalks of Grand Rapids in July 2009.
He drove his scooter , which has a top speed of about 6 mph, to a car dealership, which called the police.

But the court ruled that it's not a motor vehicle. A driver's license isn't required to operate it, you can't register one in Minnesota, and the law bans it from roadways under most conditions.

"Because Brown's scooter is not a 'vehicle' under the relevant statutory definitions, it is not a 'motor vehicle.' And Brown is not a 'driver' because when he uses his scooter, he is not driving or in physical control of a vehicle,'" the court said. (Full opinion here)

Comment on this post

The flash mobs of Chicago

Posted at 3:04 PM on June 7, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

There are flash mobs, and there are flash mobs.

Social networking was behind the "good" (if overdone) flash mob in which people are encouraged to meet at a specific landmark and do the flash mob thing.

Like this in Chicago, for instance...

But there's a new flash mob in town -- a bad flash mob. Chicago has recently been hit with gangs of teenagers using text messaging and social networking sites to coordinate attacks on retailers and individuals, according to Crain's Business.

Saturday evening's flash-organized assaults in Streeterville, in which a group of young men robbed and beat five people along the lakefront and near Northwestern University's downtown campus, have brought renewed attention to the groups of roving teenagers who, abetted by social media and text messaging, wreak havoc in the city's upscale, tourist-heavy areas. Two of the victims were doctors attending a medical conference at McCormick Place.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel says Chicago's reputation as "a safe place to live in work" is being undermined by flash mobs. Mobs of people have been pushing people off their bikes, the Chicago Sun Times reports, and people have been warned not to ride bikes near the waterfront anymore.

Chicago police are reportedly spending more time on social networking sites to try to figure out when and where the flash mobs are going to attack.

Comment on this post

Tree-trimmer releases post-tornado video

Posted at 1:09 PM on June 6, 2011 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Mike Haege, the tree trimmer who was kicked out of Minneapolis in the immediate aftermath of the north Minneapolis tornado, has released a cellphone video that he says backs up his story. Minneapolis officials have not responded to questions about exactly why a Hastings tree trimmer who wasn't charging anybody for his help, was escorted from the city because he didn't have a license as a professional tree trimmer in the city.

The video doesn't reveal a lot, other than it took four cops to kick him out.

The video is posted by the Hastings Star Gazette.

Comment on this post

Should streaming copyrighted material be a felony?

Posted at 2:05 PM on June 1, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Should you go to jail for embedding a YouTube video that infringes on someone's copyright?

TechDirt takes Sen. Amy Klobuchar and two other senators to task for proposing changes in the copyright law that make streaming copyright infringing material a felony.

This is the really troubling part. Everyone keeps insisting that this is targeted towards "streaming" websites, but is streaming a "performance"? If so, how does embedding play into this? Is the site that hosts the content guilty of performing? What about the site that merely linked to and/or embedded the video (linking and embedding are technically effectively the same thing). Without clear definitions, we run into problems pretty quickly.

And it gets worse. Because rather than just (pointlessly) adding "performance" to the list, the bill tries to also define what constitutes a potential felony crime in these circumstances.

So yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link... you could be facing five years in jail. This is, of course, ridiculous, and suggests (yet again) politicians who are regulating a technology they simply do not understand. Should it really be a criminal act to embed a YouTube video, even if you don't know it was infringing...? This could create a massive chilling effect to the very useful service YouTube provides in letting people embed videos.

In a news release earlier this year, Sen. Klobuchar said the target of her bill is large, offshore distributors of pirated content:

Many of these Websites are operated offshore by international organized crime operations and use the profits to fund other illegal activities. Klobuchar pointed out that the current laws haven't kept up with technology, citing that it is currently a felony to sell counterfeit DVDs that together value over $2,500, but streaming those same movies over the Internet is only a misdemeanor.

A coalition of the Motion Picture Association of America, the Independent Film and Television Alliance and the National Association of Theater Owners endorsed Klobuchar's bill.

Comment on this post

Appeals Court: Prosecutors made plea deal then argued against it

Posted at 2:32 PM on May 23, 2011 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

How much discretion does a Minnesota judge have to ignore minimum mandatory sentence rules? None, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today.

The court today overturned a district court judge who sentenced Sarah DeAnn Rausch to 10 years probation, 15 days in the workhouse, and 45 in alternative service after she pleaded guilty to burglary charges stemming from a fight with her boyfriend.

But prosecutors said Rausch should have been sentenced to at least six months in the workhouse or prison as the Legislature mandates. The Appeals Court agreed, noting "courts have no inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentence for criminal acts and... the power to prescribe punishment for such acts rests with the legislature."

Her attorneys had argued that judges have the discretion to ignore mandatory sentencing guidelines, especially in cases where the charges are the first offense.

But there's a rub in this case. The same prosecutors who appealed that Rausch should have been sentenced to a minimum sentence, had also told her when it worked out a plea agreement that she could argue for a lighter one.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Jim Randall said this case is not what the Legislature had in mind when it created a minimum sentence for burglary. While he supported the Appeals Court ruling, he criticized prosecutors for bringing serious charges against a woman who "keyed" his car.

"The district court gave a thoughtful and fair sentence properly reflecting the facts of the crime," he said. "That carefully fashioned sentence reflected all that this case was worth."

Randall heavily criticized prosecutors for making a plea offer it knew it couldn't keep and urged Rausch to withdraw her guilty verdict plea when it goes back to the district court for resentencing.

Comment on this post

The quest for YouTube fame

Posted at 3:03 PM on May 18, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In this week in which MPR is presenting a series of reports intended to look intelligently at the issue of bullying in schools, there is a story which shows what school officials and parents are up against: a life form that is inherently not intelligent.

In Superior, Wisconsin , the Duluth News Tribune reports today, a 16 year old student tried to get into a fight with another 16-year old in the boys locker room. Why? Because they wanted a videotape to post online.

According to a Superior police report, the incident occurred during fifth hour on May 10. One of the 16-year-old students who were cited tried to get into a fight with another teen before class by challenging and threatening him. The other 16-year-old boy who was cited was videotaping with an iPhone as he egged them on, saying "Do it ... hit him."

After class, the two 16-year-olds did the same thing, with the first teen now pushing the boy he wanted to fight in addition to challenging him verbally. When he kneed the other male in the side, the student fought back. It was all videotaped with the iPhone held by the other 16-year-old.

Where would they get such a stupid idea?

Here:

Here:

and a thousand other places.

Comment on this post

Rape victims on trial

Posted at 12:46 PM on May 18, 2011 by Bob Collins (14 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Media

The alleged rape of a woman in New York by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund, is giving news organizations fits by rekindling an old debate that once seemed settled: Should alleged rape victims be named? And how much should the news audience know about her?

The New York Times danced close to the name by identifying her race, her neighborhood and, apparently, her character.

That earned this rebuke from The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:

I don't understand reporting like this. What is the point? Does it matter that she is friendly? Does it matter that she is a good person? Does it matter that she has never been a problem? Of course not. Rape is rape. The character of the victim is irrelevant. There's one caveat to this idea: If reporters had discovered in the woman's past a pattern of making false accusations in criminal matters, well, then there's a plausible argument that information about her character should be reported. Otherwise, her mood, relative-friendliness or unfriendliness, shopping habits, dietary needs -- all completely immaterial.

One more thing: Reporters should think twice about visiting the neighborhood of an alleged rape victim in order to ask questions about her life and character. The unintended consequence of such a visit is to publicize, in the place where she lives, her plight, and raise possibly-destructive questions about her situation. Newspapers withhold the names of alleged rape victims for a reason: to protect their privacy. But when reporters ask family, friends and neighbors superfluous questions about the alleged rape victim, they have outed her in the place that matters most.

French media has named the alleged victim.

On CBS this morning, the woman's attorney, Jeffrey Shapiro, said the woman will tell her story when the time is right:

But it's clear that this story is going to be much more than a single criminal case; it's going to be all about how all alleged rape victims are treated in the court of public opinion.

On that score, commentator Ben Stein went off the rails yesterday in his defense of the IMF official, arguing that he couldn't have raped anyone because that's not what economists do.

In life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.

For a glimpse at the strife the case is causing in journalism circles, check out a live chat hosted by the Poynter Institute.

Comment on this post

Court: Minnesota man should've been told about deportation possibility in plea deal

Posted at 12:02 PM on May 16, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Had Rene Reyes Campos known that his agreeing to a plea bargain would result in his deportation, he might have fought the charges.

In July 2009, Campos pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of simple robbery and was given a stayed sentenced of three years. Campos, who had been a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. since 2002, never told his attorney about his immigration status and his attorney never asked.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that people have to be advised when a plea arrangement could mean deportation, Campos moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an effective counsel extends to advice about the risk of having to leave the country. But a district court in Minnesota ruled that the Supreme Court order does not apply to people who'd already pleaded guilty.

Today, Minnesota's Court of Appeals said that decision was wrong. "A defense attorney's duty to properly advise his client before a guilty plea is hardly new," the court said, concluding that Campos' counsel was ineffective.

Full opinion here.

Comment on this post

The 'S' word

Posted at 12:06 PM on May 9, 2011 by Bob Collins (9 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

"Gay culture reclaimed the word 'queer'," a protester has told the BBC. "It is about picking these words up and using them with pride."

What's the word she's trying to reclaim? "Slut."

The movement started at an anti-sexual-assault forum on a school campus in Toronto when a public safety officer reportedly advised women in the audience "not to dress like 'sluts.'"

This, of course, is the 2011 version of a decades-old rationale for sexual violence against women: "Just look what she was wearing."

"The problem with the word slut is that it has cut women off because they have an energy around their sexual desires and we are still so prejudiced about this. But if we reclaim the word, it simply becomes an issue of 'so what?'," a psychoanalyst told the BBC.

A group has formed to organize "SlutWalks" in Canada amd the U.S. Dozens of U.S. cities will host the walks. None is planned for Minnesota, according to the group's Web site.

Comment on this post

Court: 'Disorderly conduct' protected by First Amendment

Posted at 12:13 PM on May 3, 2011 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Free speech trumps disorderly conduct. That's the bottom line of a case from the Minnesota Court of Appeals today which has ruled that two animal rights protesters had every right to chant loudly and even threaten violence against the mother of a fur store owner. The Appeals Court overturned the jury convictions of two men.

In its order today, the court might have also set a record for the most use of asterisks in a decision. In a 1978 case, the court said, "the supreme court held that a retreating 14-year old girl's statement to police, f**k you pigs," did not constitute fighting words because she directed it at two police officers sitting in a squad car located 15 to 30 feet away. The court noted that there was no reasonable likelihood that the statement would 'tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace of to provoke violent reaction by an ordinary reasonable person.'"

Isaac Peter, 19, and Michael Lawson, 21, were arrested on disorderly conduct charges in March 2010, after a business owner told police the two yelled that "they knew where he lived; they knew where his elderly mother lived; and they knew his vehicle license plate number," according to today's court ruling.

The court said someone's "conduct" can't be separated from the "political speech," which is protected by the First Amendment, also citing a case of a man who rode a horse through a gay pride festival in Minneapolis while shouting anti-gay epithets; and a group of people dressed as zombies protesting consumerism in the city (they were cited because they scared a girl who thought they were really zombies).

Neither of those cases constituted "fighting words," which is the only condition under which someone's speech isn't protected by the First Amendment, the court indicated.

The Appeals Court also said that Minneapolis' disorderly conduct ordinance "is in danger of being struck down unless it is restricted to prohibiting only fighting words and conduct that is not inextricably linked to protected speech."

Here's the full opinion.

Comment on this post

A first glimpse of Rep. Giffords

Posted at 10:48 AM on April 27, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Not since Brett Favre have we seen so much media attention paid to who is getting on or off a plane.

Today, however, the story is much more legitimate. It's the first time we've seen Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since she was shot in the head in Tucson. Up to now, we've had to rely on second-hand reports of how her recovery is going.

Rep. Giffords was boarding the plane for the flight to Florida to watch her husband take off in the final flight of the shuttle Endeavor.

Comment on this post

The accident that wasn't

Posted at 3:01 PM on April 25, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

We know a little more about the accident that killed a pedestrian when a car jumped the sidewalk in Dinkytown a little more than a week ago.

The criminal complaint from the Hennepin County Attorney tells us that (a) it wasn't an accident and (b) the person who allegedly intentionally struck the group isn't sorry he did it.

Timothy Bakdash, 29, is charged with one count of second-degree murder and two felony counts of assault in the April 15th accident that killed Benjamin Van Handel, 23 and left a woman unable to walk.

Bakdash allegedly drove his car down the wrong way on 5th Street, intending to kill a group of people with whom he'd had an argument at the Library Bar, the complaint says. It, however, references only someone -- identified as "B.B" -- who fingered Bakdash as the driver.

Says the complaint:

"Defendant then got into his vehicle, a Mitsubishi Galant, and traveled down the wrong way on a one-way street where he drove onto the sidewalk and struck the group of pedestrians. Defendant admitted he intended to hit and kill three of the people there, but stated he struck a fourth person whom he did not intentionally hit. He stated he had no remorse for hitting the others."

What we don't know, however, is whether the alleged killer is currently without remorse, or whether that was a statement made the same night. The police interviewed "B.B." last Thursday.

Who is "B.B.?" Apparently he -- or maybe, she -- is the person who bought the weapon -- the car -- for $1,500. He/she said that Bakdash's mother told him "he had to get ride of that car that night." It was mom's car.

From the sound of the complaint, "B.B" knew what was going on here, too, because, the complaint says, he started working on the repairs the same night. That there have been no charges filed against "B.B." would suggest the possibility of a deal in exchange for testimony.

MPR's Brandt Williams is covering the story.

Comment on this post

Court: No unemployment for excessively-absent employee

Posted at 12:17 PM on April 20, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It's not a very good idea to test your company's absentee policy by being absent. That's the upshot of a decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court today.

The Court ruled that you can be fired for excessive absenteeism, even if your company has a progressive discipline policy on the subject. It ruled in the case of Ronald Stagg, who was fired by a group home for troubled youth.

The company for which Stagg worked --Vintage Place -- has a policy providing for an oral warning on the first unexcused absence, a written warning for the second one, a three-day suspension for the third, a 10-day suspension for the fourth, and firing for the fifth.

Does that give you four unexcused absences before being fired? No, the court said.

Here's how it described Stagg's firing:

Stagg began having tardiness and attendance problems in November 2008. On November 15, 2008, Stagg missed mandatory training and, according to Vintage Place, gave no advance notice. On November 26, Stagg, without notifying his supervisor, did not show up for work. As a result, he received an oral warning. On November 27, Stagg arrived for his shift two hours late without advance notice and was placed on probation. On December 1, Stagg called in sick after his shift began. It does not appear from the record before us that Stagg was disciplined for the December 1 absence. On December 3, Stagg arrived for work 45 minutes late without advance notice and was given a two-day suspension. On January 28, 2009, Stagg called in after his shift began to say that he had overslept. The following day, Stagg was fired.

Stagg claimed that because he had not received a 10-day suspension -- the last step short of termination under his company's policy -- he did not understand that his job was at risk.

An unemployment law judge denied his unemployment claim, but the Court of Appeals overturned the decision.

Today, the Supreme Court said "an employee's expectation that the employer will follow its disciplinary procedures has no bearing on whether the employee's conduct violated the standards the employer has a reasonable right to expect or whether any such violation is serious."

The Court left open, however, the possibility of a future claim that an employer's handbook constitutes a contract between the employer and employee.

Read the full decision here.

Comment on this post

Appeals Court: Cirrus not responsible for plane crash that killed two

Posted at 11:27 AM on April 19, 2011 by Bob Collins (20 Comments)
Filed under: Aviation, Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court ruling that held Duluth-based Cirrus Design responsible for teaching people who buy its airplanes how to fly them safely (I wrote about the earlier decision here).

The ruling comes in the case of Gary Prokop and James Kosak, who died in January 2003 while on a flight from Grand Rapids to St. Cloud to attend their sons' hockey tournament. The estate of the passenger -- Kosak -- sued Cirrus and Prokop's estate, claiming Cirrus omitted training on how to escape instrument meteorological conditions (primarily, darkness) and snow). Prokop was not rated to fly in such conditions.

At issue, is whether the pilot knew how to turn on an autopilot, designed to help pilots who get into trouble and lose direction.

A jury awarded Kosak's next of kin $7.4 million and Prokop's next of kin $12 million.

But the Appeals Court ruled today that "although proficiency training undoubtedly promoted the safe use of the SR22 (model of airplane), we find no support in the law for (the) proposition that Cirrus's duty to warn included an obligation to train Prokop to proficiently pilot the SR22."

The court noted that a handbook given to aircraft purchasers provided the instructions on how to activate and operate the autopilot, and it said Cirrus fulfilled its legal responsibility to warn the owner of the risks involved in piloting a plane.

The Court also ruled that Cirrus cannot be held liable for the effectiveness of its training program because of Minnesota laws barring educational malpractice complaints.

But Appeals Court Justice Roger Klaphake disagreed. "While transition training may not be required as a matter of law, once Cirrus made it a part of the purchase agreement, Cirrus voluntarily assumed a duty to provide the promised training," he wrote in his dissent.

Here is the full opinion from the court.

After the district court's original ruling, the Legal Broadcasting Network interviewed Dan OFallon and Phil Sieff, counsel for the family of James Kosak. O'Fallon and Sieff of counsel with Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in Minneapolis.

$16.4 MILLION JURY AWARD OVER 2003 PLANE CRASH from Sequence Media on Vimeo.

Comment on this post

State troopers being hit at high rate

Posted at 4:04 PM on April 5, 2011 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

One fairly shudders to think what would have happened to Brian Bammert, a Minnesota State Patrol trooper, had he not apparently been built like a truck.

Thirty-eight state troopers have been hit by cars since December. Two of them are Trpr. Bammert. He was hit by a car a couple of weeks ago. Bammert, 30, of Golden Valley was also hurt in last February's snowstorm when he was hit in the leg by a car that had lost control on the ice at I-394 and Penn.

A year ago, about 14 state troopers were hit during the winter months. This year it's close to 40.

On Thursday, the State Patrol in the St. Cloud area will hold a crackdown on people who don't move over -- or slow down -- for emergency vehicles on the side of the road.

(Photo: Minnesota State Patrol)

Comment on this post

Wrongly sent to death row, man gets nothing

Posted at 12:21 PM on March 29, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

What does society owe someone who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death row for 14 years? Nothing, the Supreme Court ruled today in a case that split the court's conservative and liberal wing.

John Thompson was a month away from execution in New Orleans when his investigator found a prosecutor had deliberately withheld evidence in his armed robbery conviction, which led him not to testify in his own defense in a subsequent trial for murder, for which he was also convicted.

He sued the district attorney -- Harry Connick Sr. -- for failing to teach his employees that evidence that could lead to a person's acquittal, needs to be turned over as well as the evidence that could lead to a person's conviction. He won a $14 million judgment, which the Supreme Court overturned today because Connick wasn't proven to have engaged in a pattern of violations.

As usual in cases like this, the court's opinion, available here free, is the type of writing people pay money for in a bookstore, with justices tossing rhetorical bombs at one another.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, establishing that a district attorney is not responsible for the individual action of a rogue prosecutor.

The role of a prosecutor is to see that justice is done... "It is as much [a prosecutor's] duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Ibid. By their own admission, the prosecutors who tried Thompson's armed robbery case failed to carry out that responsibility. But the only issue before us is whether Connick, as the policymaker for the district attorney's office, was deliberately indifferent to the need to train the attorneys under his authority.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in the unusual move of reading her dissent from the bench, painted a picture of a district attorney's office hellbent on doing whatever it could to convict a person of murder, even crossing the ethical line:

The jury found Thompson guilty of first-degree murder.Having prevented Thompson from testifying that Freeman was the killer, the prosecution delivered its ultimate argument. Because Thompson was already serving a near-life sentence for attempted armed robbery, the prosecution urged, the only way to punish him for murder was to execute him. The strategy worked as planned; Thompson was sentenced to death.

That brought this from Justice Antonin Scalia, who suggested that the fault for the wrong convicted sat solely with one bad prosecuting attorney:

By now the reader has doubtless guessed the best-kept secret of this case: There was probably no Brady violation at all--except for (the prosecutor) Deegan's (which, since it was a bad-faith, knowing violation, could not possibly be attributed to lack of training). The dissent surely knows this, which is why it leans heavily on the fact that Connick conceded that Brady was violated.

Back to you, Justice Ginsberg:

A District Attorney aware of his office's high turnover rate, who recruits prosecutors fresh out of law school and promotes them rapidly through the ranks, bears responsibility for ensuring that on-the-job training takes place. In short, the buck stops with him.

It would be difficult to be Gerry Deegan today, reading the Supreme Court describe what a terrible prosecutor you were. But he died of cancer in 1994, reportedly acknowledging his misconduct on his deathbed.

Why didn't Thompson just sue the prosecutor for a wrong conviction? Apparently, it's against the law to do so (from October 2010):

Thompson was 22 when he was sent to death row. He's 48 now, and formed an organization, Resurrection After Exoneration, to help others in a similar situation. In 2009, he said he'd hoped to use the millions he won to create a trade school.

Comment on this post

Who owns Target's front door?

Posted at 9:45 AM on March 25, 2011 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

This morning in San Diego, a judge will listen to arguments as to why canvassers should or shouldn't be allowed to seek signatures on petitions and donations in support of gay marriage.

Target is suing Canvass for a Cause because, it says in this court document, the group is interfering with its customers.

The filing comes from a security guard (which Target calls "executive team lead for assets protection.").

Canvass for a Cause solicitors typically start by asking our customers if they support gay marriage. If the answer is yes, they ask our customers to sign a petition and for a credit-card donation. If the answer is no, they challenge the customers on their beliefs. Whenever our customers say no, whether it is about making a donation, signing a petition, or about support for gay marriage, the solicitors become angry and aggressive, continuing to challenge our customers on their morals. I have seen them tell our customers not to vote if they are unhappy with the customers' views.

All Target stores have a no-soliciting policy and they're private property anyway. As WCCO's Jason DeRusha noted on Twitter a few minutes ago, they also ban the Salvation Army at Christmastime.

So what's the big deal?

Apparently, it's this. California recognizes free speech as trumping private property rights. (h/t: @lawnonymous)

Despite Hudgens' clear statement of federal law, the California Supreme Court held in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center that the free-speech and petition provisions of the California Constitution grant mall visitors a constitutional right to free speech that outweighs the private-property interests of mall owners. The California Supreme Court took the position that "all private property is held subject to the power of government to regulate its use for the public welfare." In the unanimous 1980 decision Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state court's decision, noting that its own reasoning in Lloyd "does not ex proprio vigore ("of its own force") limit the authority of the State to exercise its police power" (power to regulate the use of private property) "or its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution." A state may, therefore, in the exercise of its power to regulate, adopt reasonable restrictions on private property, including granting greater freedom to individuals to use such property, so long as the restrictions do not amount to a taking without just compensation or contravene any other federal constitutional provision. (In this instance it would be a "taking" of a property owner's right to exclude others.)

But Target says the courts have held that private stores inside private developers are not bound by that interpretation.

These cases make clear that Target stores are not themselves withìn the reach of the Pruneyard decision and that we do not need to allow people to use our property for expressive activity, Even in shopping malls that are within the reach of the Pruneyard decision, the right under Pruneyard is to use the common areas of the mall, not the area directly outside the Target store entrance. Individuals wishing to use the common areas within shopping malls should address the matter with the shopping mall owner or operator, not with Target.

Comment on this post

The surveillance society

Posted at 4:49 PM on March 24, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A Michigan man has been charged with placing an explosive outside a federal building in Detroit in a case that has embarrassed the government because it was taken inside by a guard and left unattended for 20 days. It was a Husky Tool Bag with a metal chest inside.

But the real story may well be how they figured out it was him.

Check out this last paragraph from the Associated Press story:

The FBI said it focused on Mikulich after learning that Home Depot is the exclusive seller of the Husky tool bag. The store in Iron Mountain, near his home, sold a bag and a timer at the same time on Feb. 14, one of only nine similar sales at all U.S. locations since last fall.

It's a fine example of the little bits of data you leave about yourself at the places you shop.
According to the FBI, Home Depot's computer system tracked exactly what time a Husky tool bag was sold. Next time you're in Home Depot, look up and notice all the cameras. It wasn't hard to link the tool bag's sale to the exact cash register and get a picture of the person buying it.

It's even easier to be tracked, of course, if you spend the time to go online and fill out those "win-money-by-taking-our-survey" receipts, which links the exact purchase with a name and address.

Which shouldn't be much of a problem, perhaps, if you haven't left an explosive device somewhere.

But has anyone figured out why there were 8 other sales at the same time around the country involving -- apparently -- a tool bag and a timer?

(h/t: John Rabe)

Comment on this post

Minnesota court to consider whether anti-tobacco lawsuit can continue

Posted at 12:30 PM on March 16, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Marketing and advertising

The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to review whether an appeals court properly reinstated a 10-year-old, class action lawsuit against Philip Morris that claims the company fraudulently marketed Marlboro Lights as a safer cigarette.

Last December, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reinstated the dormant case against the tobacco maker, reversing a district court ruling that Philip Morris "could not be sued for false advertising, consumer fraud, and deceptive trade practices regarding light cigarettes in violation of Minnesota consumer-protection statutes."

The group filing the suit claims the tobacco company marketed the Marlboro Lights as safer than a typical cigarette.

But the tobacco company argues that the tobacco trial settlement with then Attorney General "Skip" Humphrey barred the lawsuit.

Today, Supreme Court Chief Justice Lori Gildea issued an order accepting the tobacco company's request for review.

The Minnesota case mirrors several others filed in other states, with varying results. In Illinois last month, for example, a state appeals court reinstated a case that originally ended with a $10 billion judgment against the company.

The actions at the state level were revived after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal law regulating cigarette advertising did not prevent Maine from enforcing a state law banning false advertising in cases involving cigarettes.

Comment on this post

Sometimes the truth doesn't set you free

Posted at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2011 by Bob Collins (10 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Media

The trial of a Minneapolis blogger, accused of defaming a man and causing him to lose his job at the University of Minnesota, is over.

John Hoff, aka "Johnny Northside" has to pay Jerry Moore $60,000 in the defamation suit against him, the Twin Cities Daily Planet reports.

Hoff had written on his blog that Moore, a former executive director of the Jordan Area Community Council, had been involved in a fraudulent mortgage scheme and questioned why he'd subsequently been hired by the university.

The jury said that while what Hoff had written was true, it caused him to lose his job, and awarded him $35,000 damages and $25,000 for emotional distress.

Is this a message to bloggers everywhere? The TCDP noted the closing statements of Moore's attorney:

Moore's attorney Jill Clark said in her closing statement that much of the discussion of the First Amendment and freedom of the press as it relates to blogs "is really not relevant." She also said, "There need to be some limits on blogs." Clark pointed to Hoff's lack of objective reporting. "The reporter loses objectivity when he enters the story," she said.

Don Allen, named in the original suit, settled with Moore and testified against Hoff. He told the Star Tribune the verdict sends an appropriate message:

"It's unfortunate for all bloggers, but you have to have some sense of responsibility," he said. "You have to attack the issues, not the individuals."

There was a small win for bloggers in the trial. The judge ruled early on that Hoff wasn't responsible for the comments left on his blog by readers.

I'm interested in hearing from independent bloggers on whether this case changes how you'll approach what you write,

(h/t: Laura Yuen)

Comment on this post

Charges filed in case of child thrown into snowbank

Posted at 12:03 PM on March 8, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

I wrote a short post yesterday about several stories involving parents and their babies and noted the case in Minneapolis of a baby thrown into the snow. Several commenters suggested there must be more to the story.

Today, the Hennepin County Attorney filed the complaint against the mother.

couch

Comment on this post

Medical examiner: Gay teen's death was suicide

Posted at 4:42 PM on March 7, 2011 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The results are in from the autopsy on a high school student in Miltona who died from what some said was a suicide but which is father insisted was a heart condition.

KSAX TV in Alexandria reports Lance Lundsten died from a mixed drug ingestion. The Douglas County medical examiner has ruled the case a suicide, the station reports.

Lundsten's death had fueled a renewed debate over suicides of gay teens who had been bullied, but it quelled somewhat when his father said Lundsten died from a known medical condition.

The debate also sparked an usual public argument between the Alexandria Echo Press newspaper, which had criticized the TV station for not accepting the father's version of events.

Comment on this post

Book closed on open sore

Posted at 12:42 PM on February 11, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Media

Chandra Levy's killer was given a 60-year prison term today.

She was a Capitol Hill intern and her killing was a media sensation until it wasn't anymore.

Who killed her?

a) Rep. Gary Condit
b) Ingmar Guandique

If you guessed "b," you probably didn't pay much attention to the news coverage, which determined that Condit -- no saint, here -- probably did it. Except he didn't.

It took the Washington Post to do the job should've done, and reported the story the way the media should've reported it. As it turned out, the cops were being pushed by the media; the tail was wagging the dog.

Comment on this post

Same-sex marriage showdown underway in Iowa

Posted at 3:03 PM on February 2, 2011 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

"Your family doesn't derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, 'Congratulations, you're married,'" Zach Wahls, 19, told Iowa lawmakers yesterday. Wahls was raised by two women, and testified in opposition to a bill that would put a ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot in Iowa.

Although the House of Representatives has advanced the bill, the Senate Majority Leader, Mike Gronstal, is blocking it from coming to the floor of the Iowa Senate for a vote.

Here's the House resolution:

A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 1 of the State of Iowa specifying marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal union that is valid or recognized in the state.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA: 5 TLSB 1109YH (7) 84 pf/rj
H.J.R. 6 Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of 1 the State of Iowa is proposed: 2 Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa is amended by adding the following new section:

Marriage. SEC. 26. Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state. Sec. 2.

REFERRAL AND PUBLICATION. The foregoing amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa is referred to the general assembly to be chosen at the next general election for members of the general assembly, and the secretary of state is directed to cause the same to be published for three consecutive months previous to the date of that election as provided by law.

EXPLANATION. This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the 16 Constitution of the State of Iowa specifying that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state. The joint resolution, if adopted, would be referred to the next general assembly for adoption a second time before being submitted to the electorate for ratification.

The Des Moines Register profiles several politicians who are taking a , perhaps, unpopular stand:

As a Catholic, Sen. Tom Rielly, D-Oskaloosa, believes marriage is "one-man, one-woman, one time," he said.

"But I'm not going to use that as a test to deny someone their civil rights. I've read the decision a couple dozen times, and I just for the life of me don't understand how anybody can say, 'This couple over here, you can enter into a civil contract to get health insurance, tax status, pension benefits, survivor benefits, end-of-life care. But you over here, because you're gay, you can't do that.'

"How is that not discriminatory?"

Iowa's Supreme Court unanimously struck down Iowa's ban on same-sex marriage in 2009 (See opinion). In November, voters turned three of the seven justices out of office.

Comment on this post

Drug testing for welfare recipients?

Posted at 12:04 PM on February 2, 2011 by Bob Collins (16 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

Old bills are again making new appearances at the Legislature.

Republicans in the Minnesota House today filed a bill requiring recipients of MFIP -- that's the welfare system for low-income residents -- to prove they're not on drugs or alcohol.

It's a dead-on-arrival bill from the past that has a chance of passage this year. Sen. Amy Koch, who now is the Senate Majority Leader in Minnesota, filed a similar bill in 2008 that went nowhere.

Michigan was the first state to pass a similar law, but it failed a constitutional test. It was deemed an unreasonable search.

Here's the bill:

Eligibility; drug screening. (a) To be eligible for MFIP, an applicant must undergo drug and alcohol screening, to the extent practicable, following the established procedures and reliability safeguards provided for screening in sections 181.951, 181.953, and 181.954. A county agency may require a recipient of benefits to undergo random drug screening. An applicant must provide evidence of a negative test result to the appropriate county agency prior to being approved for MFIP benefits and prior to receiving an extension of benefits under section 256J.425.

(b) A laboratory must report to the appropriate county agency any positive test
result returned on an applicant or recipient of MFIP benefits. Upon receipt of a positive test result, a county agency must deny or discontinue benefits until the applicant or recipient demonstrates a pattern of negative test results that satisfies the agency that the
person is no longer a drug user.

(c) MFIP applicants and recipients shall pay for the full cost of each screening.

The alcohol screening is a different twist. While it's illegal to use drugs, alcohol is a legal substance. Should that make a difference?

Other states have considered a more broad requirement. In West Virginia, unemployment benefits and money for WIC -- women, infants, and children -- would also similarly require a drug test first.

Sen. Orrin Hatch has proposed a federal drug-testing requirement.

In other news, a Republican Democratic lawmaker has filed a bill to repeal the ban on alcohol sales on Sunday.

Comment on this post

Coincidence? Or a tragic example of the power of the press?

Posted at 12:18 PM on January 27, 2011 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

You may recall the controversy last fall when a newspaper in Uganda printed pictures of homosexuals in the country with "hang them" on the front page...

David Kato, an advocacy officer for the gay rights group Sexual Minorities Uganda, is the gentleman on the left in the newspaper above.

He's dead.

Witnesses have told the BBC that "a man entered Mr Kato's home near Kampala, and beat him to death before leaving."

The police say the killing is unrelated to the "outing" campaign of the newspaper

Comment on this post

The limits of free speech

Posted at 1:21 PM on January 25, 2011 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

"How can you get on the Internet and trash someone with no justification whatsoever and think you can get away with it?" Gene Cooley asked.

"It's the Internet," is no longer a good answer.

Cooley's fiancee was killed in 2008 when her ex-husband shot her before he killed himself.

. An anonymous poster on a local bulletin board, hiding behind six user names, labeled Cooley, among other things, a pervert and a drug user, according to WXIA TV in Atlanta.

Last week a jury awarded Cooley $404,000 in a libel suit.

Now it gets a little more complicated. The lawyer who represented Cooley says he's working on legislation to make similar situations a crime, not just a civil matter.

Comment on this post

Teen death story igniting media feud in central Minnesota

Posted at 2:50 PM on January 21, 2011 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Media

There's quite a media spat playing out in the Alexandria area following the death last weekend of a teenager, which some said was a suicide, and which his family said was a known medical condition (I wrote about this on News Cut earlier this week).

What we know is that Lance Lundsten is dead. What we don't know is why.

Several media in the area cited his friends in stories saying Lundsten was bullied for being gay, and that may have contributed to a suicide. The teen's father called media saying the coroner told him the death was due to an enlarged heart.

On that, the Alexandria Echo Press reported the death was because of a medical condition. KSAX, the local ABC affiliate in Alexandria, noted the father's story, but then quoted the coroner:

Douglas County Medical Examiner Dr. Mark Spanbauer said the preliminary autopsy report showed the teen did not die from an enlarged heart.

The teen's heart was slightly enlarged, but that finding was a secondary finding to an undetermined cause, according to Spanbauer.

Spanbauer said what actually caused Lundsten's heart to slightly swell was not yet known, as the final autopsy report was still in progress.

The Echo Press newspaper stayed with the father's version of the story, but then amped up the dispute with a blistering editorial against KSAX and Facebook.

Unfortunately, whipped up by the Facebook frenzy, the distorted story of Lundsten's death took on a life of its own. A TV station reported about the Facebook speculations and it snowballed quickly from there, getting reported by other media outlets as well - a sad case of media reporting what other media were reporting, even though it was untrue.

Some Jefferson High School students threatened a walk out, believing the school wasn't taking the bullying issue seriously enough.

Anti-bullying groups were quick to pick up on the death, spreading the story further. U.S. Senator Al Franken called attention to the incident to drum up support for anti-bullying legislation. Images of Lundsten connected to headlines of bullying and suicide popped up all over the Internet - even on a website in France.

It shouldn't have happened this way.

Echo Press editor Al Edenloff confirmed today the newspaper hasn't contacted the coroner, but based its editorial on the statement from the dead teen's family:

According to Lance's family, the coroner said Lance had cardiac edema and that no other contributing factor had been found during the preliminary investigation (note the word "preliminary"). The family said that all of the prescription pills in the home had been accounted for and there was no indication of drug use. However, as we stated in our story, it will take six to eight weeks for the complete toxicology results are determined. The KSAX story squares, in part, with what the family told us -- that Lance had cardiac edema. No one knows the exact cause of death yet, which the coroner also told KSAX. The cause won't be determined for another six to eight weeks and no one knows what that will reveal. We talked to the family on Tuesday morning and KSAX talked at the coroner at a later date. Its story came out Wednesday. To answer your question directly: No, we did not contact the coroner because at this point, no one, including him, knows the cause of death yet. We do know, however, that the coroner told the family Lance had cardiac edema and that's what we reported. We will be contacting the coroner when the results come back.

That requires a response from Christi Jessee, the news director if KSAX.

I find it very hypocritical that the Echo Press accuses KSAX-TV of reporting rumor and speculation, when it seems to be knowingly perpetuating it. Selective facts have been reported, but the most important facts released by official sources in this case are, deliberately it seems, ignored. The truth is not always comfortable. But journalists should not ignore facts in an effort to comfort a grieving family.

Dr. Spanbauer was not available when MPR News attempted to contact him today.

Comment on this post

Fact-check: Guns and violence

Posted at 11:21 AM on January 20, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

How big a part did Arizona's gun laws play in the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson nearly two weeks ago?

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks says Arizona's gun violence rate is lower than that of Washington, D.C., which has more restrictive gun laws.

Franks made his comment in a Time Magazine article this week asking whether gun control is dead:

The vast majority of the state's politicians -- including Loughner's primary target, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat and gun owner -- are strong Second Amendment supporters. Congressman Trent Franks, a Republican and gun owner, points out that Arizona has a much lower gun-violence rate than Washington, D.C., which has much more restrictive gun laws. "Criminals always prefer unarmed victims," Franks says. There have been no reports out of Arizona of any credible push for new gun restrictions; in fact, several reports show citizens are flocking to gun shops to increase their firepower.

True? The Arizona Republic fact-checked the assertion today, and found it is... sort of.

David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and author of "Private Guns, Public Health," largely agrees.

"You want to compare rural states to rural states and urban states to urban states, and you don't want to compare cities to states," Hemenway said. "You want to have everything else as similar as possible. Otherwise you could say, 'In Japan, they smoke more than in the United States, yet they have lower heart disease. Smoking must be beneficial for heart disease.' It's silly. There are too many other things."

The paper noted that Massachusetts, which has roughly the same population as Arizona, but has stricter gun laws, has half the "gun violence" of Arizona.

The fact-check concludes by saying Franks' assertion is misleading.

Comment on this post

Breaking: Asset trader charged with threatening officials

Posted at 10:39 AM on January 14, 2011 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

This story is breaking this morning. The feds are charging a commodities trader with, basically, putting a bounty on the heads of government officials and other officials.

WNBC in New York reports:

The FBI arrested the head of an asset management firm for allegedly threatening 47 government officials with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

Officials said Vincent McCrudden posted a $100,000 reward on a website for information that proved these officials had been "punished." Federal prosecutors also said he sent numerous emails threatening individual workers.

McCrudden is expected to be arraigned in federal court in Central Islip Friday afternoon, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch said.

The story might continue the story line of "heated rhetoric." The Federal Elections database shows a Vincent McCrudden of Long Island (listed as a self-employed trader) contributes to national Democratic organizations, though it's not clear it's the same Vincent McCrudden that was arrested at Newark Airport last night.

Update 1:02 p.m. -Reader Bob Moffit has found the "elusive Minnesota connection," according to McCrudden's Web site:

Mr. McCrudden is a former soccer player at the University of Rhode Island, and then played professionally for the Tampa Bay Rowdies and Minnesota Strikers of the NASL.

Comment on this post

The freedom to assassinate?

Posted at 3:32 PM on January 13, 2011 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It was like old times at the White House today. A reporter from Russia quizzed White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about this freedom thing that you Americans appear so fond of.

Here's the civics lesson that came out of the exchange (On video, scroll to 50:20):

Q First my condolences to all the Americans, especially obviously to the victims. But second as to why -- it does not seem all that incomprehensible, at least from the outside. It's the reverse side of freedom. Unless you want restrictions, unless you want a bigger role for the government --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me do this -- because, look, I think there's a -- there's an investigation that's going to go on -- there's a --

Q No --

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me -- let me take my time back just for a second. I think there's an investigation that's going to go on. I think there are -- I think as it goes on, we will learn more and more about what happened.

I think as the President was clear last night, we may never know fully why or how. We may never have an understanding of why, as the President said, in the dark recesses of someone's mind, a violent person's mind, do actions like this spring forward. I don't want to surmise or think in the future of what some of that might be.

But I think it's important to understand that, as I said earlier, the event that was happening that day was the exercise of some very important, very foundational freedoms to this country: the freedom of speech; the freedom to assemble; the freedom to petition your government; democracy or a form of self-government that is of, by and for the people -- all of -- all very quintessential American values that have been on display along with the tremendous courage and resilience of those in that community and throughout this country that have had to deal with this tragedy.

Yes.

Q Exactly, Robert. But this is what I was talking about -- exactly this. This is America, the democracy, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition your government. And many people outside would also say -- and the quote, unquote "freedom" of a deranged mind to react in a violent way is also American. How do you respond to that?

MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry. What's the last part?

Q The quote, unquote "freedom" of the deranged mind to respect -- to react violently to that, it is also American.

Q (Another reporter) No, it's not.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I would disagree vehemently with that. There are -- there is nothing in the values of our country, there's nothing on the many laws on our books that would provide for somebody to impugn and impede on the very freedoms that you began with by exercising the actions that that individual took on that day. That is not American.

There are -- I think there's agreement on all sides of the political spectrum: Violence is never, ever acceptable. We had people that died. We had people whose lives will be changed forever because of the deranged actions of a madman. Those are not American. Those are not in keeping with the important bedrock values by which this country was founded and by which its citizens live each and every day of their lives in hopes of something better for those that are here.

On a less contentious note, Gibbs also revealed how the word about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords opening her eyes for the first time made it into last night's speech:

Well, he -- just to go through the arc of it -- we talked a little bit about this, again, late on the plane but I should do it for everybody who might not have seen that. This happened -- his first stop in the second-floor ICU was in her room, spent about 10 minutes there with members of her family, with her husband. And then goes on throughout the hospital seeing other patients, doctors, nurses, other staff, thanking them for what they had done.

The three friends go in -- and I don't know the exact time -- and have the exchange and there's the miracle of opening her eye and of responding to their voices and their memories as they're talking aloud to her.

The President ended by seeing the trauma team that had first received those harmed in the shooting on Saturday, and then got into the car for the very short drive to the McKale Center. In the car, along with the First Lady, was her husband and her mother, and that's when the President first heard the story and talked to the husband about whether he would be comfortable with sharing that story. Obviously there's a lot of personal and privacy issues that I think the President wanted to ensure -- he didn't write any of it out.

He mentioned to me -- we ended the meetings with the families about nine or 10 minutes before the President went out and in the hold he mentioned to me that at that -- that he would insert that story in the portion of the speech where he discusses how she's aware that we are all there rooting for her. And that's how it all came to pass.

Comment on this post

Memorials in pictures

Posted at 11:55 AM on January 13, 2011 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Courtesy of Flickr, here are images of various memorials in Tucson to the shooting victims:

Comment on this post

Assessing Arizona

Posted at 5:14 PM on January 10, 2011 by Bob Collins (10 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In the aftermath of the shootings in Arizona on Saturday, several of MPR's social networking efforts and our Public Insight Network staff have been collecting your reaction. Here are some of the more compelling comments we've received:

I think this brings up major concerns regarding the political divide in our country. Politicians and the pundit-style shows have established a mindset that we have a two-sided system where one side is pure good and the other side is pure evil. As a country we need to acknowledge that there are shades of gray and that everyone wants to do what they think is best for the country, even if I disagree with it. What impact will this event have on the public's access to politicians? Currently politicians spend most of their time with lobbyists who have paid for the privilege. Commoners have lost their access and now will lose even more.
Jason DeBoer-Moran

I am a linguistic anthropologist with a specialization in discourse analysis and public rhetoric. Extremist political rhetoric has always been with us. However, it has accelerated in recent years due to the rapidity and ubiquity of public and social media. The chance that individuals will get caught in this web of extremism is greater today than in the past. The power of symbolism in public rhetoric as a motivating force is crucial. People an only imagine what they can imagine. Public commentators have the power to change the mindset of the public by giving people the opportunity to reframe their thinking--often in negative directions.

William Beeman

Until someone is a credible threat to themselves or others, I think we can't help someone until they are ready to be helped. What worries me is how much credibility we give people's writings online. There are thousands of people who will say the most outrageous things online but would never take steps to hurt anyone. I don't want this to become a witch hunt about extreme views.

Camille Holthaus

I was a postal supervisor at the time that people were shooting up postal facilities. Believe me, we did a lot of thinking about people like Loughner. The postal service promulgated and enforced a no firearms policy. It is simply known that if you are stupid enough to take a firearm into a postal facility, you are already in trouble. This means that if you are going hunting after work, and you take your rifle to work in the trunk of your car, you can be fired. People have been fired. Note that the postal service does not have shootings any more. The firearms ban is only a small part of a comprehensive anti-violence program. Society needs an anti-violence program; you might want to look at the elements of the postal program to see what that program might be.

Paul Ryberg

The ultimate responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the shooter. That being said, the move to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill has led to less access to treatment. Additionally this has also led to the refusal of treatment by the severely mentally ill, who, nearly by definition lack the capacity to render competent judgment upon their respective mental state and to their need for treatment.

Leo Pusateri

As an immigrant from Europe, the American fascination with guns both puzzles and dismays me. I do not understand why it is considered OK for someone to buy a dangerous weapon and not have to take any kind of training, and can just walk out of the store with it. The fantasy is that you will be able to protect yourself. Well. How come then, than when people saw what was going on around Gifford, that someone with a gun did not take action!

Susan Clarke

In every case of a gun crime, the specific gun used and its characteristics need to be prominently described by the media, as happened here. Slowly, I think, the public will come to know there is a difference between guns for killing people and guns for hunting, and maybe that's an important difference.

Brent Wennberg

Despite my anti-handgun and anti-violence views, we need to step back from the analysis of this particular situation. Yes, the rhetoric and the cross hairs may have influenced the shooter, but there is a good chance they didn't. The man who shot Reagan thought he was protecting make believe actress girl friend, not making a political statement The initial speculation of Arab terrorists in the OK City bombing were completely wrong. A very popular minister was stabbed to death in Sweden a few years ago by a mentally ill man without political motives. Trying to place blame based on pure speculation helps no one. People will hold onto speculation they agree with long after it has been proven completely and undeniably false, and it only serves to harden the already overly contentious divisions in this country.

Paul Conklin

I own over 10 firearms and I bad mouth all who think it is cool to own a pistol let alone an AK or the like. I hunt and am shocked by the guys I see at the range with banana clips and their military weapons. I feel that we do have a right to have guns and I see no hope in regulating this practice. All it will do is pull any and probably all gun owners to the wrong side of question. It is a little like abortion. It is a no-win argument.

Thomas Mickelson

We've had attempted assassinations by people with unstable personalities for as long as the country has existed. Trying to use this tragedy as a political weapon to go after (or blame) those with opposing viewpoints is intellectually dishonest and the most base and cynical kind of partisanship--ironically, the very thing those doing so are trying to blame.

Mark Luebker

How about it's not political so much as it is symbol of our national mental health crisis? If this young man was "mentally unstable" as the media continues to speculate, how did he get to the point of hurting other people? When you contact a mental health practitioner, the first answering machine statement is "if you believe you might hurt yourself or other people, please call 911." This young man needed mental health crisis control and I would submit that there is not enough staff in the mental heath world to care for all patients who need help.

Marti Priest Nelson

The recent and tragic shooting, while it does remind politicians, the media, and the general public of the hazards of the noxious political rhetoric between the polar opposites of our country and a need for a call to political and social civility, it really needs to be looked at from a mental health perspective. Millions of us, daily, take in the political discourse without taking up a gun. Loughner needed greater mental health screening. When we see mental illness as a form of terrorism on homeland soil, we may be on the right track. Education, screening, outreach, prevention, and intervention are just some of the measures we need.

Alena Goldfarb

Maybe the silent majority, who I believe still have common sense and understand the golden rule, can't be silent anymore. Shine a light on the inappropriate, talk to friends, family, and strangers use your voice and speak the truth in love before crazy fear totally rules all our lives!

Rae Ann Mathias

This question presupposes that something needs to be done. It's been a long, long time since there has been a successful assault on a public official, meaning that the security we have in place is working. If we as a nation continue to put into place unnecessary security functions because of singular acts, we are going to burden and tax ourselves for no purpose. There is no perfect defense against the fringe, the best we can hope for is secure enough to avoid these tragedies most of the time, and we are there already.

Jon Bohlinger

Comment on this post

The Arizona shooting

Posted at 7:42 PM on January 8, 2011 by Bob Collins (10 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Race

Here's the latest we have from multiple sources on the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and her staff. We're not going to engage in speculation, but are providing information about what we know as fact. The latest items are at the top.

10:25 p.m. - Beefed up security was observed at an inaugural ball for Gov. Mark Dayton. Several members of Congress attended.

10:20 p.m. - One late update. The Arizona Republic identified the 9-year-old girl who was killed as Christina Taylor Green of Tucson:

A neighbor was going to the Giffords event and invited Christina along because she thought she would enjoy it, said her uncle, Greg Segalini.

Christina had just been elected to the student council at her school. The event, held outside a Safeway supermarket north of Tucson, was an opportunity for constituents to meet Giffords and talk about any concerns they had related to the federal government.

7:40 p.m. - That's the end of the briefing. Another will be held tomorrow. Here's the takeaway:

-- 19 people were shot; 6 died.
-- the sheriff stressed the connection between "vitriolic rhetoric" in the media and today's shooting.
-- they're looking for another person who may be involved.

This will conclude today's live-blogging. Feel free to discuss the situation below.

7:38 p.m. - Dr. Richard Carmona, a former surgeon general and friend of the Giffords family, is speaking. He did not illuminate the extent of the congresswoman's injuries other than it's a head wound. He said he did not know yet whether there will be any long-term brain damage.

7:33 p.m. - Sheriff: "People tend to pooh pooh what we're saying about the vitriol by the people who are doing that. That may be free speech, but it has consequences."

7:29 p.m.- Now speaking, Capt. Chris Nanos, in charge of criminal investigations for the county sheriff.

Q: Did the 9 year old die at the hospital?

A: Yes.

Q: At what range were the shots fired?

A: Very close.

Q: Was he just spraying bullets?

A: I can't get into specifics.

7:11 p.m. - Sheriff: There are 19 victims, six of whom are dead. One is a 9-year old girl.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: Was the congresswoman the target?

A: Yes

Q: Had she been receiving threats

A: I'm not aware of any public officials who haven't received threats. She had two incidents during a vitriolic campaign. Someone in an angry audience dropped a weapon out of their pants. Around the same time, windows were broken at her headquarters.

Q: Tell us more about the suspect

A: He's got a troubled past. "When you look at the rhetoric that comes out of people's mouths, it's outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona is the capital. We've become the mecca of intolerance and bigotry." This person had a mental issue and was susceptible to vitriol.

Q: Were all 19 shot?

A: Yes. It was an automatic weapon. We're not going to get into specifics.

Q: Was the other suspect a shooter?

A: No.

Q: Is security being upgraded for other elected officials.

A: No. It's not unusual for every public official to get threats. And that's the other thing: Pretty soon we're not going to be able to get real, decent people to serve in public office.

Q: Was there any return fire from anyone?

A; No.

Q: Did the shooter say anything.

A: We don't have any specifics about what he might or might not have said.

Q: Where do you think the other suspect is heading?

A: We don't know where he's heading. We don't know who he is.

Q: What was the shooter's complaint? Was it illegal immigration?

A: I don't know. He has invoked his rights.

Q: The individuals who tackled the suspect, can you say with certainty that they prevented more deaths?

A: I don't know if he had any ammunition left but he probably would've shot more people.

Q: What sort of troubled had he been in before?

A: He made threats. (Not against the congresswoman)

Q: Was he planning to kill himself?

A: We think that may be a possibility.

Q: Was the 9 year old girl with her parents. Was she a relative of the Giffords?

A: We don't have that information. This was a chaotic scene and they've gone to different hospitals. It's been difficult to sort all of these things out.

Q: Was there any suicide note found?

A: I can't talk about that.

Q: How many people were killed at the scene as opposed to died at the hospital?

A: Five

Q: Were all the people who were shot attending the event?

A: I don't know.

7:10 p.m. - Nathan Thomas Gray, special agent in charge of the FBI in Arizona is speaking. "The events of today not only affect the citizens of Arizona and the families involved, it touches the hearts of Americans throughout the United States."

7:09 p.m. - Sheriff: "We're not convinced the suspect acted alone. We have reason to believe he came to the scene with someone else." Not naming the suspect.

7:05 p.m. Dupnik: Five people were killed. Two were friends of the sheriff. One was a councilwoman. The federal judge went to mass before stopping in to "say hi" to the congresswoman. "I never met a more sincere, brilliant, fair-minded judge in my life. He goes to mass daily and he was going to go home and do the floors as he did every Saturday."

"Congresswoman Giffords is brilliant. She's not about Democrats or Republicans. She's not about politics. All she cares about is the United States of America. Today, I hope all Americans are as saddened as shocked as we are. I hope some of them are as angry as I am. I think it's time as a country that we need to do a little soul searching. The vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out by people in the radio business and some in the TV business, this has not become the nice United States of America that we grew up in."

7:03 p.m. -Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik is holding a news conference. "In my 50 years in law enforcement, I've never been so shocked as I am today. It's a sad day for America.

6:47 p.m. - Rep. Erik Paulsen was in a Young Leaders Foundation program with Rep. Giffords. He talked with MPR's Brandt Williams this afternoon.

6:38 p.m. - The Pima County sheriff is holding a briefing at 7 p.m. I'll monitor.

6:36 p.m. - This Arizona Republic observer of media has thoughts on the coverage today:

But what makes it so powerful can also make it dangerous. There are no filters. While conflicting reports of Giffords' condition were hardly unique to social media - often people just tweeted or posted what they had heard from traditional news sources, which scrambled to get the facts straight - the immediate political slant was striking. Within minutes the shootings were decried as politically motivated, an inevitable result of violent rhetoric. Maybe they will prove to be. Certainly using terms like "crosshairs" and "target" in political discourse, if you could call it that, is idiotic. Those who have used such terms were called out immediately and often. Perhaps this will change the behavior of those who use such language - though anyone who has paid attention to politics the past few years has every reason to be doubtful.

However, people also immediately assigned political motive to the shootings, as if it was a given that the suspect was acting solely out of partisan disagreement with Giffords' policies. Again, perhaps he was. But to say so before law enforcement has even talked to the guy is, to put it diplomatically, irresponsible.

I had some debate about this earlier on Twitter, with some suggesting this is just the way the new journalism is. But is it? A fact transmits by new media just as quickly as a falsehood. Facts should not be collateral damage. To the extent that information changes quickly, it's important to ask "how do you know?" in any breaking news situation and, more important, to attribute the source of information to a source. In this case, it would appear, someone who was not willing to be identified was responsible for the apparently false information. That should have been the first clue that the information may not have been reliable.

The truth is: We still don't know about Rep. Giffords' condition and, according to doctors, we won't know for 24 hours from the time of her surgery. Not being willing to wait that long doesn't give anyone an excuse to create a reality. "I don't know," should never go out of style as the best possible answer in the absence of facts.

5:06 p.m. - Background: Rep. Giffords was on FoxNews yesterday:

4:50 p.m. - Statement from U.S. Capitol Police:

The United States Capitol Police are directly involved in the ongoing investigation regarding the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. We are currently working with Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

While the United States Capitol Police does not specifically discuss the security of Members of Congress including details on our protective measures, the United States Capitol Police has communicated with House Members of Congress advising them to take reasonable and prudent precautions regarding their personal safety and security.

The United States Capitol Police remains at a high level of readiness, consistent with our operating conditions on U.S. Capitol Grounds, and we continue to maintain a robust presence.

4:33 p.m. - Statement from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-MN:

"Congresswoman Giffords was doing what so many public servants do every day, meeting with her constituents, listening to the people who sent her to Washington. This is a horrific tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her husband, family, and the other victims."

4:27 p.m. - Federal Judge John Roll, who was killed today, was placed in federal protection (along with his wife) after death threats in 2009. He was presiding judge in a lawsuit against a rancher by immigrants, according to Arizona Central.

4:09 p.m. - U.S. District Court judge John Roll once ruled the Brady Bill (gun control law that required sheriffs to perform background checks) is unconstitutional. His ruling, however, was later overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

3:59 p.m. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is speaking. "I am just heartbroken. Gabby is not just a colleague; she's also a friend. We never could have imagined this could have taken place," she says. "Pray that we never have to experience a tragedy like this again."

The representative was in the Arizona House of Representatives when Brewer was in the secretary of state's office.

3:46 p.m. -President Obama is speaking to the nation. He confirms the death of Judge Rohn Roll. Says Rep. Giffords "is fighting for her life."

"We don't know what precipitated this unspeakable act," he says.

"It's not surprising that today Gabby was doing what she always does -- listening to the hopes and concerns of her neighbors. That's what democracy is all about. It's a tragedy for Arizona and a tragedy for our entire country. What Americans do at times like this is come together and support each other."

The president did not take questions.

3:41 p.m. - KPNX TV coverage of the story (Phoenix)

3:36 p.m. - This YouTube account is from a person with the name AP is reporting has been arrested in the shooting. Warning: There is no confirmation that this is, indeed, the work of the individual who has been arrested. (It is likely not since the name is spelled differently)

3:34 p.m. From NPR political editor Ken Rudin's blog:

What is also unsurprising, but regrettable, is that everyone is ascribing a motive for the shooting without any credible information.

The Internet and the Twitterworld have been filled with speculation on why she was shot: that she was too liberal and was shot by a Tea Party conservative. Or that she was too moderate and shot by someone on the left.

All we know is that the shooter is under custody. No statement has been released, no motive revealed. Self-anointed "journalists" should keep such opinions to themselves until we know more.

3:28 p.m. - Statement from Sen. John McCain, R-AZ:

"I am horrified by the violent attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and many other innocent people by a wicked person who has no sense of justice or compassion. I pray for Gabby and the other victims, and for the repose of the souls of the dead and comfort for their families. I beg our loving Creator to spare the lives of those who are still alive, heal them in body and spirit, and return them to their loved ones.

"Whoever did this; whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race, and they deserve and will receive the contempt of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law."

3:23 p.m. - Surgeon in Tucson says Rep. Giffords is "understanding commands." The bullet exited her head, he said.

3:21 p.m. - Rep. Giffords on election night:

3:14 p.m. - The person arrested in the shooting is Jared Laughner of Arizona, Justice Department officials say.

3:07 p.m. -

3:00 p.m. - A doctor at University Medical Center in Tucson hospital his hospital has 10 patients. One has died. Five are critical. Five are in the operating room. Rep. Giffords is out of surgery. The doctor says he's "very optimistic" about her prognosis. The dead person was a 9 year old child.

2:56 p.m. - U.S. Judge John Roll is reportedly one of those killed. He had recently called for a delay in trials for people accused of felonies because of overworked courts in Arizona.

2:54 p.m. - A spokesman for the sheriff (Pima County) says there will be a news conference at 5 p.m. CT. Death toll remains at 6. Rep. Giffords is in surgery.

2:47 p.m.- This graphic, posted on Sara Palin's PAC website, is being criticized after the shooting as an example of rhetoric that heightened emotions in the fall campaign. There is, as yet, no indication from authorities on a motive for today's attack:

The graphic was controversial during the campaign.

2:43 p.m. - Statement from President Obama:

"This morning, in an unspeakable tragedy, a number of Americans were shot in Tucson, Arizona, at a constituent meeting with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. And while we are continuing to receive information, we know that some have passed away, and that Representative Giffords is gravely wounded.

"We do not yet have all the answers. What we do know is that such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society. I ask all Americans to join me and Michelle in keeping Representative Giffords, the victims of this tragedy, and their families in our prayers."

2:37 p.m. - Rep. Giffords posted this image on her Flickr page last fall, while in the middle of a heated campaign with a tea party member.

"Gabrielle Giffords owns a Glock handgun, and as a two-term Democratic congresswoman representing a swing district in Arizona's rugged southeast, she may need one Newsweek quipped in a profile of "gun runners" in the runup to the election of 2008.

2:34 p.m. - Six people are dead. Eighteen people were shot. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is at this point listed as "gravely injured." One person is in custody."

Comment on this post

Wisconsin city's police no longer chasing gas scofflaws

Posted at 10:31 AM on December 29, 2010 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Over in Appleton, Wisconsin, the police have decided they'll no longer respond to complaints from gas stations that people have driven off without paying for the gas they just pumped into their vehicle.

In so doing, the police chief gets an entry in just under the wire for the most "interesting" (in a Minnesota way) rationale of the year.

"Oftentimes, when an employee called in a theft of gas, it turned out not to be a theft of anything," Police Chief Derek Beiderwieden told the Post Crescent. "Really, they became civil matters of somebody taking something without paying for it."

You know, like theft.

But the police say most of the drive-offs are people simply forgetting to pay and they've got better things to do than be debt collectors.

It's 264 miles to Appleton, Twin Citians. It's not worth driving there to get free tanks of gas.

Comment on this post

Big tobacco case reinstated in Minnesota

Posted at 3:06 PM on December 28, 2010 by Bob Collins (15 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals today reinstated portions of a nearly 10-year-old, class action lawsuit against Philip Morris that claims the company fraudulently marketed Marlboro Lights as a safer cigarette.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 cleared the way for class action suits against cigarette companies that manufacture "light" cigarettes. The surprising 5-4 decision paved the way for the state actions. Since then, there have been numerous lawsuits filed around the country with mixed results. Class action suits have been certified in Massachusetts, Minnesota and Missouri. Judges in eight other states have rejected attempts to certify similar classes, according to the Concord (NH) Monitor . A judge in New Hampshire last month certified a similar lawsuit as a class action, in what could be the largest case in that state's history.

In Minnesota, however, the Court of Appeals ruled the suit cannot proceed against Philip Morris' owner, Altria. It said the two are different corporations. However the court reversed an October 2009 district court ruling that threw out the claims that Philip Morris "could not be sued for false advertising, consumer fraud, and deceptive trade practices regarding light cigarettes in violation of Minnesota consumer-protection statutes."

The group filing the suit claims the tobacco company marketed the Marlboro Lights as safer than a typical cigarette. Memos uncovered during the Minnesota tobacco litigation in the '90s revealed the company knew the claim to be false. The memos acknowledged that consumers who smoked "low tar" or "light" cigarettes, took longer "drags" on them, negating any benefit.

The lower court had also ruled that the settlement negotiated between then Attorney General "Skip" Humphrey's office and Philip Morris barred the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals today reversed that ruling.

"The Tobacco Settlement does not provide any remedy for individual consumers who claimed to have been injured by Philip Morris's violation of consumer-protection laws," the court said in rejecting the tobacco company's claims (See the entire opinion)

"Now that this important consumer-protection lawsuit can proceed, I look forward to it going to the trial in the near future," Edward Sweda, the senior attorney for the Tobacco Products Litigation project said.

Comment on this post

Cop walks in on robbery

Posted at 1:43 PM on December 20, 2010 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Last week in Dayton, Ohio, a police officer went to a store to get security footage of a robbery that had taken place there earlier in the evening. When he walked in, however, another robbery was underway.

Let's go to the videotape:

Bonus News Cut points if you noticed the following:

-1- It was a long time before anyone bothered to help the cop.

-2- The world's largest man apparently helped subdue the suspect.

-3- It was apparently just another night in Dayton, given the way customers came and went.

-4- What is in the hand of the person in the yellow hat?

-5- A cop's gun to the head doesn't faze the criminals of Dayton, Ohio.

Comment on this post

The mystery of the radioactive computer monitor

Posted at 9:17 AM on December 20, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Newark Airport's Terminal A was closed briefly today when a computer monitor set off whatever alarms are set off when something emitting radiation passes by.

That must have been some computer, because just about everything gives off radiation. By the end of the day, hopefully, somebody will ask why this computer monitor gave off more radiation than any of the other things we use on a daily basis. And after that, the next logical question is who on earth travels with a computer monitor? And who checks a computer monitor for baggage, then flies a different flight? Suspicious activity at the airport? That qualifies.

But back to radiation. Here's a great little Web page from the American Nuclear Society which calculates how much radiation you're exposed to on a daily basis. While Minnesota might be more protected because it's not near the ocean or the plateaus of Colorado, it has its share of coal-fired and nuclear power plants.

Do you live in a stone or brick building? That's 7 millirems (you're allowed about 5,000 millirems a year before it gets serious).

Presumably, today's incident involved a CRT monitor. That's good for about 1 millirem, or an exposure equivalent to two hours of flight time in a jet. If you smoke half a pack of cigarettes a day, that's 18 millirem.

What else has significant radiation in your home? CFL light bulbs, smoke detectors, and even granite countertops according to a fact sheet this year from the Health Physicians Society. Make a note of that. Next time you go to the airport, leave your granite countertop at home.

None of this, however, is particularly comforting. In fact, it serves to point out how insignificant a computer monitor's radiation is. So why was this incident so significant?

Comment on this post

Felon loses bid to get his guns back

Posted at 10:25 AM on December 7, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld the teeth of Minnesota's lifetime ban on felons possessing guns, by ruling a Ramsey County Court was correct in considering whether restoring a felon's gun rights threatens the public's safety.

The court ruled in the case of James Averbeck, who was convicted to third-degree assault in 1991. A lower court had ruled that the public's safety outweighed Averbeck's private interest. The court agreed, although it acknowledged Averbeck met other criteria for having his right to own a gun restored.

He also said not being able to have a gun makes him unable to go hunting with family and friends, and makes it difficult to make a living as a private investigator.

The Court of Appeals, however, said the lower court was correct in considering the possibility that a felon would be a threat to public safety if gun rights were restored.

Here's the full opinion

Comment on this post

A song to free the hikers

Posted at 2:54 PM on December 1, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Sarah Shourd, one of the three American hikers arrested by Iran and thrown in prison, has released video of a song she hopes will build support for the two remaining hikers, one of whom is Minnesota native Shane Bauer.

"I wrote 'Piece of Time' when I was in prison," she writes. "The last time I saw Shane and Josh they asked me to use my music to raise support for them and get them out of prison. Every second for the last 2+ months since my release I've been fighting alongside the families and countless others around the world solely for this end. I hope the song and video can bring people closer to our story and give you a glimpse of who Shane, Josh are, why their detention is so completely unjust and why their freedom is so tremendously important to fight for."

There is also a new video documentary on the Web site freethehikers.org.

Comment on this post

A dead end in Powderhorn Park

Posted at 1:22 PM on November 30, 2010 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Hennepin County prosecutors today charged a 16 year old boy with the sexual assault of a mother cross-country skiing with her kids in Powderhorn Park in Minneapolis last Wednesday evening. The boy, and others, are also charged with sexually assaulting two girls in a nearby garage later in the evening.

MPR's Brandt Williams is covering the boy's arraignment in court today and will have the story later on today, but while no one has been proven guilty, we wonder nonetheless how a kid grows up to allegedly behave that way.

The top of the charging petition, released by prosecutors, may hold a clue:

Comment on this post

Death in a classroom

Posted at 1:02 PM on November 30, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Samuel Hengel died today. He's the 15-year-old who held a Wisconsin classroom hostage yesterday until police stormed the room. He shot himself.

If there's any positive in the aftermath of the tragedy, it may be that a kid bringing a gun to a classroom is still unusual enough to make the news. Everyone seems to be asking the right questions: How did it come to this for a kid? What can be done to keep it from happening to someone else's child.

In other similar incidents, those questions had a somewhat easier answer. The shooter was bullied or teased (as was apparently the case in Cold Spring, Minnesota in 2003), or maybe prescription drugs played a part (as some suggested in the school shootings in Red Lake in 2005)

But six of Hengel's best friends were in the classroom he held at gunpoint yesterday, and none of those friends has any clue what set him off:

The most frightening possibility in the aftermath of the incident is that it didn't happen for any particular reason.

Comment on this post

Child abuse story strikes a chord

Posted at 2:54 PM on November 23, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The fact is, Minnesota has been grossly overreacting to alleged child maltreatment for as long as reliable records are available, which is about a decade.

Year after year, Minnesota takes away children at one of the highest rates in America. Even now, with all the improvement in recent years, (and there has been real improvement) that rate is nearly double the national average and more than double and triple the rate in states that are, relatively speaking, national models for keeping children safe.

As the story itself points out, "70 percent of the cases involve neglect." But definitions of neglect are so broad that any impoverished family can be defined as "neglectful." This confusion of poverty with neglect is the single biggest problem in American child welfare.-- Alexandria, Va.

The Hennepin County study referred to showed that most of the decrease was due to a reduction in referrals from non-mandated reporters, that is from relatives, neighbors, community members rather than physicians, teachers etc. At this point no one has come up with solid information on why this might be. People quoted in the article speculate on reasons such as changed societal attitudes, but there are other viewpoints that were not included. One that I have heard is that poor communities in general and communities of color in particular have become sufficiently distrustful of the child welfare system that they believe children will be better off in almost any situation than if the authorities become involved. There is no solid research on this either, but it would have been better had the story consulted some leaders in these communities to surface any other points of view. -- St. Paul

Comment on this post

Crackdown on anti-gay remark earns teacher a suspension

Posted at 1:47 PM on November 16, 2010 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Schools

The limits of free speech vs. the acceptance of gay students is a battle on display in Michigan this week.

The Associated Press reports that a teacher threw a boy out of his class after he said he doesn't accept gays. The school suspended the teacher.

On Oct. 20, McDowell told a student in his classroom to remove a belt buckle with the Confederate Flag, the symbol of the southern confederacy that seceded from the United States over slavery, kicking off the Civil War in the 1860s.

She complied, but it prompted a question from a boy about how the flag differs from the rainbow flag, a symbol of pride for the gay community.

"I explained the difference between the flags, and he said, 'I don't accept gays,''' said McDowell, 42, who was wearing a shirt with an anti-gay bullying message.

McDowell said he told the student he couldn't say that in class.

"And he said, 'Why? I don't accept gays. It's against my religion.' I reiterated that it's not appropriate to say something like that in class,'' McDowell said Monday.

McDowell said he sent the boy out of the room for a one-day class suspension. Another boy asked if he also could leave because he also didn't accept gays.

"The classroom discussion was heading in a direction I didn't want it to head,'' McDowell said.

At a school board meeting in Howell, Michigan last night, 14-year-old Graeme Taylor came to the teacher's defense.

For the record, there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support the student's claim that "6 million gay people kill themselves every year." In the latest year for which statistics are readily available, 34,598 people in the United States killed themselves. They all weren't gay.

Another student said the First Amendment was being improperly used to harbor "hate speech."

The school board said it will create an anti-bullying policy.

Comment on this post

How not to get charged with selling meth

Posted at 11:24 AM on November 9, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In Minnesota's Lyon County, police found methamphetamine, a torch, a scale, pipes, plastic baggies, and other paraphernalia in a man's home. Is that enough to charge him with intending to distribute the drug?

The Minnesota Court of Appeals today said it does not, and reversed the conviction of a man.

The case stems from the arrest of Gerald Hanson. Police found "three glass pipes, an attachment for a propane torch, a propane tank, and a number of plastic baggies containing white residue. From the bedroom, they seized a plastic plate with white residue, a plastic bowl, a plastic spoon, and a glass pipe. They also seized numerous plastic baggies and a razor blade that they found in a dresser drawer. From the bathroom, they seized a glass pipe and a bag with 23.6 grams of a white substance."

He was convicted and sentenced to about 8 years in prison largely on the testimony of a member of an interagency gang and drug task force who said the items were all the type of things you'd find used by a drug dealer, even though they could also be used by someone buying drugs for personal use, his lawyer said.

But the Minnesota Court of Appeals today said the circumstantial evidence in cases like this needs to prove an intent to sell drugs beyond a reasonable doubt. It suggested a wad of cash -- not found in the police search of Hanson's home -- might have tipped the scales in the favor of prosecutors. Or "solvents, tools, latex gloves, coffee filters, aluminum foil, packages of Sudafed, lithium batteries, rubber tubing, a blender, thermoses, and fan . . . a mirror, phone cards, and an electronic scale." None was found.

What about the razor blades and baggies. "Plastic baggies and razor blades by themselves do not prove intent to sell," the court said. "They could just as reasonably indicate Hanson's intent to separate drugs that he purchased for himself." It said bags with even amounts of drugs inside might be another story.

The rest of the evidence admitted in the case could easily be explained by an argument that Hanson was merely using meth, not selling it, the court said.

Here's the full opinion of the court.

Comment on this post

Are medical students really students if they make money?

Posted at 1:40 PM on November 8, 2010 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It's a Minnesota case that hit the U.S. Supreme Court today. The Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota do not want medical students working for them classified as employees because they'd be liable for half the Social Security and Medicare taxes.

An appeals court ruled last year that U.S. tax exception for students was meant only for those who worked part time while attending classes, but not medical residents, who are closer to full-time employees of the teaching hospitals to which they are assigned.

"How do you draw the line between a student who is working and a worker who is studying?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor said today, framing the question the court will have to answer after today's hearing.

The Treasury Department argues, essentially, that if a medical student is working 40 hours in a hospital without having another doctor standing over him/her watching him/her, that's not really a student, and his/her income should be taxed.

Sotomayor did not appear to buy Mayo's argument that the students are learning, thus they are students, not employees.

"Aren't you learning today -- sitting here and watching this -- maybe you are not -- your own argument?" she told Atty. Theodore B. Olson. "Aren't we learning in every case that we're hearing? It's -- it's, in my mind, difficult to separate out what makes a person or stops a person from learning on a job."

Olson joked that the question shouldn't matter to the Court because the justices do not pay Social Security taxes.

"You are not challenging that, are you, Mr. Olson?" Chief Justice John Roberts quipped.

Matthew Roberts, representing the Treasury Department, said if people are working long hours and making $40,000 to $50,000 a year, they ought to pay into a Social Security system which would help them if they were to become disabled on the job.

He offered no opinion on whether the Supreme Court should pay Social Security taxes.

(Here's a transcript of today's arguments.)

The University of Minnesota won a $45 million reimbursement from the federal government in 1998 for taxes paid on students' stipends. After the award, the IRS adopted regulations excluding medical residents from the student exemption.

Comment on this post

Meet your judge

Posted at 10:01 PM on November 2, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

It's unusual to have much interest in judicial district races; nobody who didn't graduate from law school can even name a sitting district court judge in Minnesota.

But in the 10th judicial district, 24 people are trying to get one job. Early in the evening Christopher Penwell was leading. He's the Republican-endorsed candidate.

It's still unusual to see candidates campaigning for judgeships in Minnesota while touting his conservative credentials, as Penwell did. His Web site says he favors "the principles and transcendent truths set forth in the Declaration of Independence including but not limited to the Sanctity of Life, the Rule of Law, Equality and Justice."

At the same time, two high-profile Republican judicial candidates -- Tim Tingelstad and Greg Wersal -- got clobbered in their bids for the state Supreme Court. But the argument over whether Minnesota continues to elect judges is only going to get louder. A commission is pushing to have Minnesota adopt a system where judges are appointed.

Update 10:36 p.m. It appears that Tad Jude has now opened a huge lead. Jude probably has the best name recognition in the area since he ran for Congress in the '90s. Jude also served 16 years in the House and served on the Hennepin County Board. He adopted a more benign campaign against "judicial activism."

Comment on this post

Can bullying be stopped?

Posted at 2:32 PM on October 13, 2010 by Bob Collins (8 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics, Schools

These are the faces of a crisis in the nation's schools.

They're bullies, or at least alleged bullies. They're charged in Massachusetts with bullying Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old student who hanged herself in January. They did it -- allegedly -- the new fashioned way: Away from school grounds. On Facebook.

A couple of state legislators say they intend to use the special session on flood relief to reintroduce a bill on bullying.

"This emergency is one of our own creation; we can respond," Sen. Scott Dibble said today. "We can change this. We can take those affirmative steps so that every kid who goes to school knows that they are valued, that they'll be safe, that they're loved, that they're going to get an equal shot at a good start in life."

The problem is that the bill doesn't tell schools how to "change this."

Here's what the bill, which Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed in 2009, says:

Subd. 2. Harassment, bullying, intimidation, and violence policy. (a) Requires a school board to adopt a written policy, consistent with Minnesota's human rights law and this section, that prohibits harassment, bullying, intimidation, and violence based on characteristics such as race, color, creed, national origin, gender, marital status, disability, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, or physical characteristics, or associating with a person having any of these characteristics. Requires the policy to address all forms of harassment, bullying, intimidation, and violence, including electronic and Internet-based forms among other forms. Requires the policy to be posted on the district's Web site. Requires schools to develop a process for discussing the policy and to provide school employees training on responding to harassment, bullying, intimidation, and violence.

The legislation is aimed at toughening anti-bullying legislation the Legislature passed in 2007, which also led to plenty of school districts scratching their heads wondering how?

Here's what I wrote (on the old Minnesota Fantasy Legislature site) at the time:

But that's not the part of the bill that caught my attention. It was this:

The policy shall address intimidation and bullying in all forms, including, but not limited to, electronic forms and forms involving Internet use.

Come again?

I watched the Senate Education Committee testimony on this a week or so ago and while there was some rumblings from the minority party about such things as how a school committee can possibly police the off-school-premises and off-school-hours activities of students, squirreled away in their rooms at home... banging away on the Internet, for the most part the response was "we'll let the school boards figure that out."

The biggest challenge facing anyone who wants to stop bullying (and that's mostly everyone except the bullies) is the technology that shields the bully from the long reach of those who can stop it. Bullying once happened only face-to-face, on school property. Those days are gone forever. There are also significant constitutional questions involved that the Legislature isn't addressing. Until the Legislature can figure that out, it's in a position to do little more than telling someone else to do something about it.

There's also another common theme in bullying incidents that aren't being addressed: Teachers who know about it and do nothing to stop it. That may be a matter for collective bargaining.

In the meantime, the torture continues.

Update 3:54 p.m. -- Colleague Tom Weber reminds me of this excellent discussion on the online aspect of bullying.

Comment on this post

Drunk driving dispatches

Posted at 12:18 PM on October 13, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The mayor of Mankato avoided jail time when he was sentenced for drunk driving today, the Star Tribune reports. Hennepin County District Court Judge Denise Reilly gave Mayor John Brady 60 days' community service instead. He pleaded guilty to the charges. He was arrested in August.

"Most don't come back because they're humiliated, embarrassed and realize just how dangerous their behavior was," the paper quotes Judge Reilly as saying. "I believe you're taking the steps to ensure we never see you again."

If Brady is a typical Minnesota drunk driver, there's a good chance he'll be back.

According to a 2003 study by the Minnesota House of Representatives, half of those arrested for drunk driving, have been arrested before for drunk driving.

More than 200,000 Minnesota drivers have at least two DWIs on their record.

Brady is lucky. He didn't kill anyone. Not so -- allegedly -- for Brady Erickson. Prosecutors today said he had two beers and a shot of liquor hours before driving his car on I-94, slamming into a group of kids changing a flat tire, killing three of them.

Comment on this post

Audio: The case for and against picketing soldiers' funerals

Posted at 1:59 PM on October 8, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

"If context is ever going to matter, it has to matter in the context of a funeral."

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_general_features_2010_10_08_scotus_summers_1_20101008_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/general/features/2010/10/08/scotus_summers_1_20101008_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

"The words at issue in this case were people from a church delivering a religious viewpoint."

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_newscasts_2010_10_08_scotus_phelps_1_20101008_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/newscasts/2010/10/08/scotus_phelps_1_20101008_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2010_10_08_scotus_summers_2_20101008_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2010/10/08/scotus_summers_2_20101008_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Comment on this post

Lawyer jailed for refusing to recite Pledge

Posted at 12:56 PM on October 7, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

What we have in Mississippi this week is a failure to communicate.

A judge in Tupelo yesterday ordered Danny Lampley to jail for contempt of court. His crime? He wouldn't say the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of a court session.

Here's proof.

"I don't have to say it because I'm an American," the lawyer told NEMS360.com.

Normally, I don't recommend people read the comments section of Web sites, but the ones here might be a good starting point for a discussion on whether the U.S. Constitution is properly taught in the nation's schools

Comment on this post

A day with the Board of Pardons

Posted at 8:41 PM on October 5, 2010 by Bob Collins (8 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

If you want to see how one moment at a (usually) young age can ruin your life, an afternoon at the twice-a-year meeting of the Minnesota Board of Pardons provides a lesson on life's hard lessons. The board -- Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Attorney General Lori Swanson, and Chief Justice Lorie Gildea -- met today. It was the governor's final meeting. Twenty-seven people asked the board for a break. Some had good reasons. Some needn't have bothered to show up. Most got the same answer: "No."

These -- as they say -- are their stories (in order of appearance).

Arnold Ashland - "I wouldn't buy a squirt gun."

Ashland got robbed twice while working at a Domino's Pizza. He went to prison for robbing a Domino's. Three times. "I'm not proud of what I did," he said. "I haven't bought a gun since '92. I wouldn't buy a squirt gun for my girlfriend's son." He said he gives speeches now to convicts just of prison. He coaches softball teams. But he used a gun and AG Swanson says people who use guns, usually don't get pardons. Denied.

Philip Blatz - "My life has changed."

"I'm a totally different person," Blatz said, comparing his life now with theone he had in the mid-'70s when he was convicted of burglary and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. He's off the drugs and booze. He volunteers with the American legion, raising money for Special Olympics and Wound Warriors, he said. "He's a good man," his sister, Jane said. But he also had several drunk driving arrests. "I made a bad decision to get some cigarettes," he told Swanson. Granted.

He was convicted of third-degree burglary in Hennepin County in 1959 . It was a long time ago, unless you want to get a job as a greeter at WalMart. "I was denied" when WalMart did a background check. "I was so embarrassed. This has been hanging over my head for years." Granted.

A robbery conviction at age 17 in Ramsey County in 1995 may cost him his dream of becoming a cop. He drove a car used in a robbery. But he says he stayed in the car when his friends beat someone up in the robbery. He might've gotten his pardon if he hadn't struggled with a question from Gildea: "Was it your fault?"

"It was a random group act," he said.

"Do you accept responsibility?" she asked again. "It sounds like you're blaming the people you were with."

"I drove them there. I agree with that" he said after a long pause.

He wanted to get in the law enforcement program at Century College and become a community service officer. But he can't. Not with the robbery on his record.

"I'm a witness to his life and I couldn't be more proud," his wife said. The story of his life now made Brandt the kind of guy you could root for. All he had to do was say "yes." When his request was denied, he put his head on the table.

Farrow has been through treatment, sponsors others and says his conviction on violating an order of protection is "showing up" whenever he tries to get a job.

"You have a criminal sexual assault arrest in 1990 involving an ex-girlfriend in Mower County, " Gov. Pawlenty said. "It says you approached her car, broke a key in the ignition, grabbed her breast, and spit on her."

"I didn't spit on her," Farrow said.

"Did you break the key?" the governor asked.

"I don't think so."

"Did you touch her?"

"The window was open," Farrow said.

"Did you touch her?"

"Yes."

"And now you want a pardon?" the governor said.

"I'm not going to argue. You're the governor. You have friends in high places," Farrow said.

"It's not real complicated," the governor said. Denied.

Hiatt quoted the Steve Miller Band while relaying the effects of his untreated mental illness which led to an assault conviction in 1997, and numerous hospitalizations. The victim was his mother. "I slapped her," he acknowledged. He's held some jobs and just got a seasonal retail job at the Mall of America. He wants to become a "recovery specialist." He volunteers at his church.

"I've never been prouder of my brother," his brother said. He asked the board to approve a pardon to give his brother a needed morale boost.

Gov. Pawlenty's wife, Mary, was the sentencing judge. Denied.

Charlene Hopela - "I'm sorry for the thoughtless act."

A 1980 theft conviction in Hennepin County has been followed by 30 years of a lawful life, she said. She was a stay-at-home mom in St. Cloud, but has tried to return to work. "This is what it means to be exemplary," Gildea said. Granted.

Convicted in Houston County of misdemeanor theft in 2004, Kadlec wants to be a nurse but can't get into the nursing program with a conviction. "I want the degree I've worked so hard for," she said. "I want it to be known that I have improved myself."

"Are you a Packers or a Vikings fan?" Pawlenty asked.

"I refuse to answer," she said.

"What cuts against you is it wasn't that long ago," Swanson said. This is a theme that would reoccur through the afternoon. Time must pass for people who are running out of time to get their lives on track again. Granted.

Timothy Larcom - "Daddy's been shot!"

Larcom was convicted of aggravated assault for the robbery and shooting of a Ramsey County farmer for whom he worked in 1974. He said he lost his brother while he was in prison. He's worked for the St. Cloud Children's home, wants to be a firefighter but can't get credentials, and has worked with "hard core juvenile offenders," pointing out several times that "a lot of these programs are no longer funded."

He was going to drive an ambulance for Gold Cross in St. Cloud, "but they said at a meeting , 'if you have any felonies or convictions, you might as well leave now,'" he said. So he left.

"I have a wonderful life," he said, "but even if I wanted to donate my time, I can't even do that."

"'Daddy's been shot!' were the words I heard in 1974," countered the daughter of the farmer who was shot and survived. But her mother shot and killed herself six weeks later. "Our lives were forever changed. I hold Timmy Larcom responsible. It's offensive that he's asking for a pardon."

Denied.

Leland volunteers with youth sports groups, the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts, he told the Board. He received his GED since the 1977 theft conviction. He closed a business he started because of the economy "I need to find a job."

"I've seen him struggle to find a job," his tearful wife said, "and struggle because of a lack of self confidence."

Granted.

Craig Lothert - "I don't want to be known as the felon in my family"

"These felonies have been thrown in my face, even though they happened a long time ago," Lothert said of his 1996 convictions on burglary charges in 1996, between his junior and senior year in high school. "I wash dishes, work at food shelves, I pick up garbage," he said.

His mother, Gloria, said he has a learning disability and Tourette Syndrome. He broke into a church and stores after breaking up with a girlfriend. "He wasn't stable," she said.

"It's a very difficult case," Gildea said, repeating that it's only been 12 years since the case was "discharged." Denied.

Robert Lounsbury - "My wife ransacked the place."

Lounsbury says he's been law-abiding for the last 12 years. He was convicted of accessory to third-degree burglary in 1997. He was drunk, he said. He, too, tried to get a job at WalMart, only to fail a background check.

"Why did you break in to the home?" Attorney General Swanson asked.

"It was open," Lounsbury said. "My wife ransacked the place and put stuff in my car. I had nothing to do with stealing."

"You blame other people?" Gildea asked.

"No, I'm blaming me. I was drinking," he said.

"This isn't a case of someone being young and exercising bad judgment," Gov. Pawlenty said. "This is a 45-year old behaving like a young drunk." Denied.

Roseline Maclean - "I will try to stay clean."

Maclean, married with two children, was denied her application for citizenship because of a theft conviction in Stearns County in 2004. Though she has completed her general coursework at Metro State, she's been unable to get into the nursing program. She volunteers at church, but her application to volunteer in the nursery was denied, and she was rejected when she tried to volunteer at her daughter's school.

"You were convicted of fraud in 2004, and driving violations in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2009," Gov. Pawlenty noted. "It seems like you have a hard time being law abiding."

"That's why I'm in school, but it's hard right now," she said. "I will try to stay clean." Denied.

Richard Magee

A single dad who works full-time, Magee said he was unable to get letters of recommendation from anyone but his mother. He was convicted in 1985 of theft, but there was also a question from the Board about missing some court dates. He also failed to pay child support ("I was out of work."). Denied

Peter Nayquonable - "I want to better myself."

He was convicted in a Mille Lacs County court of theft in 1998. Since then, he's finished St. Cloud State University, and works for Alliance Bank. "There are only 3 males in our tribe who have four-year degrees," his brother, John said. "He's one of them."

Nayquonable was arrested an Applebee's for a bad check during a previous visit. More recently, he got a job offer, but it was rescinded three days later. "It was crushing," he said. "I want to better myself." Granted.

Idman Omar

Her attorney did the talking. She accepted assistance checks for $1,000 she was eligible for. She arrived in the country in 1999, according to her attorney. "She had trouble understanding, had just given birth to twins, and she needed the income." Granted.

Todd Oslund - "I know what I did was bad"

"I know what I did was bad," Oslund said of his 1984 burglary in Dakota County. Like many others who appeared before the Board, alcohol was part of the reason. He's had several DWIs since. "We want to see more time," Pawlenty said. "Your last DWI doesn't give me confidence." Denied

"I can't get a job," he told the board. After his conviction on reckless use of a firearm and domestic assault in Anoka County, he went back to school to learn computers, then worked as an appraiser, and then a real estate agent. He volunteers with Meals on Wheels and organized coat drives for kids.

He's been a trucker. "I've got over 3 million miles accident free over 40 years," he said. But background checks prevent him from getting any more work. "They look at me like I'm a terrorist," he said.

He says he'd been driving for 24 hours in a blizzard from Chicago when he got home, opened a beer, and had an argument with his wife.

"Did you point a gun?" Gildea asked.

"I grabbed it. But it doesn't make any difference; it wasn't bolt action," he said.

"We're not granting pardons for violence and gun cases," Pawlenty said. Denied.

If you fire two shots at a dog with a high-powered rifle, and kill a three-year-old girl you didn't know was there, it's probably best not to tell the Board of Pardons that you feel like a victim.

"I was only trying to scare a dog," he said.

He complained that he's been denied being a mentor for Big Brother. "Even the local gun association doesn't want me there," he said.

The Crow Wing County Attorney called the case "the worst I've ever been around. The family opposed the manslaughter (plea bargain) because they were told it was a penalty felony that would prevent him from owning guns."

"I'll never forget the look on her face as she turned the instant the first shot missed," a statement from the girl's mother said. "There was no time. The second shot was a kill shot. "

"He wants a pardon so he can purchase a gun and go hunting with his grandchildren. How can he even ask that? He should have thought about the consequences."

Denied.

Kristen Pollock - "It's going to hold me back."

Pollock was 19 when she got into a fight with her 17-year-old sister, who had a knife. She was convicted of disorderly conduct and fifth-degree assault in 2001. "It's going to hold me back," she told the Board. She wants to go into nursing and mortuary science, but background checks prevent it.

"I want to go into a field where I can help people, and it's just not going to happen with this," she said.

Pawlenty seemed inclined to give her a break, but Gildea resisted. "I'm not satisfied that you meet the higher standard. There might be a day to prove your character, but today is not that day," she said. Denied.

Marcia Powell -- "I did it."

Powell killed a woman in 1975. "I was a young girl with three kids, and scared to death. I told police, 'I did it,' and waited for them to come take me in." She has Parkinson's and says she needs money to live but can't "get some things done" without a pardon.

"Not a day goes by that I don't think of her three kids and my six. I have two about to graduate college with children of their own. I've watched what you've done today and I know my case is few and far between. Hopefully I can spend the rest of my life trying to make up for what I did." Denied.

Theresa Schmit - "It was my fault."

In 1988, Schmit was convicted of shoplifting in Stearns County. She worked at KMart, but was laid off when it closed. She graduated from St. Cloud State in 2009. She volunteers at the St. Cloud VA hospital. She told the Board she handles confidential information. "I tried to prove I'm an honest person," she said.

"Seeing her struggle with the past is an inspiration," her son said.

Granted.

Brent Skaja - "I come from a family of well-educated, law-abiding people."

This might've been the most heartbreaking decision of the day. Skaja got into a fight in a nightclub in St. Cloud in 1997. "I was young (22), I just got out of the service, and I was drinking," he admitted. He had intended to use the GI Bill to become a teacher, like his parents and his grandfather.

"I couldn't get a job," he said. He was turned away from Officer Candidate School with the National Guard. He got some jobs in sales after graduating from St. Cloud State in 2001. "I come from a family of well-educated, law-abiding people," he said in tears.

He says he'd like to have children but because of the conviction, he wouldn't be able to participate in "scouting, athletics, or activities."

Asked by Justice Gildea what he's learned, he said "Self control. Taking responsibility. And anger management."

"There might be a day when you convince us," Gildea said, repeating an earlier statement, "but today isn't that day. Denied.

Skaja's birthday is Wednesday.

Paul Soderquist

"Here I am," Soderquist said as he sat down to ask for a pardon on his conviction of violating an order for protection. He then answered questions about his chemical dependence in several DWIs. Denied.

Douglas Sorenson

Sorenson was working in Preston when it started to snow. He didn't have a car and a Good Samaritan stopped to pick him up. He stole the car at knifepoint. "I want to be able to get a better job," he told the Board, which denied his request.

Comment on this post

Did release of Buesgens' video violate his privacy?

Posted at 3:53 PM on September 23, 2010 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

Has Rep. Mark Buesgens' privacy been violated by Wednesday's release of video of his field sobriety test by Wright County authorities?

State Rep. John Lesch, former state representative Duke Powell, and I have been having a conversation about this on Twitter and the jury is still out... somewhat.

Powell contacted Wright County authorities in the belief that releasing the tape violates the state's Data Practices Act. The authorities said the tape could be released because their investigation is complete, according to Powell.

An inspection of the law doesn't answer the question because video is not mentioned. Here are the relevant parts of the law. It states that material used in an arrest is confidential while the case is "active."

Investigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime or other offense for which the agency has primary investigative responsibility is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.

Usually, law enforcement authorities stymie journalists' attempts to get information by claiming an investigation is "active." This particular controversy stems from the assertion that this one isn't.

A criminal investigation becomes "inactive" (that is, the video could be released) when the police or prosecutors decide not to prosecute or the time prosecutors have to file charges expires.

Rep. John Lesch, DFL-St. Paul, isn't happy with the release of the Buesgens arrest video. "Defendants are tried in court, not in the press. Just like reporters jealously guard the sanctity of their own sources," he told me via Twitter. Lesch chairs the House Crime Records/Criminal Records Division and says he'd like to have his committee take a look at the release of the video.

Getting a definitive answer from state officials in charge of the Data Practices Act isn't easy. Matt Gehring, a legislative analyst in the House of Representatives Research Department, wrote an overview of the act in July. He wasn't aware of a case involving the release of video but referred me to the Information Policy Analyst Division of the state Department of Administration. A recording at the office suggested leaving a message and they'd try to return the call within two days.

Wright County authorities did not ask for a determination by the Information Policy Analyst Division of the state Department of Administration, according to Jerrod Raulk, a policy analyst. He says the release of video is a "gray area" which is not specifically addressed in the law, but said there are several provisions a law enforcement agency could cite to justify its release.

But under the law, a criminal case can be considered "inactive" after the time expires for prosecutors to bring charges. That time came several days ago.

Comment on this post

Hands up. Pants down.

Posted at 11:45 AM on September 14, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

You're a St. Paul cop and, suspecting drug dealing, you order those in a car parked in a White Castle parking lot out of the car. You tell a passenger to raise his hands and when he does, his pants fall down to his knees. When you pull his pants up, you feel a gun in his pocket. Is it an illegal search?

It happened and today the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that Frank Wiggins -- he of the questionable fashion -- is out of luck; it wasn't a search at all.

The court wrote in an opinion published today:

The district court found that the contact that revealed the gun was not a search at all. It described the officer's conduct as "an accidental finding of a gun as she's trying to help him get his pants into a decent position." The description fits.

"Fits." Get it? A little judicial humor for our benefit, perhaps.

The court said the circumstances in which the gun was seized was not a search:

As a result of the lawful seizure and the officer's specific directions, which effectively prevented Wiggins from holding his own pants up or raising them, Wiggins was standing in a public parking lot on a busy St. Paul street with his hands high in the air and his pants drooping at his knees. Even assuming that Wiggins intended his pants to sag somewhat, the district court aptly construed the knee-level positioning as "extreme." The record indicates that the officer had decided to conduct a pat-search but that before beginning she wanted to hoist Wiggins's pants. She did not testify about her motive. Perhaps she decided to raise Wiggins's pants to afford him a bit of dignity regardless of her planned search. Or perhaps she wanted to avoid the risk of contacting his genitalia through his underwear during her pat-search. Either way, we agree with the district court that the officer's incidental contact with the gun while lifting Wiggins's pants on decency grounds was not a search.

At which point Judge Kevin Ross went the poetry route:

She hoisted his pants presumably to conceal rather than to reveal.

It gets better...

Because judicial holdings are limited by their facts, we are confident that our opinion will not be misconstrued to suggest that an officer can freely meddle with a person's clothes to the refrain, "Pants on the ground, pants on the ground" under the guise of providing public assistance.

There are a few other cleverly-hidden puns in the opinion.

Sadly, Judge Ross declined MPR's invitation to talk to us.

Comment on this post

Supreme Court limits protections against employer reprisal

Posted at 5:01 PM on September 9, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In a split decision today, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowed the protection against reprisal claims afforded Minnesota workers who are fired by an employer.

The high court threw out the case of Elen Bahr, a white supervisor in Capella University's communications department, who claimed she was fired because she opposed what she thought was discriminatory treatment of white workers.

In her suit, Bahr says Capella gave special treatment to an African American employee who, she said, wasn't performing well at her job. She contends the university had directed her to "go slow" on the issue because of fears the employee would file a discrimination complaint against Capella. Bahr said the special treatment discriminated against others in her department. Shortly thereafter, Capella fired Bahr.

A district court threw the case out because Capella's actions toward the the African American employee -- it refused to put her in a program to improve her performance, a program Bahr said was offered to white employees -- were not prohibited under Minnesota's Human Rights Act. But an Appeals Court reinstated the suit, saying Bahr only had to believe the actions violated the law, to assert a claim of reprisal against her.

But the Supreme Court rejected that decision

"We conclude that no reasonable person could believe that Capella's treatment of (the African American employee) was forbidden by the MHRA because (she) was not subjected to anything that could remotely be considered an adverse employment action," Justice G. Barry Anderson wrote.

In a dissent, however, Justice Alan Page said Bahr may have reasonably believed that Capella's "race-based preferential treatment of (the African American woman) constituted reverse discrimination against Capella's non-black employees who were subject to all of Capella's performance and disciplinary standards."

Page and Justice Paul Anderson argued that the Minnesota Human Rights Act requires only an allegation of discrimination to protect a person from a reprisal because of the allegation.

But the majority on the court said"not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse employment action."

(Here's the full decision)

Comment on this post

Court upholds anti-pawnshop ordinance

Posted at 12:20 PM on August 26, 2010 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

St. Louis Park has prevailed in its fight against pawn shops in its city.

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the city's ordinance against pawn shops near residential areas, and a restriction against more than two pawn shops in the city. A moratorium on pawn shops in the city prevented Pawn America -- a national chain based in Burnsville -- from putting a shop on Excelsior Boulevard, after residents in the area objected.

Pawn America said it was specifically being targeted by the city's zoning rule.

"The City does not deny that Pawn America's plan to open a pawnshop prompted the adoption of the interim ordinance. But awareness of one particular application does not, in itself, make the City‟s actions arbitrary or unreasonable," the Supreme Court said in its ruling today.

"Although the Pawn America application undoubtedly prompted the City's concern about pawnshops and the City took steps to preserve the status quo, the record indicates that the City adopted the interim moratorium ordinance not merely because of Pawn America, but to protect the City's planning process with respect to pawnshops in the City in general, and to examine the impact of pawnshops on the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens," it said.

Here's the full opinion.

Comment on this post

Mankato's alcohol problem

Posted at 12:56 PM on August 24, 2010 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In 2008, Mankato was ground zero in the debate over alcohol, after several teenagers died of alcohol poisoning or accidents involving alcohol.

"The pattern isn't good," said Mayor John Brady to MPR at the time. "The citizens suffer from some of the activities that over-consuming people do in the neighborhoods, especially in the summer. It's not the kind of behavior we want to continue in our community."

Fast-forward to 2010. Brady has been arrested for drunk driving, the Mankato Free Press reports.

Comment on this post

English only

Posted at 12:33 PM on August 24, 2010 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Lino Lakes got plenty of scrutiny recently when its City Council voted to approve an English-only ordinance that bars Lino Lakes from spending public dollars on the translation of meetings and materials -- unless they deal with public safety or public health. It spawned renewed debate over whether English-only laws should be expanded, as they have been in other counties and states.

Today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a ruling in a case that -- while unrelated to any English-only legislation -- shows why the issue is more complicated than the debate portrays. There have to be exceptions to the rule.

The court upheld the conviction of a man who was charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct. At his trial, a juror was removed because the juror asked in the middle of the trial that testimony be translated into Spanish. The prosecutor asked the judge to remove the juror because she may not have understood some testimony already given.

The Court of Appeals upheld the man's conviction and said the lower court was correct, saying:

The ability to communicate in the English language is one of several qualifications for jury service. Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 808(b)(4). A juror should be able to understand the evidence, the arguments of counsel, and the instructions of the district court; and a juror should be able to deliberate with other jurors.

The court would have provided interpretive services for the juror, had it known she needed them.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has embraced English-only legislation. What would the effect be on a case like this or in other cases where jurors don't understand English well enough?

Oklahoma voters will decide in November whether to pass a law requiring English to be used in "official actions," in the state, but it doesn't define what an "official action" is, or whether jurors who don't speak English well enough would be allowed to sit on juries.

But states often make exceptions in the case of the courts. South Dakota, for example, has an English-only statute, but provides court translation services. The Supreme Court has organized a committee to study how well they work.

In Wisconsin, several counties have adopted English-only laws, but provisions are also made for court services.

In any English-only discussion, perhaps it's best to start with what exceptions there will be?

Comment on this post

Minnesota medical resident case heading to Supreme Court

Posted at 12:49 PM on August 23, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a Minnesota case for its fall term.

The question: Are medical residents students who don't have to pay Social Security taxes, or are they working professionals?

The Mayo Foundation and the University of Minnesota claim resident researchers are students, and are exempt from Social Security and IRS taxes. The IRS says if they work more than 40 hours a week, they're not different than any other working stiff.

"Mayo and the University permit their residents to care for patients purely for educational purposes," lawyers for the two argued in a brief filed with the High Court. "The educational program of a medical resident is indistinguishable in nearly all respects from the educational program of third- and fourth-year medical students."

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that third- and fourth-year medical students are students.

Mayo and the U will start with one strike against them. "The word 'student' is most commonly used to refer to a pupil receiving formal instruction in an academic setting, not a full-time employee who learns by doing," the government said in its brief.

That was written by Elena Kagan, the former U.S. solicitor general. She sits on the Supreme Court now.

The Court today scheduled oral arguments for Monday November 8th.

Comment on this post

Is Minnesota becoming a judicial basket case?

Posted at 12:06 PM on August 23, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

It didn't take long for Pawlenty-appointee Lorie Gildea, the new chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, to pick up on her predecessor's theme -- funding cuts are killing Minnesota's justice system.

According to the MinnLawyer blog:

Gildea called on the criminal law bar to join in grassroots effort to educate the public on the situation. "We must take our case to the people," she said.

In a panel discussion on the funding crisis following Gildea's remarks, State public Defender John Stuart outlined the dire situation faced by resource-starved public defenders. More funding cuts would likely mean defenders would no longer be able to handle cases involving out-of-custody defendants or to cover first appearances.

Gildea's predecessor, Eric Magnuson, a former law partner of Pawlenty's, spent much of his term railing against the lack of adequate funding for Minnesota courts.

"As delays in criminal case processing grow, so do the threats of having cases dismissed or convictions overturned because the state failed to provide a constitutionally guaranteed speedy trial. It happened twice last year on appeal in significant felony cases, because the courts were compelled to follow the provisions of the state Constitution," Magnuson wrote in an MPR commentary earlier this year.

The issue has yet to come up in this year's gubernatorial campaign.

(Justice Gildea will be on MPR's Morning Edition with Cathy Wurzer on Tuesday)

(Update 10:11 a.m. 8/24) - I asked Stuart what sort of crimes should be "decriminalized." He e-mailed a starting list:

Sure: I think we should use the "petty misdemeanor" treatment (like a speeding ticket) for most cases involving:

--theft under $100
--disorderly conduct
--fishing law violations
--trespassing
--loitering
--driving with a suspended license (currently this is a "payable misdemeanor")
--NSF check under $100

I'm sure there are a few more, this is for example.

Comment on this post

Final call

Posted at 4:07 PM on August 18, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Among the more touching moments when a police officer dies, is the last mention on the police radio.

Hennepin County made such a call for Mahnomen County deputy Chris Dewey, whose funeral was held today.

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_newscasts_2010_08_18_dewey_final_call_20100818_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/newscasts/2010/08/18/dewey_final_call_20100818_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

There were many restrictions on video and image recording at the funeral, but Hennepin County has provided some additional images here.

Comment on this post

Personal opinions and a constitution

Posted at 4:01 PM on August 12, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

The Associated Press today is carrying a fascinating story about Gov. Tim Pawlenty's latest trip to Iowa, during which he explained his view of the role of judges in the same-sex marriage debate.

Continue reading "Personal opinions and a constitution"

'Do you know how fast you were going?'

Posted at 12:44 PM on August 12, 2010 by Bob Collins (12 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In Menahga, Minnesota, a man has been arrested for doing 178 miles per hour in his Corvette according to the Duluth News Tribune.

No surprise. The driver was apparently drunk.

Otherwise, he might've come up with a snappier answer to the obvious question.

When he approached the vehicle, Manderschied asked Johnson what the "big hurry" was, according to court documents, and Johnson replied that he was just having fun. Asked how fast he thought he was going, Johnson told Manderschied he "can't even imagine."

Obviously, there's a News Cut challenge here. Come up with a more funny answer to the question.

Comment on this post

Questions and answers about the Somali indictments

Posted at 11:13 AM on August 5, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The U.S. has indicted 20 people in the investigation of apparent recruiting of Somalis in Minnesota and elsewhere by terrorist organizations. Among those indicted was Hawo Hassan, above, of Rochester, and Amini Ali, both of whom were interviewed by MPR's Laura Yuen almost a year ago.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced the indictments late this morning, spending considerable time to make it clear he's not indicting an entire community.

"Members of the American Muslim community continue to be strong partners in fighting the terrorism threat," Holder said. "These individuals have consistently and correctly expressed deep concern about the recruitment of their youth by terrorist groups.

Justice officials singled out the Somali community in Minneapolis for credit in assisting the investigation.

The indictments stem from the investigation which started after several Somali youth disappeared from Minneapolis and surfaced in Somalia.

Somali Mn Indict

In the interview with MPR last year, Amina Ali said she and her friend sent clothing back to Somalia.

"I explained to them that the reason I was doing this was because there's a civil war happening in my country," said Ali. "There were a lot of people displaced from their own homes, and going to refugee camps all over the continent of Africa, including outside of Mogadishu. So, my instincts told me it was my duty to help out the Somali poor people who left everything behind."

Here are some of the questions and answers from today's news conference:

Q: How do you assess the threat of Al Shabaab ("the youth")?

A: We have no evidence Al Shabaab is threatening the homeland. The fact they're expanding their range of operations gives us pause and it's one of the things we're monitoring.

Q: Since the first indications people in the U.S. were willing to go to Somalia, do you have a handle on the problem?

A: Given the assistance of the Somali community, we have a good handle on it.

Q: When the young men from Minnesota were found to go there, we've heard that most of this was nationalistic. What has changed in the intervening years.

A: (Answered by U.S. Attorney Todd Jones of Minnesota) There have been waves of travelers, there are indications that an initial motivation was based on nationalism, but it's morphed over time. It's morphed into other things.

Q: Why has Al Shabab had so much success recruiting Americans?

A: (Jones) It's young men, and young people, and they're at difficult points in their lives just as with other young people, other Americans. They've been used.

Q: Is there any evidence these people has specific beefs against the U.S. or had any interest in coming back here?

A: No.

Q: Do you have any indication any of these people played a role in the bombing in Uganda?

A: I don't want to comment on that.

Here's the Department of Justice news release with the names of those indicted:

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department announced that four separate indictments were unsealed today in the District of Minnesota, the Southern District of Alabama and the Southern District of California charging 14 individuals with terrorism violations for providing money, personnel and services to the foreign terrorist organization al-Shabaab.

In the Southern District of Alabama, prosecutors unsealed a superseding indictment charging Omar Shafik Hammami, a U.S. citizen and former resident of Alabama, with providing material support to al-Shabaab. Separately, prosecutors in the Southern District of California unsealed an indictment charging Jehad Serwan Mostafa, a U.S. citizen and former resident of California, with providing material support to al-Shabaab.

In the District of Minnesota, prosecutors unsealed two indictments. One indictment charges Amina Farah Ali and Hawo Mohamed Hassan with providing funds to al-Shabaab. These two defendants, who are naturalized U.S. citizens and residents of Minnesota, were arrested today. Separately, prosecutors unsealed a third superseding indictment charging 10 men with terrorism offenses for leaving the United States to join al-Shabaab. Seven of these defendants had been previously charged by either indictment or criminal complaint. The remaining three defendants had not been charged before.

The arrests and charges were announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, as well as David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; B. Todd Jones, U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota; Kenyen R. Brown, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama; and Laura E. Duffy, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California.

"The indictments unsealed today shed further light on a deadly pipeline that has routed funding and fighters to the al-Shabaab terror organization from cities across the United States," said Attorney General Holder. "While our investigations are ongoing around the country, these arrests and charges should serve as an unmistakable warning to others considering joining terrorist groups like al-Shabaab - if you choose this route you can expect to find yourself in a U.S. jail cell or a casualty on the battlefield in Somalia."

"For those who would become terrorists, these cases send a strong message," said FBI Director Mueller. "They underscore the need for continued vigilance against those who may seek to harm us and our way of life. Our agents and analysts will continue to confront this threat with a strong and coordinated effort as we work to protect all Americans."

Omar Hammami - Southern District of Alabama

Today in the Southern District of Alabama, prosecutors unsealed a September 2009 superseding indictment against Omar Hammami, 26, a U.S. citizen and former resident of Daphne, Alabama, also known as "Abu Mansour al-Amriki," or "Farouk."

The three-count indictment alleges that Hammami provided material support, including himself as personnel, to terrorists; conspired to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, al-Shabaab, and provided material support to al-Shabaab. Hammami faces a potential 15 years in prison for each of the three counts of the indictment. He is not in custody and is currently believed to be in Somalia.

Jehad Mostafa - Southern District of California

In the Southern District of California, prosecutors today unsealed an October 2009 indictment against Jehad Serwan Mostafa, 28, aka "Ahmed," "Emir Anwar," "Awar," a U.S. citizen and former resident of San Diego, California.

The indictment alleges that Mostafa conspired to provide material support, including himself as personnel, to terrorists; conspired to provide material support to al-Shabaab; and provided material support to al-Shabaab. Mostafa faces a potential 15 years in prison for each of the three counts of the indictment. He is not in custody and is currently believed to be in Somalia.

Amina Ali and Hawo Hassan - District of Minnesota

Earlier today, FBI agents arrested Amina Farah Ali, 33, and Hawo Mohamed Hassan, 63, both naturalized U.S. citizens from Somalia and residents of Rochester, Minn. Each is charged in an indictment unsealed today with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to al-Shabaab from Sept. 17, 2008 through July 19, 2010. Ali is also charged in the indictment with 12 substantive counts of providing material support to al-Shabaab. Hassan is also charged with three counts of making false statements.

The indictment alleges that, as part of the conspiracy, Ali communicated by telephone with people in Somalia who requested financial assistance for al-Shabaab. Ali, Hassan and others allegedly raised money for these individuals by soliciting funds door-to-door in Somali communities in Minneapolis, Rochester and other locations in the United States and Canada. In addition, the defendants allegedly raised money by direct appeal to individuals participating in teleconferences that featured speakers who encouraged donations to support al-Shabaab. Ali also allegedly raised funds under the false pretense that such funds were for the poor and needy.

The indictment alleges that Ali and others transferred funds to al-Shabaab through the hawala money remittance system. Ali and others allegedly used false names to identify the recipients of the funds to conceal that the funds were being provided to al-Shabaab. The indictment lists 12 money transfers allegedly directed to al-Shabaab by Ali.

The indictment alleges several overt acts to carry out the fund-raising conspiracy. For example, on Oct. 26, 2008, Ali allegedly hosted a teleconference in which an unindicted co-conspirator told listeners that it was not the time to help the poor and needy in Somalia; rather the priority was to give to the mujahidin. Ali and Hassan allegedly recorded $2,100 in pledges at the conclusion of the teleconference. On Feb. 10, 2009, Ali allegedly conducted another fundraising teleconference in which she told listeners to "forget about the other charities" and focus on "the jihad."

On July 14, 2009, the day after the FBI executed a search warrant at her home, Ali allegedly contacted an unindicted co-conspirator and said, "I was questioned by the enemy here . . . . they took all my stuff and are investigating it . . . do not accept calls from anyone." The indictment further alleges that when Hassan was questioned by agents in an investigation involving international terrorism, she made false statements.

The defendants are expected to make their initial appearances later today in federal court in Minneapolis. If convicted, they face a potential 15 years in prison on the conspiracy count. Ali also faces a potential 15 years in prison on each material support count, and Hassan also faces a potential eight years in prison on each false statement count.

Third Superseding Indictment - District of Minnesota

In addition to the two arrests, prosecutors in the District of Minnesota also unsealed a July 2010 third superseding indictment that charges Abdikadir Ali Abdi, 19, a U.S. citizen; Abdisalan Hussein Ali, 21, a U.S. citizen; Cabdulaahi Ahmed Faarax, 33, a U.S. citizen; Farah Mohamed Beledi, 26; and Abdiweli Yassin Isse, 26. These defendants are charged with, among other things, conspiring to and providing material support to al-Shabaab and conspiring to kill, maim and injure persons abroad. Faarax and Isse had been charged in a criminal complaint previously.

Five other defendants who had been previously charged by indictment are named in the third superseding indictment. They are Ahmed Ali Omar, 27; Khalid Mohamud Abshir, 27; Zakaria Maruf, 31; Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, 22; and Mustafa Ali Salat, 20. These defendants are charged with conspiracies to provide material support to terrorists and foreign terrorist organizations; conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim and injure persons abroad; possessing and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence; and solicitation to commit a crime of violence.

The unsealed indictment alleges that the 10 defendants provided financial support and personnel, including themselves as fighters, both to a conspiracy to kill abroad and to the foreign terrorist organization al-Shabaab. Specifically, the indictment alleges that the five newly-added defendants traveled to Somalia in 2008 and 2009. In addition, the charges allege that Faarax solicited Salah Osman Ahmed, Shirwa Ahmed (now deceased) and Kamal Said Hassan to provide support to al-Shabaab, and that Faraax made false statements to the FBI in a matter involving international terrorism. The indictment also alleges that, in October 2009, Beledi committed passport fraud.

An affidavit previously filed in the case alleges that, in the fall of 2007, Faarax and others met at a Minneapolis mosque to telephone co-conspirators in Somalia to discuss the need for Minnesota-based co-conspirators to go to Somalia to fight. The affidavit also alleges that Faarax attended a subsequent meeting in Minneapolis where he encouraged others to fight in Somalia and told them how he had experienced true brotherhood while fighting jihad in Somalia. Faarax was later interviewed three times by authorities and each time denied knowing anyone who had fought in Somalia or encouraging anyone to fight in Somalia.

The affidavit also alleges that Abdiweli Yassin Isse encouraged others to travel to Somalia to fight. At a gathering of co-conspirators, Isse purportedly described his plans to wage "jihad" against Ethiopians in Somalia, and later raised money to purchase airline tickets for others to travel to Somalia for the same purpose. In raising this money, he allegedly misled community members into thinking they were contributing money to send young men to Saudi Arabia to study the Koran. The 10 defendants charged in the third superseding indictment are not in custody and are believed to be overseas.

The charges against all the defendants in Minnesota stem from an ongoing, two-year investigation into the recruitment of persons from the United States to train with or fight for al-Shabaab. To date, a total of 19 persons have been charged in the District of Minnesota in indictments or criminal complaints that have been unsealed. Nine of these Minnesota defendants have been arrested in the United States or overseas, five of whom pleaded guilty. The remaining defendants are at large and believed to be abroad.

The case in the Southern District of Alabama is being investigated by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force in Mobile, Ala., and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean P. Costello, of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Alabama, and Trial Attorney Sharon Lever of the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department's National Security Division.

The case in the Southern District of California is being investigated by the FBI's San Diego Joint Terrorism Task Force and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys William P. Cole and Shane P. Harrigan of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California, and Trial Attorney Sharon Lever of the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department's National Security Division.

The cases in the District of Minnesota are being investigated by the FBI's Minneapolis Joint Terrorism Task Force, with the assistance of the Dutch KLPD; the Dutch Ministry of Justice; the Justice Department's Office of International Affairs; the State Department, including U.S. Embassies in the United Arab Emirates and Yemen; the Hague in the Netherlands; and the Department of Defense. The cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys W. Anders Folk and Jeffrey S. Paulsen, of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota, and Trial Attorneys William M. Narus and Steven Ward of the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department's National Security Division.

The public is reminded that an indictment contains mere allegations. A defendant is presumed innocent until he or she pleads guilty or is proven guilty at trial.

Comment on this post

The Prop 8 ruling

Posted at 3:49 PM on August 4, 2010 by Bob Collins (14 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It is no longer just a slogan, it is the law. You can't vote away a right to marry. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker today ruled that California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional.

Here's the ruling:

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

And here are the major points of the ruling:

RELIGION'S ROLE

"The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."

"Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law."

ON WHETHER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE HARMS PROCREATION

"Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse."

OVERTURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

"An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters' determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."

"CHOOSING " SEXUAL IDENTITY

"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

AN ALTERNATIVE TO MARRIAGE

"Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States."

"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

A THREAT TO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE?

"The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an individual's choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest despite its "ancient lineage." Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. California has eliminated all legally mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life."

CHILDREN

"The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology."

"Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted."

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX

"Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex. Having considered the evidence, the relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs' equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex."

THE MONEY QUOTE

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

The case will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court eventually. But first it has to stop at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal -- and the most overturned -- courts in the country.

Once it gets to the Supreme Court, the swing vote will be Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Comment on this post

Trooper shooting on tape

Posted at 2:25 PM on July 7, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Before there were dashboard cameras in police cars, situations like this ended up as one person's version of events vs. someone else's. But today's release of a video of an incident in St. Louis County provides plenty of insight into why area police departments almost universally chose to use Justice Department stimulus money last year on more dashboard cameras.

The St. Louis County Attorney has ruled that a shooting involving Trooper Travis Pearson was justified.

According to the Department of Public Safety news release:

Around 11:10 p.m. on June 12, Pearson responded to a 911 call of shots fired in Cherry Township. The video, taken from Pearson's in-squad dash camera, shows Pearson following the shooting suspect, Donnie Joe Lira, 66, of Cherry Township, into his driveway. The video shows Lira exiting his vehicle with a long gun, and after repeated commands from Pearson to drop the gun, Lira loads the gun and begins to point the gun toward Pearson, forcing the trooper to fire his weapon. Lira was shot and later died of his wounds.

Comment on this post

The Duluth gun caper

Posted at 12:36 PM on July 6, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The unanswered question in Duluth today is: "How on earth did someone mistake a squirt gun for a real gun?

According to the Duluth News Tribune, at least seven Duluth Police Department squad cars stopped a woman in her car after someone reported she was brandishing a gun. But it turned out to be a Super Soaker, the paper says.

At least seven Duluth Police Department squads were involved in a traffic stop on Superior Street at Seventh Avenue West on Monday afternoon on a report of a male in a car brandishing a gun -- but it turned out to be a Super Soaker squirt gun.

You can't blame the cops. All they knew was that someone had a gun. But you can wonder what the person calling the cops was thinking.

This is a real gun:

And this is the gun someone thought was a real gun:

Comment on this post

An hour with the judge

Posted at 11:04 AM on July 6, 2010 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

We rarely hear from federal judges, except in the decisions they write, but today was an exception when retiring federal judge James Rosenbaum was Kerri Miller's guest on MPR's Midmorning. It was delightful radio.

He railed against mandatory sentencing. "Now people will say I'm a left-wing judge," he told Miller. "But I'm a Republican and a former prosecutor."

He defended the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning District Court cases. "I love it when I hear stories say 'a bitterly divided Supreme Court,'" he said. "One of the reasons they go 5-4 is that they are really, really hard questions and there are nine people who have a difficult time reaching an answer, and the fact that they don't reach the same answer I do, it's built into the system. So I'm not troubled by it very much."

"I love it when a lawyer says, 'Judge, it was only a 5-to-4 decision,' and I say, 'Yes and so was Miranda.'"

Rosenbaum has presided over some of the biggest federal cases in Minnesota. He provided some insight into the role of a judge in a fraud case he's overseeing now (He wouldn't say which one).

"President Kennedy said 'a rising tide lifts all boats,' and now we have a receding tide and we're finding stuff on the bottom that's pretty ugly. I brought home a book of letters and emails from victims. My wife said,'My goodness,' and I said, 'Honey there are four more books just like it in my office. They're telling me stories about retirement and their children's college educations, and the loss of real estate. I read those in every case, I've never had any quite like this."

"If you want to go to the bank tomorrow and you are given a chance to put your money in a bank account, they'll pay you 1 1/2 to 2 percent. If someone promises they'll give you 11% dependable forever, there is no such thing. For all kinds of reasons, people start to believe. Good people thought 'Everyone else in the world is making it, what's the matter with me?' It's horrifying when the game collapses.

Minnesota has had its fair share of white-collar criminal cases. "Minnesota is not a happy place for them," the judge said.

And yet, Rosenbaum doesn't have the view of humanity that one might reasonably expect.

"You can't do what I do and have a negative view of humanity," he said. "You've got to believe that good things occur and things will get better. There has to be a core optimism that the system has internal checks and balances, that there's some kind of hope."

The judge retires in August.

Comment on this post

Why the Wetterling case is newsworthy

Posted at 12:50 PM on July 1, 2010 by Bob Collins (13 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

"What makes the Jacob Wetterling story so newsworthy?" a colleague rightly asked today.

Jacob Wetterling is, I replied, the poster child for missing children. He, like Adam Walsh, are also the two cases that have changed the nature of social interaction in Minnesota and elsewhere. The threat of stranger abductions has led us to keep a tighter rein on our kids. Visit any basketball court, baseball diamond, or tennis court in the middle of the day in a park these days, and you'll probably find yourself with some alone time. Is it a justified precaution? The numbers say "no," but who wants their kid to be the exception?

Twenty-two kids are on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children list of missing children from Minnesota. Eleven of them are believed to have been taken by their mother or father. A handful of the people on the list were in their late teens and are believed to have run away.

In addition to Jacob Wetterling, only five on the list were 15 or younger:

Kevin Ayotte disappeared from Sugarbush in 1982. He was 3.

Amy Pagnac was 13 when she was last seen at an Osseo gas station.

Corrine Erstad was 5 when she went missing. A man was charged with her murder. Her blood-stained sundress was found in a storage he rented, but after a 5 1/2 month trial, a jury acquitted the man. Her body has not been found despite searches of a marsh in Oakdale.

Aaron Anderson disappeared from Pine City when he was 2.

Leanna Warner was 5 when last seen in Chisholm.

What makes Jacob Wetterling's situation newsworthy is that stranger abductions in Minnesota almost never happen. And if it turns out a neighbor was involved in Wetterling's disappearance, it didn't happen to him, either.

Comment on this post

Inside the gun control debate

Posted at 11:27 AM on June 28, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Today's U.S. Supreme Court decision that extends the 2nd amendment to the states is 214 pages of a judicial pie fight.

Continue reading "Inside the gun control debate"

The Pride ruling

Posted at 3:11 PM on June 25, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Regular readers of News Cut know that I love a good controversy over the United States Constitution, and the more reprehensible people find those who cite it, the stronger the Constitution emerges.

Continue reading "The Pride ruling"

If a bear dies in the woods...

Posted at 11:55 AM on June 22, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Can a Minnesotan keep it?

Continue reading "If a bear dies in the woods..."

The suicide of Duy Ngo

Posted at 2:59 PM on June 7, 2010 by Bob Collins (11 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

"I'm not attacking or condemning the brotherhood of law enforcement. I'm not saying every Minneapolis cop is bad. I'm saying certain people are corrupt."

-- Duy Ngo 12/6/07

Duy Ngo committed suicide today, at the start of a trial at which he was to testify.

Few cases in a police department that's been beset by turmoil for one reason or another for years, has reeked as much as this one.

Ngo was shot by another cop one night while working undercover. Subsequently, a police chief apologized to him, but the department seemed intent on making sure he knew he was no longer wanted. After he was shot, the police chief didn't visit him in the hospital. The mayor didn't visit him, and rumors began circulating about him.

Just a few days ago, the Pioneer Press' Ruben Rosario mentioned Ngo in a story about friendly-fire police shootings involving "cops of color." Ngo didn't return his phone calls for the story. I was much more lucky. I got to visit with him at his home in Columbia Heights for several hours in December 2007. I've heard from him only sporadically in the last few years, mostly for some sort of sales Web site he was promoting.

Before I wrote the piece, a friend of his sent me this e-mail:

I am close friends with Duy Ngo's wife and all of us have watched him suffer for 5 years now. He is a very brave and honorable man to refuse to allow; anyone even his lawyers fo "play the race card." Although I know there are many racist cops on the force; Duy never let that become a tool or weapon for any politician, lawyer or activist to use to further thier own interests. Everyone who know Duy, knows that he loves the brotherhood of law enforcement, even after his own co-workers have betrayed and abandonned him. Duy has a huge heart and would give you the shirt off his back. His parents are the kindest people I have ever met, and his wife is the woman that every man dreams of, beautiful, smart, tough, strong and very down to earth. Duy could have pushed this all the way to a trial and most likely won alot more mone y. Duy just wants his life back. He still wants to be a cop, although I can't imagine why. I can't even imagine the strength for one man to endure 26 surgeries, years of physical therapy, and almost lose his life, home and career because of a trigger-happy/shoot first, ask questions later poor judgemental cop(Storley). Everyone needs to remember this, Duy never wanted to sue the MPLS police, he gave them every opportunity to "Do the right thing." Instead they lied about their investigation and Covered-up the whole thing to hide their mistakes. I hope Duy and his fine family finds a small amount of peace in this long ordeal...We are all very proud of you my friend...Rock On Duy!!!!

What follows is the News Cut post I wrote about the visit.

THE FIGHT FOR DUY NGO'S LIFE

Duy Ngo, the Minneapolis cop who was shot by another police officer in 2003, and who settled a lawsuit against the city two weeks ago, is no longer fighting for his life, or the justice he says he was denied. He is still fighting for his reputation.

Ngo's settlement, his allegations of corruption by the department, and the lawsuit filed this week by five African American police officers alleging discrimination, has focused new attention on the department he says he still loves.

It's a department, he says, that has an "epidemic" of blaming the victim. He's got five years of rumors that won't die, 15 bullet holes, and $4.5 million to prove it.

I spent most of Wednesday afternoon talking to to Ngo about his experience.

From the Army to Minneapolis

Ngo, who fled Vietnam with his family on the day Saigon fell in 1975, joined the Army after his junior year in high school in Minneapolis. He found camaraderie and a purpose, serving as a medic. It is, he said, a camaraderie he never found when he later became a police officer in Minneapolis. (Listen - MP3 :48)

"There were people that I really enjoyed working with, people that I trusted. But it's very cliquish. It's almost clanish, with a lot of the police officers, depending on where they work, what shift they work, who they work for, who they're friends with, what specialty units they've served on together. So, no, I didn't find that same type of camaraderie; not with Minneapolis police officers."

Getting shot... by the 'bad guys'

In many ways, his ascension to the Gang Strike Force was perfect for Ngo. He could work independently, often alone. He was having, he says "the time of my life," until February 2003, when he was staking out some suspected drug dens in Minneapolis, and a man approached. (Audio - MP3- 3:30)

...He pulled a gun out and stuck it in my face. I tried to disarm him. I grabbed the gun, and tried to use a disarming technique. As soon as I grabbed the gun, he shot me, to the left of the heart and below the rib cage.

I've been hit by 300-pound linebacker playing football, and they don't hit as hard as a .40 caliber bullet. It hit me so hard, it threw me back in the seat, knocked the wind out of me. I had my tactical vest on, which saved my life, because it's body armor, bullet-proof vest.

It hit so hard it split the skin in three places. It's like if you punched your knuckles against a metal wall, your knuckles would split, because there's bone behind it. Well, there's no bone behind it, it just hit that hard, but it broke the skin open, left a mark that I still have to this day, caused some internal injuries, and I was fighting with this guy. We both had ahold of the gun.

I was trying to get the gun out of his hand. He shot four more times, at least four more times through the passenger door and the floorboard of my squad. At this point, the squad is full of smoke, the muzzle flash from the gun is going off right next to my face, he's able to pull away because of this big puffy jacket, his arm was sliding in his sleeve and I couldn't really hold onto him and he was much bigger than I was."

Getting shot... by the 'good guys'

Ngo called for help, chased the shooter down an alley, lost him, and then collapsed. He needed a friend. Instead he got shot again. (Listen - MP3 2:48)

Seconds later, squad 331, Officers Storlie and Conway's squad. I see their headlights in the distance. Now I'm really hurting and now this intense pain is in my abdomen. I go to my knees. I'd already dropped the gun that was in my left hand, and then I ... when I went to my hands and knees, I dropped the gun that was in my right hand.

I'm holding my left abdomen because it was hurting really bad and they stopped their squad about nine or 10 feet from me. Without any verbal warning, without any commands, without provocation, Officer Storlie jumps out and lights me up with his MP5 submachine gun.

Q: So nobody is saying, 'freeze'? Nobody is saying 'hand's up' to you? Nobody is saying anything.

A: No, not at all. Nothing was said because I guarantee you whatever they told me to do, I would have done. I wanted to be rescued. I didn't want anything more than to get out of that bad situation. I wanted this guy caught.. It's not a deadly-force situation. I didn't match the suspect description, even though they say I looked like a black male -- and they never said that in the beginning, that's what I mean about this evolving story. They say that years later. 'Oh, well, we shot him because he looked like a black male.' Well, you can't even shoot the black, male suspect... any black male if they're on their hands and knees.

But I know I don't look like a black male. I know that was an absolute lie. They had to say something to justify the deadline force, but there was only one officer -- Storlie -- who used deadly force. Officer Conway did not. He recognized that I was a police officer. I'm not sure how he recognized me, whether it was the badge or the insignia or just my face, but he didn't use deadly force. He didn't shoot. No matter what he says, he didn't use deadly force.

The backlash

Ngo spent two weeks in the hospital, never getting a visit from his police chief, never getting a visit from his mayor, all of whom, he says, were trying to avoid him, while the department spread rumors to discredit his version of being shot by friendly fire. Looking back, perhaps he shouldn't have been surprised. (Listen - MP3 4:13)

I think that we have to keep in mind the SWAT team is very close to the police union. They're all in bed together. I think they always try to justify even bad acts and this was a bad act. I think it's victim blaming, which they quite often do.

We can use the example, I hate getting involved in these kind of politics but you go back to the recent lawsuit that was filed by the five black officers, that one of their high-ranking officials publicly announced that this victim who was killed was out there buying marijuana. Does that matter why he was out there? Does the victims indiscretion justify someone killing him? No. One thing has nothing to do with the other, but somehow they tried to cast him in this negative light, and I think so often they do that just so that they can somehow justify those bad actions on their parts.

Q: And that's a recent case -- last summer -- then you have your case. Before either one of those, did you see evidence of that in the department as kind of a systemic thing where they would leak rumors and information about ... victims or others to cover their own misdeeds or tracks?

A: I saw and heard it all the time. It was an epidemic. It was widespread throughout the whole police department. A lot of that is a defense mechanism; most police officers feel like they're unfairly scrutinized and they're attacked by the public and the media goes after them and reports on police actions negatively, biasly and unfairly. Even if it doesn't get into the public arena, I heard it over and over again. The victim-blaming game. I've heard over these almost five years now, I've heard every reason why that night that I was shot why I was wrong, why I made the mistake. I've heard cops say why I wasn't supposed to be out there. Whatever way that they've come up with to point out that if they were in that situation, they never would've been shot because they did the right thing and I believe that they honestly believe they have to say those things because otherwise it would become a reality to them that they would have to accept the fact that this could happen to any one of us.

At a subsequent fundraiser to help pay his medical bills (the city paid nothing), the mayor of St. Paul showed up, officers from other metro departments showed up, officers from rural Minnesota showed up. But only one official from the Minneapolis police department attended.

The settlement

At a hearing before a judge last month, in which a settlement of his lawsuit was reached, Ngo thought the department would force his resignation as a condition. Instead, they said they wanted him back. That, he says, is the best thing he's heard in five years. But there are some things he wants not to hear. (Listen - MP3 4:45)

For as long as I stay on this police department, long after I leave and many generations to come, they'll always tell those lies. They'll always keep spreading those rumors.

Just two days ago, a law-enforcement student told me that a firearms instructor on the SWAT team has been bitching and complaining, has been swearing and yelling about me and how I made the police department look bad and how they offered me $9 million to quit and I wouldn't take it and that I'd made life hard for other cops on the police department because of the policy changes and that I hurt his friend, being Officer Storlie, and whatever other things that they've tried to blame me for.

Comment on this post

Flying under the influence

Posted at 4:10 PM on June 1, 2010 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Sherburne County authorities have arrested a pilot who crashed his ultralight into Elk Lake in Zimmerman. He was detained on suspicion of drunk, ummm, flying.

I know what you're thinking. How often does this happen?

Not often. The Federal Aviation Administration takes the issue much more seriously than your typical state motor vehicle department. Penalties for drinking and flying are much more severe.

FAA rules prohibit a blood-alcohol reading of .04 (compared to .08 for driving a car). Pilots are also not allowed to fly if they've had any alcoholic beverage within the previous 8 hours.

In addition, any action involving driving under the influence on a boat, snowmobile or car requires the pilot to notify the FAA of the offense and a pilot could lose his certificate.

It does happen, as this August 2009 News Cut post showed.

Comment on this post

Discrimination award against MPD upheld

Posted at 12:14 PM on June 1, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has cut in half an award to a Minneapolis couple who alleged police discrimination in a 2006 incident at an impound lot.

As described in this 2008 article in City Pages, this case goes back to a September 2006 incident in which a group African and African Americans had to wait for more than an hour to get their cars out of an impound lot. A police officer was called when one banged on the Plexiglas of the impound lot clerk's "cage," and events were off and running.

The white female officer, Julie Casper, immediately began yelling at the group of predominantly middle-aged black folks. "The next person to touch the Plexiglas, swear, or raise their voice will go to jail for disorderly conduct," Casper purportedly bellowed at the group. "I want you all to shut up and behave yourselves."

The Cannons were taken aback by the hostility. Lois attempted to make the case that it wasn't necessary for the officer to use such a belligerent tone. The response from Officer Casper: "I will use whatever tone I damn well please."

James attempted to intervene, explaining to the officer that they'd been waiting for close to an hour. This tack didn't work either. "I don't care if you've been waiting four days," the officer yelled back.

At this point the Cannons decided to leave. Lois wrote down the female officer's badge number and informed her that they'd be filing a complaint regarding her conduct.

The Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights (on which Cannon had previously served) awarded Cannon $10,000 for mental anguish, $5,000 for future mental anguish and then doubled the award for a total of $30,000. It also added Cannon's $22,000 in legal fees.

The court said Cannon "had a good-faith and reasonable belief that Officer Hagan's conduct was discriminatory in nature."

The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals said...

The record indicates three instances of adverse action on the part of the officers. First, after Cannon stated that he would be filing a complaint, Officer Hagen responded that Cannon could not do anything to her. This testimony was specifically credited by the commission; and a statement of this nature could certainly seem intimidating and harassing to an individual who had just voiced a desire to file a complaint against that person. Second, when Lois attempted to obtain Officer Hagen‟s badge number in order to file the complaint, Officer Hagen responded by yelling, "Yeah, you got my badge number! My badge number is 1019, got that?" Depending on the speaker‟s tone and volume, this conduct also amounts to both intimidation and harassment. And finally, when Cannon and his family attempted to leave Wrecker‟s, Officer Meath followed them into the parking lot and wrote down the license-plate number of their vehicle. The acts of following Cannon and his family outside and writing down their license-plate number could also be intimidating, as even Officer Meath conceded. We therefore conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support the commission‟s conclusion that Officer Hagen and Officer Meath engaged in adverse actions following Cannon‟s statement that he was going to file a complaint.

But the court said Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights lacked authority to double the award to Cannon, and knocked the award down to $15,000.

Here's the full ruling.

Comment on this post

Court: Getting to work is not your employer's problem

Posted at 1:40 PM on June 1, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Keep this in mind if your employer moves your office and adds another 17 miles to your commute: You can't get unemployment compensation if you quit over the issue.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals today overturned an unemployment law judge's ruling that a Good Thunder woman, who already had a 170-mile daily commute to her office in Bloomington , is not entitled to unemployment compensation because her company moved 17 miles farther to St. Paul.

Under Minnesota law, an employee who quits isn't eligible for unemployment unless the employer does something "that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment."

But the court said transportation to and from work "was ultimately her responsibility, not the employer's." It said Sara Werner "created the commuting condition that contributed to the increased time and expense by choosing to reside in Good Thunder."

Comment on this post

Court: Sister can sue brother for sexual assault

Posted at 2:09 PM on May 27, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a state law preventing family members from suing other family members does not prevent a Walnut Grove woman from suing her brother for sexually assaulting her as a child.

Mary Lichteig, who grew up in Walnut Grove, claims she was sexually abused by her brother as a child in the early '70s, but didn't remember the abuse until she saw a therapist in 2005. He denied it. She also said the brother raped her older sisters while she was in the room, an allegation the brother acknowledges.

She sued him for damages but a lower court threw the case out because Minnesota law prohibits one sibling from suing another for personal injury.

A federal appeals court, however sent the case back to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which today said Minnesota's law does not prevent a sibling from suing another in cases of sexual abuse.

The court said a Minnesota law that extended the statute of limitations in sexual abuse cases to six years from the point from which a victim remembers sexual abuse, can be applied in this case even though the original statute of limitations had already run out by the time the law was passed.

"In addition to the language establishing the effective date of the statute of limitations, the purpose of the statute to protect young sexual abuse victims suggests that the Legislature intended the statute to be retroactive. We hold that the delayed discovery statute applies retroactively," outgoing chief justice Eric Magnuson wrote.

Comment on this post

The BP oil disaster: More than shortcuts

Posted at 12:19 PM on May 26, 2010 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Disasters

One of the more curious aspects of coverage of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf, is how little attention an early interview with a worker on the Deepwater Horizon platform got.

Today, for example, the Associated Press is carrying a story headlined:

Witness: BP took 'shortcuts' before well blowout

The AP story is based on documents it obtained:

Truitt Crawford, a roustabout for drilling rig owner Transocean LTD, told Coast Guard investigators about the complaints. The seawater, which would have provided less weight to contain surging pressure from the ocean depths, was being used to prepare for dropping a final blob of cement into the well.

"I overheard upper management talking saying that BP was taking shortcuts by displacing the well with saltwater instead of mud without sealing the well with cement plugs, this is why it blew out," Crawford said in his statement.

It was a fascinating account, but it's not really new. Mike Williams, a worker on the rig, had already documented the story in a 60 Minutes interview almost two weeks ago, that got very little attention in the news cycle.

Shortcuts may be too gentle a word for what happened on the Deepwater Horizon.

Comment on this post

The limits of self-regulation

Posted at 12:42 PM on May 25, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In Erie, Pennsylvania, a 55-year-old man, apparently with a gambling problem, is facing charges of violating his self-imposed ban on gambling. In Pennsylvania, the law allows people to "ban" themselves from casinos. They can ban themselves for one year, five years, or life. If they're caught -- usually by cashing a winnings check -- they can be charged with trespassing.

The man went to a casino and won over $2,000 before he caught himself. He'll be giving the money back.

Here's more information on the program.

Comment on this post

Fun times for census workers

Posted at 12:08 PM on May 25, 2010 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A man in Austin is in custody after allegedly threatening to shoot a Census worker. The Austin Daily Herald says the census worker showed up around 9 on Friday evening:

The man allegedly ordered the census worker to leave his property. When she complied and went to a neighbor's house, the man followed her there and proceeded to tell her that he would shoot her if she did not leave his property, Amazi said.

The Census Bureau has been producing vignettes of census workers describing the joys of their jobs. So far, nobody has listed having a gun pointed at them:

Comment on this post

Are some kids worth grieving over more than others?

Posted at 1:03 PM on May 19, 2010 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Today's Midmorning conversation with Father Gregory Boyle, the founder of a jobs program for Los Angeles gang members, was already interesting before Michelle called. But then she brought us from Los Angeles to North Minneapolis with her story.

"I live in North Minneapolis and there's lots of murders around here, but I actually witnessed one," she said. "It was a 14-year-old boy and he was in a gang and he was shot right off his bike. In a pool of blood, laying there dead. And I have tried to share this experience with my friends who don't live in North Minneapolis and even my family, and they brush it off and say, 'oh, it's North Minneapolis. He was a gang member.' He was 14 and he's dead. On my street. I saw it. And it's so interesting how it's utterly horrifying and no one can offer me any compassion, or see him as subhuman."

"It's a common thing, " Fr. Boyle responded. "As long as there's a them, we're in trouble as a society. The measure of our compassion lies not in our service of those on the margins, but in our willingness to see ourselves in kinship with folks who are on the margins... He was some mother's kid. That had to count for something."

Michelle clearly does feel a kinship with people on the margin. She moved to North Minneapolis from Highland Park -- naively she said -- 12 years ago and she seemed to question whether North Minneapolis feels a kinship with "folks who are on the margins."

She said she "wasn't trying to save North Minneapolis, just trying to make the invisible visible to our daily lives. Our neighbors really are trying to make North Minneapolis better and are trying to make it more livable and (they're) saying, 'we can't highlight these murders. We have to highlight the good things about our neighborhood. So, really, could you just move on, Michelle?'"

She said it needs to be just as alarming "when there's a murder on my street as it is in Highland, where if there was a murder, it was the talk of the town for three years."

Fr. Boyle knows something about dead kids few people care about. California cut funding to his program -- he says it has plenty of money to save the Hollywood sign and some famous alligator, but not for gang kids -- and he had to lay off more than 300 people.

One of the young men who lost his job went to see him on Sunday. "And he said, 'I want to thank you for everything thing you've ever done for me, Father. I especially want to thank you for the layoff, because it woke me up, and I start to see how valuable life is." He said the youngster just enrolled at a public college to study psychology because he wants to be a counselor. "But he said, 'I wouldn't have come to that if you hadn't saved me,' and he thanked me."

Last night, he was shot in the head outside of his home.

His name is Omar.

Comment on this post

When it comes to kids, what are we thinking?

Posted at 10:39 AM on May 19, 2010 by Bob Collins (13 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

For the last three days, it's been open season on the father who -- stupidly -- lifted his kid over a barrier at the cougar exhibit at Como Zoo so he could get a picture of the lad. A cougar wounded the boy when it reached through a fence.

The always-entertaining commenters at the Star Tribune Web site did not disappoint:

Another cool picture might be if you put your kid on the highway centerline and the blur of the cars speeding by made neat streaks right next to him. C'mon...what are people thinking when they do things like this? Kids deserve better from adults. Especially their parents.

Boy vs. cougar is an unusual confrontation, and there's no excusing what the father did here, especially since there were signs warning him not to do it.

But it's not as if we don't deliberately put our kids in increased danger from time to time.

Like with these things:

It's a great invention that allows you to get your exercise while taking kids out for fresh air. But there's got to be at least some elevated risk of danger to a youngster if a car strays from its lane. According to Parent Guide News, "Bicycle trailers are more often involved in collisions with motor vehicles than bikes with baby seats, leading to serious injuries and death. In addition, the jarring motion from regular riding can lead to injuries similar to "shaken baby syndrome" that might not show up as developmental delays until years later."

Those things always remind me of the giant yellow pads behind MnDOT trucks that are designed to cushion the impact from another driver not paying attention.

You'll probably pass more people with bike trailers today than men putting their toddlers near cougars.

Over the weekend, I saw a youngster of about 7 riding on a motorcycle with his, presumably, father. On a per-mile-driven basis, people on motorcycles are 37 times more likely to die in a crash than people in a car. But nobody called the media -- or the cops -- on the guy for child endangerment.

On the bicycle trails near my home, I see kids all the time who are allowed by mom and dad to ride without a helmet, even though they probably know it's safer to ride with a helmet than without one. But have you tried getting your kid to keep a helmet on past a certain age? Eventually, parents give up trying.

How do we determine what that point is that putting our kids in increased danger is acceptable? We must be thinking before we do it, because we do it all the time.

Comment on this post

Court: Minnesota can lock up sexually dangerous Native Americans

Posted at 3:34 PM on May 18, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals today ruled the state doesn't have the authority to incarcerate Native Americas as sexually dangerous persons, but the court gave the state permission to do so.

Ruling in the case of two Minnesota Ojibwe men, the court said Congress has not granted Minnesota the jurisdiction to commit the two to a "treatment facility" after serving their prison sentences.

Minnesota has used the law to incarcerate more men since the killing of Dru Sjodin by a man released from prison several years ago. No man sent for "treatment" in Minnesota has ever been released.

But the two men in the case said Minnesota doesn't have civil jurisdiction over "Indian Country." The court agreed, but said "the state has a compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of the public, including persons both on and off tribal land, from dangerous and repeat sex offenders."

It said sending the two to the "treatment facility" would not interfere with federal interest in preserving tribal self-sufficiency and self-government.

Comment on this post

In Alabama, class learns how to shoot a president

Posted at 11:16 AM on May 18, 2010 by Bob Collins (11 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The lesson plan for an Alabama classroom: A teacher, lecturing his class on parallel lines and geometry, taught his charges how to calculate where to stand to shoot the president.

"He was talking about angles and said, 'If you're in this building, you would need to take this angle to shoot the president,'" Joseph Brown, a senior in the geometry class, told The Birmingham News.

The Secret Service checked the teacher out and found he wasn't a threat. The school superintendent checked it out and determined there's no reason to fire the teacher.

Comment on this post

SCOTUS upholds civil commitments for 'sexually dangerous'

Posted at 3:24 PM on May 17, 2010 by Than Tibbetts (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In a 7-2 decision today, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law allowing the government to hold "sexually dangerous" persons in civil commitment after they have served the length of their criminal sentences.

Minnesota's state sex offender facility in Moose Lake, and the state laws under which it operates, aren't directly affected by the Supreme Court ruling (pdf), but program certainly gains a hefty constitutional endorsement with the decision.

When MPR's Rupa Shenoy visited the facility last month, she found that 90 people at the facility currently don't participate in the treatment programs they are ostensibly locked down in order to receive .

Among them is Wallace Beaulieu. He was in pre-treatment therapy at Moose Lake but stopped participating.

"Anybody can say they're providing treatment, but if you're never giving anybody the opportunity to be released, what's the treatment then?" asks Beaulieu, 38.

Beaulieu said he was convicted twice for a forced sexual encounter -- one of a woman, in 1990, and 1992, a teenage girl. He said he spent four years in prison and was released in 1996.

Bob Collins also took a brief look at the history of the issue.

The Legislature changed the provisions under which "sexual psychopaths" are locked up after one came close to being released. The law shifted the burden to the state. It hasn't been much of a burden, however. Nobody has ever been released from the Moose Lake facility.

Comment on this post

David Stras and the Minnesota Supreme Court

Posted at 11:24 AM on May 13, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It's a rare day when an appointment of an associate justice to the Minnesota Supreme Court gets more attention than the naming of a chief justice for the same court. But David Stras, a University of Minnesota professor, gives the court a pro-unallotment majority.

Stras submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's appeal of a lower court ruling that overturned his unallotment action on the state budget, according to MinnPost.

Some of Stras' ideological opponents have pointed out he's only been a member of the Minnesota Bar Association since 2009, but it's a red herring. He's was admitted to the DC bar in 2002.

Stras has some impressive credentials, including the fact he's from the Midwest and still overcame the Harvard/Yale club to clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, who hasn't asked a question at the Supreme Court in years.

"By the time he gets to oral arguments, a lot of his questions have already been answered," Stras told SCOTUSblog in an interview in February (listen to the interview). Stras says oral arguments are overblown.

Stras was a guest on MPR's Midday last year when Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings were underway. During the course of the hearings, he said he was an "agnostic" on the appointment and believed President Obama "could have done much better."

But it's his work on Pawlenty's unallotment case that marks today's appointment and it's, perhaps, important to note that the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the governor's budget actions when it issued its ruling last week. The tools are in place for the state's highest court to deliver a victory to the governor should it be asked again to do so.

Gov. Pawlenty lives a charmed life.

Comment on this post

Tomorrow's spam today

Posted at 3:45 PM on May 10, 2010 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The fastest-spreading story on the Internet today is the one from Georgia where -- allegedly -- senior citizens have been told they can't pray aloud before their meal because the food is provided courtesy of the federal government.

The Associated Press kicked things off last week with a story that the agency that runs the senior center -- Senior Citizens Inc. -- told the seniors they couldn't pray aloud because praying over food that is paid for with federal money violates the separation of church and state.

The agency claimed it's in the federal guidelines, according to the Associated Press.

FoxNews got in on the story today, featuring a politician who's taken up the cause:

"I told them they're not fighting this alone," Eric Johnson, a Republican running for governor, told FoxNews.com. "To heck with the federal government -- we can't stop people from free practice of their faith."

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

There is no evidence such a guideline -- as interpreted -- exists in any federal contract, however. And there's no indication there's anything involved here other than an official of a senior citizen center who doesn't quite understand the Constitution.

Nothing infringes on the right of people to pray. But a government agency cannot force someone to pray, lead a prayer, or sponsor a prayer. Praying to oneself is not any different than praying aloud and if the senior center official believes a silent prayer is acceptable under the Constitution, a verbal prayer would be as well.

But it's too late. The story is already spreading. "Oppressive Government: Feds Tell GA Old Folks They Can't Pray Before Meals," screamed one Web site headline.

Expect to find this story in your INBOX on a regular basis for the next several years.

Update 4:10 p.m. - From Georgia Public Broadcasting:

"There are no guidelines or policies set by the Division of Aging Services that would prohibit public prayer," says James Bulot, head of the Division of Aging Services at DHS. "We serve over four million me

(h/t: Julia Schrenkler)

Comment on this post

Arizona-style immigration law proposal for Minnesota is nothing new

Posted at 12:47 PM on May 7, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

There's no chance of State Rep. Steve Drazkowski's Arizona-style immigration bill becoming law in Minnesota anytime soon. There's no chance it'll even get a hearing in the remaining days of the legislative session. The only purpose it has is reigniting a debate that had started to die down a little as the nation got distracted by oil spills and incompetent terrorists.

But reignite it, it has.

Today, the police chiefs of St. Paul and Minneapolis responded with this press release:

We believe that mobilizing local police to serve as primary enforcers of federal immigration laws will throw up barriers of mistrust and cause a chilling effect in immigrant communities, impairing our ability to build partnerships and engage in problem-solving that improves the safety of all members of the community. The culture of fear that this bill will instill in immigrant communities will keep victims of crime and people with information about crime from coming forward, and that will endanger all residents.

It is a mistake for our state to try to fix our nation's immigration system. We urge Minnesota lawmakers and the people of our state to join with us in denouncing HF3830. We believe this bill runs contrary to the values of community policing and problem-solving that the people we serve have rightly demanded and will make our communities less safe.

In reality, this debate about the role of local cops predated -- by a lot -- Arizona's new law.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed a statewide team to crackdown on illegal immigrants in 2006. It included a proposal that would require police to check immigration status. It got the same reaction from then-Minneapolis police chief William McManus.

"It's difficult now to get members of those communities to report crime and to work with the police," said McManus. "So I can see that magnifying exponentially if local police were given the authority of INS officers."

But not all police chiefs were against the idea.

"We have these second-class issues that, because of illegal immigration and the need for the workforce to get here, it seems like we've winked and nodded at some of these issues. and now we need to rein in what we've created," said Worthington police chief Mike Comiskey of Pawlenty's proposal.

Both St. Paul and Minneapolis have ordinances restricting police officers' ability to ask about immigration status unless it relates directly to a criminal investigation.

Whatever happened to Pawlenty's idea? It passed the Minnesota House easily in March 2006 with plenty of DFL support, but never got a vote in the Senate.

Comment on this post

Unallotment: The dissent

Posted at 3:58 PM on May 5, 2010 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

With our Internet connectivity woes today, I've been unable until now to dive into the "other side" of the unallotment decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court. That is, the dissent filed by Justice Lorie Gildea. Like Chief Justice Magnuson, who wrote the decision, Gildea is an appointee of Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Gildea, in her dissent, does everything but use the term "judicial activists" to describe the four justices who ruled against the governor.

The judiciary's duty is simply to apply the law as written by the legislature.The majority is unable to do so because the language the Legislature used in the unallotment statute leaves the majority with uncertainty and ambiguity. The majority therefore rewrites the statute to insert additional conditions, and then finds that the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (Commissioner) violated the statute because he did not comply with the conditions the majority has added.

Gildea says she did not find the law ambiguous, she also says she does not find Pawlenty's actions unconstitutional, an interesting distinction since the majority pointed out they weren't ruling on the constitutionality of the case.

Because I would hold that the executive branch complied with the plain language of the statute, and that respondents have not met their burden to prove that the statute is unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent

Justice Gildea points out that it wasn't until after the legislative session ended, that state finance officials reported the state budget was still $2.7 billion in the red for the biennium. She said because state officials found the budget deficit higher than the anticipated revenues, the power to "unallot" belonged to the governor.

Of course, it's worth pointing out, the financial wizards of the state had been wrong for many months, consistently underestimating the problems in the state budget. It's also worth noting that the governor first threatened unallotment (though not with the programs specifically mentioned in the court case) in December 2008. All the more reason, perhaps, why it might've been nice if the Supreme Court had considered the general constitutionality of the process. But it didn't, so let's move on...

Of course, all of this ignores a certain reality. The court case hinges on the timing of the actual unallotment. In reality, the Pawlenty administration had been using the threat of unallotment as a hammer for months. In reality, nobody was surprised that the governor did what he did. But a court challenge couldn't be mounted, apparently, except on the question of the timing of when the budget was sent to him, and when it was officially known that it wasn't balanced.

Respondents argue, and the district court held, that the Commissioner's unallotments violated the statute because the budget deficit was not ―previously unforeseen.‖ Respondents' argument is based on the fact that the budget deficit was known in February when the Commissioner prepared the forecast. Moreover, respondents contend that when the Governor signed appropriation legislation and vetoed revenue legislation, the Governor (and therefore the Commissioner) knew that the state would not have funds sufficient to satisfy the financial obligations in the appropriation legislation. Therefore, respondents argue, the budget deficit was not unanticipated.

Gildea comes down on the side that says the administration had all the power in this dispute:

Moreover, even if the judicial branch were inclined to wade into this dispute, it would be irrelevant in this case because there is nothing in section 16A.152 that limits the Commissioner's authority to unallot depending upon what or who is most responsible for the budget shortfall. The judiciary cannot rewrite the statute to add such restrictions.

Justice Gildea also turns the "separation of powers" argument on its head, noting that if Gov. Pawlenty has no power to unallot, then the budget power rests entirely with the Legislature.

Where one branch purports to perform completely a function assigned to one of the other branches, such encroachment violates the separation of powers principle... We have recognized that such encroachment into the judiciary's sphere of constitutional responsibility is unconstitutional. For example, where the Legislature purports to remove from the judiciary a class of cases that the constitution vests in the judiciary, the Legislature has violated the separation of powers doctrine.

She goes on to note that the Minnesota Constitution clearly delegates budgetary responsibilities to both the executive and legislative branch.

Because the function is one that the constitution commits to both branches, the unallotment statute--which simply acknowledges this joint responsibility--does not delegate pure legislative authority to the executive branch and it does not violate separation of powers. There are many instances in the operation of government, such as the prohibition against deficit spending, where the function at issue requires responsible effort from both of the political branches.

By the way, sometimes with unallotment, those affected get their money eventually. Not often, but it happens. Ethanol producers got a pile of cash in 2008 when the Legislature gave them money it took away in a previous budget crunch. That, Gildea points out, shows the Legislature retains budgetary power if it chooses to use it.

Finally, the Legislature, of course, remains free in the next legislative session to undo the unallotments as it has done in the past. The fact that the Legislature retains, and has exercised, the authority to undo the Commissioner's unallotments provides an important check on the Commissioner's exercise of discretion.

So what will this mean for the future? Here's one scenario: A government shutdown. Clearly, the Legislature did a poor job of playing "chicken" with a governor in the 2009 session, by sending him a budget and painting him into a corner. It could've simply done what it did in 2005, when it forced Pawlenty to consider a shutdown.

But there's political blood to be paid for such things and, besides, Gov. Pawlenty has shown over the years that he can make DFLers look impotent, even on matters of threatened shutdowns.

In any event, DFLers in the Legislature won a war today, and now have a very large battle to fight among themselves: How to turn their victory into a balanced budget.

Comment on this post

The unallotment decision

Posted at 9:59 AM on May 5, 2010 by Bob Collins (8 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

The Minnesota Supreme Court is releasing its decision in the case challenging Gov. Tim Pawlenty's authority to cut the state budget on his own. The case was argued in March.

10:05 a.m. - The Court says the unallotment was unlawful.

10:08 a.m. - Here's the decision. I'll be highlighting key points in a few minutes.

10:12 a.m. - Chief Justice Eric Magnuson wrote the decision, which must be a cruel blow to the Pawlenty administration. The governor appointed Magnuson to the position. He has announced his retirement after several years of feuding with the administration over court funding.

10:17 a.m. - The court did not address whether the governor's actions were unconstitutional. It said that it avoids constitutional decisions if there's another basis on which to rule in the case. That would certainly appear to invite more unallotment actions by the governor if the court's uneasiness with the other "basis" can be settled.

The inherent authority of the executive branch concerning actual spending decisions once appropriations are made is not, however, directly implicated in the issue we decide today, that is, whether Minnesota's unallotment statute was properly invoked in this case

10:21 a.m. - The court hints that it might not be a bad idea for the Legislature to fix the law under which Pawlenty exerted his perceived authority:

Although the competing interpretations advanced by the parties are each reasonable, that fact simply brings into focus the failure of the statutory language to clearly answer two questions: (1) probable receipts anticipated when? and (2) amount available for what purpose? Because we determine the language of the unallotment statute is ambiguous, we must employ the canons of construction to determine what the Legislature intended by the language it used.

10:25 a.m. - The "money quote". Literally.

In the context of this limited constitutional grant of gubernatorial authority with regard to appropriations, we cannot conclude that the Legislature intended to authorize the executive branch to use the unallotment process to balance the budget for an entire biennium when balanced spending and revenue legislation has not been initially agreed upon by the Legislature and the Governor. Instead, we conclude that the Legislature intended the unallotment authority to serve the more narrow purpose of providing a mechanism by which the executive branch could address unanticipated deficits that occur after a balanced budget has previously been enacted.

10:26 a.m. - While not addressing the constitutionality of the governor's actions, it certainly portrays a constitutional question of whether unalloting items approved by the Legislature neuters the Legislature.

The unallotment authority so construed would result in an alternative budget-creation mechanism that bypasses the constitutionally prescribed process. There is nothing to suggest that was the purpose for which the unallotment statute was enacted

The unallotment statute provides the executive branch with authority to address an unanticipated deficit that arises after the legislative and executive branches have enacted a balanced budget. The statute does not shift to the executive branch a broad budget-making authority allowing the executive branch to address a deficit that remains after a legislative session because the legislative and executive branches have not resolved their differences.

Which, presumably, means that if the Legislature had delivered a fully balanced budget, and there were no major disagreements, and then the deficit appeared, Gov. Pawlenty's actions could have been legal.

10:33 a.m. - Justice Alan Page takes on the constitutional question:

I write separately to highlight my concern that the unallotment statute confers on the executive branch such broad and uncircumscribed authority to rewrite legislative spending decisions that it may constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative authority in violation of the separation of powers principle in our constitution.

10:35 a.m. - It might not be a bad idea, Justice Page signals, for the Legislature to work on cleaning up the language of the process to avoid a constitutional question. Perhaps it could get fast-tracked as if it were a stadium bill. He didn't write that part. I did.

The lack of direction in the Minnesota statute about how unallotment authority may be exercised once it is triggered leaves the executive branch with virtually unfettered discretion to decide which funds to cut entirely, which to reduce in some measure, and which to leave fully funded. Such decisions inevitably change the legislative priorities established in the properly enacted appropriations laws, and the grant in subdivision 4 of section 16A.152 to the executive branch of broad and uncircumscribed authority to make such changes may run afoul of the separation of powers principle. Although we need not decide that issue today, the legislative and executive branches should be aware of that potential problem.

Rest assured, of course, that Minnesota Public Radio will be providing plenty of coverage of this during the day. In a few minutes, on MPR's Midday, state rep and gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer will appear. My guess is he'll have something to say about this decision.

Comment on this post

Miranda and the Times Square car bomb

Posted at 2:43 PM on May 4, 2010 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Miranda rights are again at the center of an investigation into a criminal/terrorist act in the U.S.

At a news conference today, FBI Deputy Director John Pistole said Faisal Shahzad, arrested in the attempted car bombing of Times Square, was questioned by authorities before he was read his Miranda rights. He did not say how long he was questioned before he got the famous "you have the right to keep silent" warning, but said he cooperated before and after the reading.

Sen. Joe Lieberman suggested changing the law to strip citizenship -- and the accompanying rights -- in cases like this:

"Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about," Sen. John McCain added.

Nothing seems to be preventing investigators from finding out what it's all about. In just a few days Shahzad was picked up with nothing original to go on but a smoking SUV, it's been determined he attended a "terrorist training camp" in Pakistan, and was losing his Connecticut home to foreclosure.

Still the Miranda warning is still a flashpoint in the incident, although conservative commentator Glen Beck and some civil liberties advocates appear to be on the same side.

"He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens... If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution," Beck said.

Maybe that's the news.

Comment on this post

Court: Blood-alcohol tests not an unreasonable search

Posted at 10:18 AM on May 4, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Attention drunk drivers: Blood tests to determine your blood-alcohol content are not a violation of your right against unreasonable searches, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today.

The court ruled in the case of Jesse Harrison, who was stopped twice for suspicion of drunk driving in Carver County. On both occasions, Harrison agreed to have blood drawn by authorities, but when the tests later showed he was over the legal limit for alcohol, he said the tests were inadmissible because they were obtained without a warrant.

"The protections of the Minnesota Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures are not triggered unless a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy, defined as 'those expectations of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,'" the court said in today's ruling.

Here's the ruling.

Comment on this post

Charging documents in shooting of police officer

Posted at 3:10 PM on May 3, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Here's a copy of the charging document against Joshua Martin.

Martin is charged in the killing of Maplewood police Sgt. Joseph Bergeron. Suffice it to say Martin tells a different story than witnesses.

There is a suggestion, however, of what precipitated the shooting. Martin said Jason Jones, who was killed by police on Saturday afternoon, had a parole violation.

MPR's Elizabeth Dunbar has filed this report on the charges.

Comment on this post

St. Paul strikes back against Arizona immigration bill

Posted at 12:26 PM on April 28, 2010 by Bob Collins (9 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Political posturing or effective economic tool?

St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman today announced a ban on travel by city employees to Arizona. It's a reaction to the new law in Arizona, requiring people to prove their citizenship on demand.

Here's the full release:

Saint Paul Mayor Chris Coleman took a stand today, ordering City departments to no longer travel to conferences in the State of Arizona. Coleman issued the order today in solidarity with other cities and organizations in boycotting the State of Arizona in protest of the recent signage of SB1070 by Governor Jan Brewer.

"This law sets a dangerous example for the rest of the country. It will create a culture where racial profiling is acceptable, and will create a dangerous wedge between police officers and the communities they serve. We've seen what can be done through partnering with immigrant communities and its effects on issues such as domestic violence rates, violent crime, and overall community safety.

It would be immoral to not stand up in the face of a piece of legislation that is rooted in hate and fear. We are a country of immigrants - and SB 1070 is an affront to our constitution and the values we hold dear as Americans. It's not worthy of who we are as a people - and it's certainly not worthy of the investment of any city dollars being spent in Arizona.

I can't imagine what it would have been like for my grandmother had they passed a similar anti-Irish law. Today I choose to stand with the millions of immigrants in our City and across the country who should have access to the same level of safety and opportunity as everyone else."

Coleman also noted that he would write to the chairmen of both the DNC and the RNC to encourage them to not choose Phoenix, a contender for their national conventions, in 2012.

How many St. Paul employees travel to Arizona for conventions and conferences? The mayor's deputy chief of staff says he's currently researching that, and also any contracts between the city and Arizona businesses.

"It's a really poor strategy," Barry Broome, chief executive of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council said. But he wasn't talking about St. Paul, but about a move by some California lawmakers to bar any state contracts with businesses in Arizona. That would be bad news for Minnesota-based businesses like Target and the Mayo Clinic -- two of Arizona's largest employers.

But Arizona officials clearly are concerned about boycotts nationwide. Sen. John McCain said the state has to "sell" the new law better.

"We have to show any visitors -- whether it be for the All-Star Game or someone who wants to go to the Grand Canyon -- that we will observe and enforce their civil rights and make sure they don't feel threatened here," McCain said today.

The Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association has set up a "Don't Boycott Arizona" Facebook page. It says a boycott will only hurt hotel and tourism employees.

Comment on this post

Can you lose a job because a spouse lost his/hers?

Posted at 12:41 PM on April 27, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It's been 22 years since the Minnesota Legislature amended the state's Human Rights Act to add language to provide protections for married people. But the Minnesota Court of Appeals today reinstated a case that may test it.

The court ruled that a district court should not have tossed the claim of a woman who said she was fired from a company because her husband -- the president of the company -- was being terminated. LeAnn Taylor claims an official LSI Corporation of America told her that she was being fired because her husband was being terminated and "he will be [relocating], which means you'll be relocating as well. So we just decided to eliminate your position."

Is that discrimination against someone for being married?

A test of the Human Rights Act wording will decide. The Act says:

Except when based on a bona fide occupational qualification, it is an unfair employment practice for an employer, because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age to:

(1) refuse to hire or to maintain a system of employment which unreasonably excludes a person seeking employment; or

(2) discharge an employee; or

(3) discriminate against a person with respect to hiring, tenure, compensation, terms, upgrading, conditions, facilities, or privileges of employment.

At issue is what constitutes "marital status"? A 1988 legislative update extended protection against discrimination on the basis of "the identity, situation, actions, or beliefs of a spouse or former spouse."

It may well be that the Legislature intended to protect people from losing their jobs because a spouse was losing his/hers. But it's never been decided by the Appeals Court or the state Supreme Court. Previous cases involving the language were aimed at anti-nepotism rules in which a person didn't get a job because a spouse did.

The Appeals Court today said the woman's claim falls "squarely within the statutory definition of marital status," and sent it back to trial.

Comment on this post

Fatal accidents by the numbers

Posted at 1:47 PM on April 26, 2010 by Bob Collins (11 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The weekend's tragedies involving young drivers is, deservedly, getting plenty of attention from the news media. Over the next few days, we can expect to hear more discussion about whether age 16 is too young to be driving a car. It's a good question, but where fatal accidents are concerned in Minnesota in 2010, it's not an entirely significant one.

Today I went over accident reports for fatal accidents investigated by the State Patrol so far in 2010. Keep in mind, there are many, many more serious accidents -- several involving young drivers -- than fatal accidents.

But here are some of the significant points that the fatal accidents reveal to us:

· Forty-five people have died in these accidents in 2010. Other than the weekend deaths, only one was under 18.

· The average age of a driver involved in a fatal accident is 41.

· The average age of a person killed in a car crash (excluding pedestrians) is 41.

· Other than the weekend accidents, a driver under 18 has been involved in a fatal accident only twice in 2010.

· Alcohol is was found in the system of at least one driver in only six accidents. In 13 other accidents, the question of whether alcohol was found in a driver's system is unresolved. Alcohol was not involved in the other two accidents involving teenage drivers.

· In one-third of the accidents, the victim was not wearing a seat belt. But in crashes involving victims age 30 or younger, a seat belt was being used only half of the time.

Meanwhile, colleague Bill Wareham has been going over nationwide statistics of traffic fatalities, finding that fatal accidents involving 16-20 year olds make up 13% of all traffic fatalities, the lowest figure since at least 1994. That's a lower percentage than 25-34 year olds (17.9%), 35-44 year olds (14.5%), and 45-54 year olds (14.6%).

While the rate of 16-20 year old deaths has been declining, the 25-to-34-year-old age group rate has been increasing for several years. The biggest increases in the last 14 years, however, are the number of fatal accidents involving 45-64 year olds.

Comment on this post

The Supreme Court, St. Paul, and violent video games

Posted at 10:20 AM on April 26, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to decide whether California can ban certain video games.

This should be an interesting case, given that last week the high court overturned efforts to prevent the sale of videos of women crushing cuddly animals and dogs and other animals fighting to the death. (Aside: National Public Radio was one of the groups that filed briefs to overturn the law, and today its ombudsman explained why)

Is Grand Theft Auto worse than that?

The law never took effect because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- the most overturned federal court in the land -- ruled that the law violates the 1st and 14th amendments.

Want a preview of the Supreme Court arguments? Here's the audio of the debate before the California court.

And here's a pdf of the court's decision.

You may note that the City of St. Paul has a role in the court's decision. The 9th Circuit cited a 1992 Supreme Court decision which overturned the conviction of a teenager for burning a cross on the lawn of an African American St. Paul family-- Russ and Laura Jones and their five children.

The teen was convicted under the St. Paul bias-crimes ordinance, which said:

Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

It was, Justice Scalia wrote at the time, an overly broad restriction of content:

Although the phrase in the ordinance, "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others," has been limited by the Minnesota Supreme Court's construction to reach only those symbols or displays that amount to "fighting words," the remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Displays containing abusive invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics. Those who wish to use "fighting words" in connection with other ideas -- to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality -- are not covered. The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.

The case led the Supreme Court to say that content-based restrictions are presumed to be invalid.

And aside: The attorney for the defendant in the cross-burning case -- Edward J. Cleary -- went on to author "Beyond the Burning Cross," and now is the assistant chief judge in Ramsey County.

Comment on this post

Charges filed against alleged suicide voyeur

Posted at 12:38 PM on April 23, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Rice County authorities have moved against William Melchert-Dinkel, a Minnesota man who allegedly encouraged people online to kill themselves.

Using a little-used state law, the Faribault man has been charged with aiding the deaths of a Canadian woman and a British man.

Mark Drybrough, of Coventry, England, hanged himself in 2005, and 18-year-old Nadia Kajouji of Brampton, Ontario (shown above), drowned in Ottawa in 2008.

According to the Associated Press:

Investigators have said Melchert-Dinkel feigned compassion for those he chatted with, while offering step-by-step instructions on how to take their lives. The criminal complaint filed in the case said he told investigators he encouraged "dozens" of people to commit suicide and "characterized it as the thrill of the chase."

But his apprehension has more to do with a grandmother who wouldn't take "no" for an answer when law enforcement officials said "no."

Four years ago a teenage friend admitted she had entered a death pact with a nurse. Hours before the planned suicide, Mrs Blay discovered the pact was with an internet user known as Li Dao, who had agreed to other pacts.

She convinced the teenager to delay her plans and the girl is alive today.

Mrs Blay contacted members of internet groups used by Li Dao and discovered she used the pseudonyms Falcon Girl and Cami D to persuade people to enter pacts in which they would hang themselves in front of webcams and watch each other die. At the crucial moment there was always a problem with Li Dao's webcam so that it was just her watching.

"When I went to the police they just said if it bothers you, look the other way," she said.

Li Dao turned out to be Melchert-Dinkel. The Wiltshire (UK) Times has an interesting profile of Mrs. Blay, dubbed Wiltshire's "Miss Marple."

The case also shines attention on one law enforcement agency that didn't say "no." It was the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, based out of the St. Paul police department that reviewed the cases and sent them to Rice County for prosecution.

Rice County's prosecutor wouldn't comment on the case today, but the challenge he faces is obvious: The First Amendment. Melchert-Dinkel didn't physically assist in the suicides; he only posted comments on the Internet.

The charges against Melchert-Dinkel come from Minnesota statute 609.215:

Whoever intentionally advises, encourages, or assists another in taking the other's own life may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

It's a law that appeared to have been motivated during heightened attention of physician-assisted suicide, and the exploits of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who actually helped people kill themselves, rather than people who type things on Internet bulletin boards.

See more about the case in this CBC documentary.

A friend of Nadia Kajouji produced this memorial:

One of the messages she got before jumped off a bridge said:

"If you go to a home depot or menards or any kind of home improvement store, get yellow nylon rope about 8 feet or about 3.5 meters and about - inch thick or about 3 cm that is all you need and look around your apartment for somewhere to hang from .... I can help you with the cam when you need to."

That allegedly was sent by Melchert-Dinke.

Comment on this post

National Day of Prayer fight just beginning

Posted at 11:53 AM on April 22, 2010 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Justice Department says it's going to fight for a National Day of Prayer. Today, it filed a notice that it will appeal a federal judge's ruling that declaring a National Day of Prayer constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state.

Notice of Appeal Natl Day of Prayer

I also now have the actual court ruling from the federal judge in Wisconsin. You can read it here.

Comment on this post

The limits of free speech

Posted at 12:42 PM on April 20, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Despite all the bumper-sticker platitudes about freedom, much of it comes from protecting the despicable acts of some unsavory characters.

The latest example comes from a decision today at the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices defined -- again -- what freedom the Constitution extends. Today, it said people have a right to sell videos of animal fights, and videos of lovely women crushing small animals.

The court today struck down a 1999 law, passed by Congress, that prohibits the depiction of certain animal cruelty. It wasn't close -- an 8-to-1 vote -- and proved again there's nothing more interesting than a Supreme Court opinion.

From the desk of Chief Justice John Roberts:

Such videos feature the intentional torture and killing of helpless animals, including cats, dogs, monkeys, mice, and hamsters. H. R. Rep. No. 106-397, p. 2 (1999) (hereinafter H. R. Rep.).Crush videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death "with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes," sometimes while "talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter" over "[t]he cries and squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain."

Doing battle on behalf of the freedom of speech was Robert Stevens, who ran a business called "Dogs of Velvet and Steel." Among the featured videos was "Japan Pit Fights" and "Pick-A-Winna: A Pit Bull Documentary."

He challenged a lower court ruling that said the law preventing him from disseminating his work was constitutional. The government, obviously, claimed otherwise, saying "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal cost."

Justice Roberts found that sentence "startling and dangerous."

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs," Roberts wrote. "Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document 'prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.'"

Beautifully-written words, unless you're a small animal. In other words: Perverts and derelicts get to say what they want to say, too. And the videos are the portrayal of a criminal act, not a criminal act.

Justice Samuel Alito didn't necessarily agree. In his dissent he said the laws against depictions of child pornography should be applied in this case.

Thus, any crush video made in this country records the actual commission of a criminal act that in-flicts severe physical injury and excruciating pain and ultimately results in death. Those who record the under-lying criminal acts are likely to be criminally culpable, either as aiders and abettors or conspirators. And in the tight and secretive market for these videos, some who sell the videos or possess them with the intent to make a profit may be similarly culpable. (For example, in some cases,crush videos were commissioned by purchasers who speci-fied the details of the acts that they wanted to see per-formed. See H. R. Rep., at 3; Hearing on Depictions of Animal Cruelty 27).

Here is the full opinion (pdf).

Comment on this post

The fall of Denny Hecker

Posted at 12:19 PM on April 12, 2010 by Bob Collins (10 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Denny Hecker is now officially broke, and taxpayers will foot the bill for his defense against charges he committed bankruptcy fraud. A federal judge today granted the request from Hecker's attorney to get off the case because he hasn't been paid. The judge agreed to assign a new lawyer, paid by the government at the rate of $125 an hour.

Has there ever been a bigger fall from grace in the Twin Cities?

Look at this timetable:

November 2008 - Hecker closes six dealerships. He still has seven dealerships open in Minnesota and Los Angeles.

December 2008 - Hecker is involved in a car accident. Months later, authorities consider criminal charges. Tests found morphine, amphetamine and other drugs.

January 2009 - Ford sues Hecker for not paying $3 million he owes. Other carmakers follow suit.

April 2009 - Chrysler's financial arm wins a $477 million judgment against Hecker. He still has five dealerships open but they're up for sale.

June 2009 - Authorities show up at Hecker's corporate offices and start carting away records in the probe. Days later, federal charges are filed against Hecker.

July 2009 - Hecker files his bankruptcy petition. It reveals he had seven snowmobiles, three scooters, and six four-wheelers, two pontoon boats, seven Jet-Skis and a yacht (which had been repossessed), among other assets. He says he has $24,000 in cash.

July 2009 - Hecker pleads guilty to careless driving in his December accident, claiming he was texting on his cellphone when he crashed. His 30 day sentence is stayed for a year.

August 2009 - Hecker's assets are auctioned to pay off creditors.

September 2009 - Two Fargo banks sue Hecker.

December 2009 - Hecker's divorce from his wife is finalized. KSTP-TV reports Tamitha Hecker is asking for $15 million and sole custody of the couple's two children, ages 8 and 14.

January 2010 - A bankruptcy trustee sues Hecker, claiming he's hiding money.

February 2010 - Hecker is indicted on fraud charges. More charges are filed a month later.

March 2010 - Hecker's father in law attempts suicide, a week after he was accused of helping Hecker hide about $81,000 from creditors. He dies a few days later.

March 2010 - Hecker asks a divorce judge not to throw him in jail for missing alimony payments. Days later, frustrated with Hecker's lack of accounting of finances, Hennepin County District Judge Jay Quam throws Hecker in jail. He's $5,000 behind. He's released on April 4.

April 2010 - A bankruptcy judge approves a deal between a bankruptcy trustee and Hecker's fourth divorced wife. She will get to keep about $185,000 in cash and jewelry valued at more than $1 million.

April 7, 2010 - Prosecutors charge Hecker's girlfriend with making false statements in Hecker's bankruptcy case.

April 12, 2010 - A judge approves of a taxpayer-paid lawyer to defend Hecker, who says he's broke.

Comment on this post

Adoptions of Russian children under scrutiny

Posted at 11:16 AM on April 9, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Thanks to a News Cut reader for sending along this story, which sounds remarkably similar to the story about the 8th grader in Hastings, who was adopted from an orphanage in Russia and this week attempted to shoot up his school. The Star Tribune today reported his adoptive parents tried to warn Dakota County authorities that the boy was violent.

The story of Torry Ann Hansen, however, is being used for ridicule, rather than a warning that the life of an orphan in Russia may be creating violent children.

New World's Worst Mother Sends Her Adopted Child Back to Russia Alone, the Web site, Gawker says.

The child flew from Tennessee to Washington with his adoptive grandmother, who then put him on a flight to Moscow by himself. The child was detained on Thursday by immigration officials in Moscow when he produced the note written by his adoptive mother, Torry Ann Hansen. "I was lied to and misled by the Russian orphanage workers," the note said. Naturally, the Russian government is talking about suspending all adoptions of Russian children by American parents in the aftermath to this wonderful example of maternity. Damn, next to this hacking into your kid's Facebook account and saying mean things about him is nothing!

Right. Funny stuff.

The New York Times takes a more adult view of an apparent problem, reporting that Russian authorities want to ban adoptions of Russian children by Americans.

The adoption of Russian children by foreigners is a highly sensitive issue here, with some suggesting that it shows that the country cannot care for its own.

Several cases of Russian children being killed or harmed in the United States by their adoptive parents have received widespread attention here. On Friday, the case of Artyom, whose adoptive name was Justin Hansen, stirred an intense backlash.

The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said he would propose that all adoptions of Russian children by Americans be suspended until the Russian and United States governments worked out a new agreement.

This 2007 first-person account of a Russian adoption certainly paints a grim picture of the life of an orphan in Russia.

Comment on this post

More than lost fortunes in the wake of Petters' Ponzi scheme

Posted at 4:33 PM on April 8, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Martin Lackner, a Minneapolis native, wasn't around to hear about the 50-year sentence handed to Tom Petters today. He killed himself last year, not long before the head of the hedge fund where he worked was indicted on charges he helped Petters carry out his multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.

Lackner's suicide -- he hanged himself in his home -- sparked online comments by conspiracy theorists that he killed himself because investigators were closing in. His friends insist he killed himself because he was depressed over unwittingly investing the money of people he knew in a fund he didn't know was a scam. We'll never know; he apparently didn't leave a note.

But Jon Bassewitz of St. Paul, a longtime friend of Lackner's, has no doubts. "He was a remarkable man," Bassewitz told me today. "He lost his father when he was young, and later had an opportunity to work for his uncle on the Chicago Options Exchange. He did very well and retired at age 35. He moved back here and had a house near the Lake of the Isles."

But Lackner got bored, Mr. Bassewitz said, and he and his family moved back to Chicago where he joined Lancelot Management, a hedge fund operated by Gregory Bell and his wife, Inna Goldman. Both were indicted for feeding up to $2 billion to Petters' scheme.

Lackner was not mentioned in the indictment. Bassewitz says he was inncocent of any involvement. "He had a large number of friends and a large number of people who relied on his sage investment advice," he said. "He sold these investments to many people. He was the kind of person who had no need to make money. He wasn't greedy. He didn't live a lavish lifestyle. He was utterly shocked and devastated when his business was closed down."

Bassewitz says many people Lackner knew lost large sums of money. "He took on this horrible mode of self reproach," he said. He was seeing a psychiatrist and getting medical care."

Lackner's wife went out for awhile last June 18, and Lackner hung himself. "It wasn't his fault," Bassewitz said. "I'm sorry he made this terrible mistake. Even if people called and said, 'I forgive you,' he wouldn't forgive himself."

The last time Bassewitz saw Lackner was at his brother's son's bar mitzvah. "My father was sick. He had Parkinson's. It was difficult for him just making it around. Marty took it upon himself to be with my dad throughout this whole reception. He was a real mench," he said.

"My friend had based his self-esteem on his integrity and sound judgment. He was such a good man! Sadly, he fell into a profound state of depression -- nine months of utter hell -- and sought release in death," he said. "Forty-one years of imprisonment may be the best that human justice can dispense, yet Petters will live out his years in relatively comfortable circumstances. As far as I am concerned, this is very light punishment for destroying my friend's life and no doubt that of many others."

Comment on this post

Petters' sentence by the numbers

Posted at 12:28 PM on April 8, 2010 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Comment on this post

An end to gender-exclusive golf?

Posted at 12:07 PM on April 5, 2010 by Bob Collins (8 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

If you play in men's golf tournaments, the end of a gender-specific tournament may be coming to an end.

A federal judge in Boston has ruled that a woman suffered discrimination when a public golf course refused to let her play in a men's tournament. Says the New York Times:

Gorton's ruling sent a strong message to the overseers of public golf courses. In effect, it said that government-financed tournaments should allow women to play with men at men's tournaments and vice versa.

Gorton observed that the town of Dennis and the golf officials it employed made "a repeated plea for a 'separate but equal' analysis, that is, that the club had men's-only and women's-only tournaments on weekends."

That did not wash, the judge said, because "men and women were afforded unequal playing opportunities" at Dennis Pines, with 10 days of tournament play for men compared with two days for women.

The article quotes the judge saying his ruling does not require all public courses to conduct only coed tournaments, but it's hard to see how it doesn't.

The judge's ruling has not yet been posted online.

Comment on this post

The border battle

Posted at 11:50 AM on March 29, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Comment on this post

The bullying epidemic

Posted at 11:20 AM on March 29, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Of all the critters walking the earth, the human teenager may have the capacity to be the most vicious.

The effect of bullying in its native state is on display in two cases in the news today.

First, in Massachusetts a grand jury today indicted nine teenagers in connection with the suicide of a girl who hanged herself after weeks of bullying at school and online. It started, apparently, after a romance with one of the teens ended. Two of them are also charged with statutory rape.

But the district attorney did not charge school officials who knew about the bullying, but did nothing to stop it. He says their inaction did not rise to a level of a crime, leading to the obvious question: Should it?

Meanwhile, in New York, CBS News reports today that not even the suicide of a teenager was enough to stop the cyberbullying that allegedly contributed to it:

Police are investigating whether cyberbullies contributed to the suicide of a teen in the Long Island, N.Y. town of West Islip. The nasty messages continued to show up online even after her death, reports CBS News Correspondent Jeff Glor.

Soccer star Alexis Pilkington, 17, took her own life March 21 following vicious taunts on social networking sites -- which persisted postmortem on Internet tribute pages, worsening the grief of her family and friends.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Comment on this post

Gun bill fails at Capitol

Posted at 5:43 PM on March 10, 2010 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

With little fanfare or attention today, a Minnesota House committee defeated an attempt to close the so-called "gun show loophole" in the state.

The bill would have required background checks for people who buy guns at gun shows. It failed in the House Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division on a 5-to-3 vote.

According to Session Daily:

Rep. Paul Kohls (R-Victoria) and Rep. Dave Olin (DFL-Thief River Falls) said no evidence was presented showing a definitive connection between gun show sales and crimes with a firearm.

That's true. But why is that? One reason might be because Minnesota doesn't track the origin of guns used in crimes, according to a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety. If guns bought at gun shows are used in crimes, there isn't a mechanism for knowing it or how often (or not) it happens.

Only in some high-profile case would such a connection occur.

One did in 2003 when a woman bought a gun at a gun show, then used it to shoot two people -- killing one -- in Hennepin County Government Center.

Opponents of the bill said a background check wouldn't have prevented the woman from buying the gun.

Comment on this post

Love conquers Newark

Posted at 3:48 PM on March 9, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It is, perhaps, comforting to note that the U.S. justice system still has a bit of a soft spot for lovers.

Haisong Jiang pleaded guilty today to charges resulting from his desire to have a little more time with his girlfriend at Newark Airport. He ducked past a security checkpoint to get it in January. That prompted an evacuation of the airport.

The 28-year-old Rutgers student today showed he's not only a romantic, he's a stand-up guy.

He was ordered to pay $500 and perform some community service.

When he graduates, he plans to move to California to be with his love.

Comment on this post

Ex-cops and guns

Posted at 12:41 PM on March 8, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

If there were an award for unfortunate timing at the Legislature, it might go today to Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder.

Cornish today introduced HF 3428, which allows retired peace officers to carry a pistol without a permit.

Here's his bill:

A permit to carry a pistol is not required of: (1) any officer of a state adult correctional facility when on guard duty or otherwise engaged in an assigned duty.; or (2) a person who: (i) within the past five years has received the training in the safe use of a pistol described in subdivision 2a; and (ii) was a peace officer and retired or separated from service in good standing from a law enforcement agency, other than for reasons of mental illness or chemical dependency, after being regularly employed as a peace officer for at least 15 years or for any period beyond the agency's probationary period if the person retired or separated from service due to a service-related disability. (c) A law enforcement agency shall issue a photographic identification to a person who retired or separated from service from the agency and who meets the criteria described in paragraph (b), clause (2), item (ii). The agency may charge the person a processing fee not to exceed the actual and reasonable direct cost to the agency of issuing the identification.

Meanwhile, in Chisholm the investigation is continuing into the weekend shooting in which a former cop shot up a table at a bar from where he'd been kicked out minutes earlier.

Skoogman said the suspect, a former police officer in the '80s, returned minutes after being kicked out of the bar with two handguns.

"He fired off 5 shots, injuring two people and fatally shooting a third person," Skoogman said. "All three were sitting at the same table as his ex-wife and all three were shot at close range.

It's not known yet whether the 47-year-old alleged shooter had a permit for the guns used in the attack or whether he would've qualified to carry without a permit under Cornish's legislation. He was a police officer for about six years. He left voluntarily when layoffs were looming back in 1989, according to Andy Skoogman of the Department of Public Safety.

Comment on this post

The power of words

Posted at 10:56 AM on March 8, 2010 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

At a time in our history when rights and freedoms are getting renewed attention, the First Amendment still struggles for support, mostly because its power comes from the degree to which the government bestows it.

Today, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal from David Paul Hammer, an inmate on the federal government's death row in Terre Haute, Ind, who wants to speak to reporters before he's executed.

Why doesn't the federal government allow death row inmates to speak to reporters? Because of this:

Twenty-three news organizations supported Mr. Hammer's appeal, though it's unlikely many of them are very interested in talking to him specifically.

While it rejected the claim by the inmate that he has a right to talk to reporters, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether people can picket outside the funerals of soldiers, and shout some of the ugliest epithets you can imagine.

ScotusBlog reports on the case of orders against the Rev. Fred Phelps:

The Rev. Phelps' church preaches a strongly anti-gay message, contending that God hates America because it tolerates homosexuality, particularly in the military services. The church also spreads its views through an online site, www.godhatesfags.com. When the (Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A.) Snyder funeral occurred, the Rev. Phelps, two of his daughters and four grandchildren staged a protest nearby. They carried signs with such messages as "God Hates the USA," "America is doomed," "Matt in hell," "Semper fi fags," and "Thank God for dead soldiers." The demonstration violate no local laws, and was kept at police orders a distance from the church. After the funeral, the Rev. Phelps continued his protest over the Snyder funeral on his church's website, accusing the Snyder family of having taught their son irreligious beliefs.

Comment on this post

What's wrong, Minnesota?

Posted at 7:37 AM on March 7, 2010 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

It's hard to have a "half-full" attitude on a Sunday in which two stories dominate the news.

First, in Chisholm, a lone gunman in Jim's Bar, shot several people, killing one. The story is still developing.

Yesterday, in the North Side of Minneapolis, they tried to bury a 17-year old girl who was shot last week. They couldn't even do that without a fight breaking out between rival gang members, the Star Tribune reports.

It also reported on the words of Rev. Jerry McAfee, which probably fell on deaf ears:

"Some of you think y'all are the only ones, that this game is new, that it's gonna be different for you," the Rev. Jerry McAfee said from the pulpit, his voice rising with anger. "Well, I have had the displeasure of seeing too many young boys and girls dead. I have had the displeasure of seeing too many young boys and young girls in jail."

McAfee then ordered the young women in the sanctuary to stand. He recounted how he had visited Neeley's memorial site and seen a note that called her "My bitch."

"The more you define yourselves as 'that bitch, that ho,' you develop that psyche," McAfee said.

Then he ordered the young men to stand, telling them that when they harm one another, they deny their own identities. He left them with an admonishment: "I pray that you brothers don't disrespect this day. We're bigger than this, y'all. We're bigger than this.

"I don't care what street you're from. If you hurt your people, you deny who you are."

It could be a very long summer.

Comment on this post

You're the principal

Posted at 11:09 AM on February 26, 2010 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In Pequot Lakes, somebody dropped off a bunch of toys to be sold as part of a fundraiser to raise money for a high school prom. A student took a toy gun in the box and pointed it at kids in a classroom, according to the Brainerd Dispatch.

Letters were sent home saying the kid was escorted to the office and school policy was followed, although it doesn't say what that entails.

Let's play "You're the Principal." What do you do to the student? What do you do with the person who, technically, brought the "gun" to school?

Comment on this post

One woman's hero...

Posted at 12:45 PM on February 22, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The daughter of the man who flew his airplane into an IRS office in Austin last week is hailing her father as a hero. That comes as shocking news to the husband family of the 68-year old woman man who died in the attack.

Comment on this post

Plane crash updates

Posted at 10:42 AM on February 18, 2010 by Bob Collins (9 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A small plane has hit a seven-story four-story office building in Austin, Texas.

What happened, of course, isn't entirely clear.

10:43 a.m. Here's some initial video:

10:44 a.m. - The plane type reportedly is a Piper 140 or 150, more commonly known as a Warrior. It carries about 42 gallons of fuel. It's an extremely easy plane to fly.

10:52 a.m. - CNN, via a TV station in Austin, is providing a video feed online with occasional commentary here.

10:54 a.m. - There are no airports in the immediate vicinity.

10:57 a.m. - The obvious question is: Is this an accident or intentional? There's no way yet of knowing, of course, but here's a Google street view of the area.

There would appear to have been several options for attempting an emergency landing besides anywhere near a building. CNN quotes a witness saying the plane hit the building "at full throttle and in a heavy bank." That does not indicate an attempt at an emergency landing. On the other hand, it's possible to be at full throttle in an airplane and still be going to slow to keep flying.

11:04 a.m. - Witness (who also is a pilot) : "Either the pilot was incapacitated or it was intentional." (Source: KXAN TV) (Bob notes: There is another possibility. A mechanical malfunction in flight controls -- very, very unusual for a Warrior -- prevented the pilot from controlling the plane. Not unheard of, however.)

11:06 a.m. - Homeland Security : "No reason to indicate this was an act of terrorism. " (KKTV)

11:09 a.m. - It appears the building houses federal offices. The IRS has an office at 9430 Research Blvd. (Web site)

11:10 a.m. - The FBI has an office at 9320 Research Blvd. (Web site)

11:16 a.m. - Live coverage via the Austin American Statesman/KEYE

Free TV Show from Ustream

11:24 a.m. - Upon further review: A Google Earth view shows there weren't a lot of options for a pilot needing to make an emergency landing, other than the highway or median:

11:26 a.m. - Witness: Pilot was trying to avoid hitting building.

11:27 a.m. - Austin Fire Chief: One person unaccounted for. Two taken to hospital.

11:32 a.m. - Here's another live video feed. This one is from KXAN TV in Austin.

11:41 a.m. - Numerous news orgs reporting a federal official (source) claims pilot set his house on fire before crashing plane. FoxNews is pushing the angle:

An NTSB official told Fox News that they are investigating this as an intentional act, and said it appears the pilot set his own house on fire and then got in his plane and flew it into the building. An NTSB spokesman, however, told FoxNews.com that "we can't confirm any of that."

Say what? An NTSB official said the pilot set his house on fire and then said he can't confirm that? Which is it?

11:49 a.m. Witness Matt Farney, 39, who was in the parking lot of a nearby Home Depot: (Source: Associated Press)

"I figured he was going to buzz the apartments or he was showing off," Farney said, adding that the plane dipped down. "It was a ball of flames that was high or higher than the apartments. It was surreal. It was insane. ... It didn't look like he was out of control or anything."

11:55 a.m. - Associated Press: "Law officials say Austin, Texas, plane crash may have been intentional act by the pilot."

12:06 p.m. - Caution: Unconfirmed information ahead! Someone named Joe Stack has posted a "why did this have to happen" treatise here. Please note: There is NO Joe Stack in the FAA database of certified pilots.

12:14 p.m. - There is a Piper Cherokee airplane registered to a Joe Stack. Here's the registration information. Note, however, that the airplane is registered in California, not Texas.

12:17 p.m. - This Web site shows the plane is based out of San Marco, Texas.

12:26 p.m. - Austin American Statesman has pictures of the home of the pilot set ablaze. A teenager in the home told reporters her father started the fire.

12:27 p.m. - In the event the Web site linked above disappears. Here's the screed from the person alleged to be the pilot:

If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, "Why did this have to happen?" The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn't enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless... especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I'm not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)

This raises the question. Is Joe Stack a domestic terrorist?

(This concludes the live blog portion of the story)

Comment on this post

What an assassination team looks like

Posted at 12:27 PM on February 16, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Police Dubai have issued arrest warrants for 11 people who are suspected of assassinating Mahmoud Al Mabhouh, the senior Hamas commander who was one of the most wanted men in Israel. He was killed in a Dubai hotel room in January.

Dubai officials released a video documenting the movement of the alleged assassination team in Dubai:

Comment on this post

'Desperate for insurance'

Posted at 4:28 PM on February 10, 2010 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Health

It takes a lot of guts for someone to get up in front of a roomful of reporters and tell the world you got taken in an apparent scam.

Gary Sween of Owatonna was that person today, when he appeared at a news conference announcing that Attorney General Lori Swanson is suing two Texas health discount companies, saying that they fraudulently represented themselves as health insurance companies to about 4,600 Minnesotans.

The two companies are Direct Medical Network Solutions of Southlake, Texas and Association Health Care of Houston.

Here's Mr. Sween's story:

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2010_02_10_sween_newscut_feb_10_20100210_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2010/02/10/sween_newscut_feb_10_20100210_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Health discount plans offer cost savings for certain doctors and clinics, but do not provide insurance protection.

(h/t: MPR's Elizabeth Stawicki)

Comment on this post

When a judge is gay

Posted at 8:23 PM on February 8, 2010 by Bob Collins (11 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Does it matter that the judge in the California case on whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional is gay?

The San Francisco Chronicle has "outed" U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation.

They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians.

The blog, Above the Law, concurs mostly. If this were the 1860s and the civil rights case was about slavery, there wouldn't be a question of whether a black judge could rule impartially, would there?

Some commenters at the site disagree:

"The judge is gay? That's a lose-lose situation for the gay marriage people. If he rules it unconstitutional, opponents will say it's a biased outcome. If he rules it constitutional, opponents will say 'even a gay judge doesn't think your position is valid.'"

But there's also a pragmatic response. The case, no matter how the judge rules, is going to end up being decided for good in some other court higher up the judicial food chain.

Comment on this post

The sex offender question

Posted at 10:27 AM on February 1, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In contrast to what we are spending for this very expensive approach to addressing sexual violence, Minnesota spends zero dollars on primary prevention of sexual violence. It seems like our public policy is out of balance, we spend whatever it takes or is requested to deal with people once offended, but nothing to really change the environment or circumstances in which sexual violence is nurtured.

Comment on this post

When a hero is just a hero

Posted at 4:39 PM on January 27, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Update 12:44 p.m 1/29 - Let me clarify what this post is about because it's clear after talking to several people, including Attorney Gaertner , that I didn't write it properly to get the message across. The point is not that the actions of a police officer were reviewed -- of course they should be -- or that it took 5 months for the county attorney's office to issue a clean bill of health. The posting should not have said it took the county attorney's office five months. It should only have noted that the final disposition came five months after the incident. For the record, the case wasn't turned over for review by her office until last week. The post is about how the story was framed at the media end, and the elevation of the possibility of charges at the media's -- that's us -- end. The reason I put the entire news release online is so readers could see that the county attorney's office affirmed heroic actions, which goes -- at least by my editorial sensibilities -- beyond phrases like "acted properly" and even "justified." I regret not being more clear in the original post.

I was going to read this story on my Current "newscast" today (Listen). And then I read it to myself first:

Authorities say a Maplewood Police Officer was justified in using deadly force when she fatally shot the man who killed North St. Paul Officer Richard Crittenden in September.

The Ramsey County Attorney's Office released the findings of its review Wednesday, saying Officer Julie Nelson won't face charges.

What's the problem? To me, raising the possibility of charges against Officer Julie Nelson cheapens her actions on the awful day that Officer Crittenden died trying to protect a woman and her child from an abusive man.

It took the Ramsey County Attorney months to determine that she will not be charged with anything. Most of the media reports also led with the angle that the shooting was justified... and Officer Nelson won't be charged with anything.

Here's Attorney Susan Gaertner's full press release today. See if you can find another headline for the story:

The Ramsey County Attorney's Office has determined that Maplewood Police Officer Julie Olson was justified in using deadly force against a man who assaulted her and killed North St. Paul Police Officer Richard Crittenden in a September 7, 2009, incident at a North St. Paul apartment.

Prosecutors reviewed reports from a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) investigation of the incident and determined there is no probable cause to consider charges against Olson in the fatal shooting of 34-year-old Devon Dockery.

It is standard practice for the County Attorney's Office to review fatal shootings in Ramsey County involving law enforcement officers.

"I am convinced based on my office's review of this tragic and violent incident that both Officer Ron Crittenden and Officer Julie Olson not only acted properly, but acted heroically," County Attorney Susan Gaertner said.

"Officer Crittenden was killed while trying to protect Olson and two women who had called police for help. Officer Olson placed her life in grave danger while defending Officer Crittenden, the two women and herself," Gaertner said.

According to the BCA investigative reports: Officers Crittenden and Olson were dispatched to an apartment building at 2253 Skillman Ave. E. shortly after 8 a.m. on September 7, 2009. They were responding to a 911 call from Stacy Terry, Dockery's estranged wife, who feared that Dockery was in her apartment in violation of a court Order for Protection.

Terry told the officers that Dockery was at her apartment building on September 6, 2009, and told her that he had a gun. After that conversation, Terry told police, she and her teenage daughter left the apartment building and not did return until the morning of September, 7, 2009.

When they arrived that morning at 2253 Skillman Ave. E, Officers Crittenden and Olson entered the building and first searched for Dockery in a vacant apartment near Terry's apartment.

The officers then went to Terry's apartment along with Terry and her daughter. When the officers and women entered the apartment, Dockery advanced toward them and threw a flaming rag that landed on Crittenden's head.

Crittenden pushed the women away from Dockery, then wrestled with him. At some point, Dockery disengaged from Crittenden and physically accosted Olson. Crittenden then tried to get Dockery away from Olson. During their second struggle, Dockery got control of Crittenden's handgun and fatally shot him in the head at point blank range.

Dockery then pointed the gun at Olson, and they exchanged gunfire from opposite ends of a short couch.

Olson was wounded when a shot fired by Dockery hit her utility belt and fragmented, sending pieces of metal into the officer's right arm. Olson then retreated into a hallway outside the apartment to reload her weapon from a better position of cover.

Olson and Maplewood Police Officer Lonn Bakke, who also was responding to the 911 call, then reentered the apartment and found Dockery fatally wounded and lying near the couch next to Crittenden.

The BCA investigation determined that the entire violent incident, in which multiple shots were fired by Dockery and Olson, occurred within a matter of seconds.

Gaertner's review of what happened reads almost exactly the way the BCA said it happened when it released details of the incident in North St. Paul almost five months ago.

Comment on this post

A day in the life of the Appeals Court

Posted at 10:57 AM on January 19, 2010 by Bob Collins (11 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today that if someone shoots somebody, they can be given a harsher sentence for not helping them with their injury.

The court ruled in the appeal of Clemmie Tucker Jr., who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of Angelina Garley. According to the court, left a Minneapolis bar in June 2005 with Angelina Garley, played cat-and-mouse with their vehicles until -- when they stopped in a residential neighborhood -- Tucker walked up to Garley's car and shot her. She died at the hospital.

Tucker was sentenced to almost 19 years in prison, rather than the 12 1/2 years under the state's sentencing guidelines because he didn't check on Garley's condition after firing his gun into her car.

Tucker argued that he didn't know he wounded Garley, so he couldn't be held responsible for not checking to see if she was OK.

Appeals Court Judge Gordon W. Shumaker didn't buy the argument, writing that Tucker's "cruelty -- beyond that of the crime itself -- was his indifference as to whether (Garley) was in fact injured and needed medical attention. The special cruelty of such indifference is clear because it can mean that the offender not only inflicted serious injury, but also deprived the victim of at least a chance to survive the injury."

Here's the complete ruling.

Comment on this post

Supeme Court agrees to hear political speech case

Posted at 3:55 PM on January 15, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Updating Thursday's News Cut post about a case in Washington state that tests whether signing a political petition is protected speech (and whether, like a vote, it should be confidential): today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide the case. It's the second time this week the court has waded into a question brought about because of concerns from opponents of same-sex marriage that publicity could lead to their harassment.

ScotusBlog has the story:

The outcome of the case could affect publicity about petition-signers in the 27 states that have either an initiative or a referendum option for voters, or both. The core constitutional issues in the case are whether signing a ballot measure petition is a form of political speech, whether, if it is protected by the First Amendment, it includes a right to sign without official public disclosure, what standard is to be applied when judging regulation of such a First Amendment right, and what government interest supports disclosure rather than confidentiality for signers' identities.

But the earliest the court would hear arguments in the case is late April.

Comment on this post

What happened at Seward Market

Posted at 2:07 PM on January 14, 2010 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Two teenagers have now been charged with murder in the murders of three people at the Seward Market and Halal Meat in Minneapolis. The two will be charged as adults Prosecutors say Ahmed Ali told them he and Mahdi Ali went to the store the evening of Jan. 6 with the intent of robbing it and that Mahdi Ali shot the three men inside.

Here's the criminal complaint against Ahmed Ali. And the one for Mahdi Ali.

The shooting started when Anwar Mohamed walked into the store during the robbery and was shot. It says Mahdi Ali then ran out of the store, chased by Mohamed Warfa, who was shot and killed in the doorway. Mahdi is then charged with running into the store, chasing down, and killing Osman Elmi as he tried to make a call on his cellphone.

Warfa and Elmi were cousins. Elmi worked at Seward Market and Halal Meats at E. Franklin and 25th Aves. Warfa visited him with a hot cup of Somali tea.

Additional details can be found here.

Comment on this post

The limits of political speech

Posted at 11:55 AM on January 14, 2010 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Fallout from the debate over gay marriage may be about to hit the U.S. Supreme Court in a unique way: Do groups favoring gay marriage (or its near equivalent) have the right to know the identities of people who want voters to reverse the issue?

The case comes from Washington state, which enacted a law last year known as the "everything but marriage law." It granted same-sex couples most of the rights of spouses.

In Washington state, an issue can be put before voters if enough of them sign a petition. Enough of them did and the question went before voters last November. They approved of the law, which went into effect last month.

Two Web sites, however, were created to "out" those who signed the petition to try to overturn the law -- KnowTheyNeighbor.org and WhoSigned.org. And a district court restrained the state from releasing the identities before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling. Now it's before the U.S. Supreme Court.

What's the issue? If you sign a political petition, is that protected speech under the Constitution, and if so, would making your name publicly available lead to harassment because of your political views? Would releasing your name violate your right to free speech?

The Appeals Court said the petitions were signed in public and there was no effort to protect their confidentiality.

It's been a particularly tricky question since Proposition 8, overturning gay marriage in California, passed last November. Supporters of gay marriage used campaign contribution records to identify people who bankrolled the repeal effort. Even then Minnesota Timberwolves player Mark Madsen was targeted.

Does the possibility of being harassed for your political views intimidate you from expressing them?

In a tangential way, the Supreme Court acknowledged the danger of that when it ruled yesterday against televising the Proposition 8 trial underway in California. As I wrote on News Cut yesterday afternoon, the court said the publicity could lead to harassment of those testifying.

The Supreme Court justices will consider the case at a private conference tomorrow.

Comment on this post

The harm of cameras in a courtroom

Posted at 4:11 PM on January 13, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The United States Supreme Court today made permanent its ban on any television coverage of the Proposition 8 (gay marriage) trial going on in San Francisco.(See the order)

For the most part, the court's order stayed away from the ongoing debate on whether televising federal court cases is a good idea. But it said (a) the court in San Francisco doesn't have the authority to change the current ban and (b) some of those testifying in the case could be harmed if people actually saw it:

The trial will involve various witnesses, including members of same-sex couples; academics, who apparently will discuss gender issues and gender equality, as well as family structures; and those who participated in the campaign leading to the adoption of Proposition 8. This Court has recognized that witness testimony may be chilled if broadcast. See Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 547 (1965); id., at 591 (Harlan, J., concurring). Some of appli-cants' witnesses have already said that they will not tes-tify if the trial is broadcast, and they have substantiated their concerns by citing incidents of past harassment. See, e.g., Exh. K to Defendant-Intervenors' Motion (71 news articles detailing incidents of harassment related to people who supported Proposition 8). These concerns are not diminished by the fact that some of applicants' witnessesare compensated expert witnesses. There are qualitative differences between making public appearances regarding an issue and having one's testimony broadcast throughout the country.

But the court did not indicate what those differences are.

The trial will have already been broadcast. It is difficult to demonstrate or analyze whether a witness would have testified differently if his or her testimony had not been broadcast. And witnesses subject to harassment as a result of broadcast of their testimony might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings.

In dissenting from the court's order, Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out the obvious:

All of the witnesses supporting the applicants are alreadypublicly identified with their cause. They are all experts or advocates who have either already appeared on televi-sion or Internet broadcasts, already toured the State advocating a "yes" vote on Proposition 8, or already engaged in extensive public commentary far more likely to make them well known than a closed-circuit broadcast to another federal courthouse.

The likelihood of any "irreparable" harm is further diminished by the fact that the court order before us would simply increase the trial's viewing audience from the occupants of one courtroom in one courthouse to the occupants of five other courtrooms in five other court-houses (in all of which taking pictures or retransmissions have been forbidden). By way of comparison literally hundreds of national and international newspapers are already covering this trial and reporting in detail the names and testimony of all of the witnesses.

At the trial today, evidence presented said a proponent of California's same-sex marriage ban warned voters during the 2008 campaign that gay rights activists would try to legalize sex with children if same-sex couples had the right to wed.

Minnesota's court system has wrestled with the cameras issue for years and is slowly opening up trial courts to cameras in a few weeks. "I think for many of them... let's just say I don't think their heart is in this," Jane Kirtley, the professor and director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota said on MPR's Midday today. "They're not convinced cameras in the courts are a good thing."

"It's very frustrating, not because anyone has an agenda to torpedo this, but the resistance to cameras in the courtroom in this state I find extraordinary," she said, noting that victims rights groups are vocal about the harm a camera can do. .

Comment on this post

Heroin: It's a guy thing

Posted at 1:35 PM on January 12, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Health

Comment on this post

Transplant patient's handicap van stolen in St. Paul

Posted at 8:06 PM on January 10, 2010 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Perhaps it's just the effects of a lack of sunlight, but this has been a week to conclude that there's something wrong with us.

This evening, the St. Paul Police Department capped it with this news release:

The Saint Paul Police Department is asking for help in locating a handicap van that was stolen from a parking area near the Xcel Energy Center around noon, Saturday, January 9, 2010. The vehicle is a silver in color, 2007 Town and Country minivan, bearing Minnesota license VGN 691.

The owner of the van, awaiting a kidney transplant, is wheelchair bound and needs the vehicle to get to and from kidney dialysis treatment, which is needed three times each week.

The theft of the vehicle remains under investigation, but the first priority is the swift recovery and return of the van.

Anyone with information as to the whereabouts of the van or the identity of the person responsible for the theft is asked to call 911 or 651-291-1111.

Comment on this post

A thousand words: Seward strikes back

Posted at 10:02 PM on January 7, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Sometimes, the loudest voice is the one that comes out on a night when most people would stay inside, and then speaks loudly, not so much with words, but with its mere presence. MPR photographer Jeffrey Thompson sends along these images from Thursday's night's vigil outside Seward Market and Halal Meat, where three people died in a shooting on Wednesday evening.

Endale Kebede of Columbia Heights lit a candle during the vigil.

From left, Yusef Abdi and Abdi Malik examine the interior of the market.

Flowers were left at the front door of Seward Market.

Mayor R.T. Rybak spoke with community members during the vigil.

Seward community members displayed signs.

Comment on this post

Live-blogging: Flight 253 report

Posted at 3:29 PM on January 7, 2010 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2010_01_07_obama_253_jan7_20100107_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2010/01/07/obama_253_jan7_20100107_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Comment on this post

Terror myths

Posted at 4:42 PM on January 6, 2010 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Fresh Eye on the Radio (with Mary Lucia)

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_newscasts_2010_01_06_fresh_eye_jan_06_20100106_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/newscasts/2010/01/06/fresh_eye_jan_06_20100106_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Comment on this post

Security crackdown targets bloggers

Posted at 8:41 AM on December 31, 2009 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The Department of Homeland Security has come in for plenty of criticism for not "putting the pieces together" that would've revealed a Nigerian man was going to try to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas.

But there are signs the DHS is back in the game, Wired Magazine reports. It seized the laptop of a blogger in Connecticut who posted the security directive that detailed the mostly-discredited security procedures that were put in place after the incident.

The document, which the two bloggers published within minutes of each other Dec. 27, was sent by TSA to airlines and airports around the world and described temporary new requirements for screening passengers through Dec. 30, including conducting "pat-downs" of legs and torsos. The document, which was not classified, was posted by numerous bloggers. Information from it was also published on some airline websites.

"They're saying it's a security document but it was sent to every airport and airline," says Steven Frischling, one of the bloggers. "It was sent to Islamabad, to Riyadh and to Nigeria. So they're looking for information about a security document sent to 10,000-plus people internationally. You can't have a right to expect privacy after that."

The bulk of the document, from what we understand, reminded security teams to adhere to the procedures that were already in place.

Frischling writes the blog, Flying With Fishes. In a posting, he's hardly anti-Transportation Security Administration:

The DHS & TSA are taking this matter seriously, and that tells me that they are paying attention to security in detail. Their issue is not that the Security Directive expires tomorrow, or even that I posted SD-1544-09-06 but that someone within the TSA sent this sensitive document outside of the agency. I understand why the TSA wants to find the person leaking this information and I wish I had a long intertwined story about how I got the document, but I don't.

I received it, I read it, I posted it. Why did I post it? Because following the failed terrorist attack on the 25th of December there was a lot of confusion and speculation surrounding changes in airline & airport security procedures.

We are a free society, knowledge is power and informing the masses allows for public conversation and collective understanding. You can agree or disagree, but you need information to know if you want to agree or disagree. My goal is to inform and help people better understand what is happening, as well as allow them to form their own opinions.

Security directives are about as secret (or they're supposed to be) as it gets, but that's the problem. Here's an example: Earlier this year, there was a secret directive that any pilot who flew to any airport where a commercial flight lands, had to have a badge assigned by that airport. If you flew a small plane to say, Thief River Falls, the authorities at Thief River Falls had to set up a system to certify that you're not a terrorist and they had to bear the cost. Why? Because at least one commercial flight lands at Thief River Falls. Each badge was good only at that airport. If you're a pilot flying to other airports, you'd need a badge for each airport.

Silly? Of course. And that conclusion doesn't even consider that maybe Thief River Falls isn't a likely terrorist target. But there wasn't much anyone could do about it because the security directive -- SD-08F --that created it was secret. Because there's no "public comment period" that applies to security directives, they can't be reviewed and smart people can't point out -- where necessary -- the ineffectiveness of the intent.

The only way that can happen is if some blogger gets ahold of it.

Comment on this post

The four phases of terrorism

Posted at 1:57 PM on December 30, 2009 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The four phases of terrorism in the U.S. are (a) disbelief (b) anger (c) finger-pointing and (d) "if it moves, shoot it." In the wake of the Northwest Flight 253 incident, we have reached D, when we see suspicious activity where it doesn't lurk.

In New York City today, a van in Times Square -- there's something you don't see every day -- caused police to close the tourist spot because it had tinted windows and no license plates.

It turned out not to contain explosives (in the old days, we would assume it was stolen), but note the photographers who showed up to document the air going out of the story.

Comment on this post

Are you ready to give up more privacy?

Posted at 11:08 AM on December 29, 2009 by Bob Collins (21 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

In the wake of the Christmas attack on Northwest Flight 253, security experts are suggesting only our desire for privacy is preventing authorities from catching people like Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old who allegedly mixed an explosive cocktail to try to bring down the flight as it approached Detroit.

"There's reports the TSA mandated the Dutch authorities not to use body screening," Douglas Laird, told MPR's Gary Eichten on Midday today. He's an aviation security consultant and the former security director for Northwest Airlines.

The problem, Laird's remarks suggest, is that Americans value their privacy and the body screening equipment basically strips a person.

Jay Stanley, public education director for the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Program, said the machines essentially perform "virtual strip searches that see through your clothing and reveal the size and shape of your body."
Jay Stanley, public education director for the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Program, said the machines essentially perform "virtual strip searches that see through your clothing and reveal the size and shape of your body."

The Star Tribune called privacy concerns "ridiculous" in a strongly-worded editorial:

Even more troubling is the extent to which privacy activists have been able to influence the political debate and restrict the use of whole-body imaging scanners in U.S. airports. To rally the opposition, the term "virtual strip search'' has been used, conjuring images of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners huddled around computers ogling the most shapely passengers.

Laird is apparently unmoved by the privacy concerns:

"In February 1972, because of the 'Take me to Cuba era,' the government mandated that all passengers be screened," he said. "Back then there was a hue and cry that this violated our civil rights blah, blah, blah. It also stopped the hijackings."

Would images of "naked" passengers end up being circulated? Probably, Laird acknowledges. It happened in the UK.

But some manufacturers of body scanning equipment say privacy filters can blur "sensitive parts of the body."

And the TSA says the people looking at the "naked" (if blurred) images, never see the actual passenger. The technology is in place at some U.S. airports. And since last weekend's incident, the phones have been ringing at the manufacturer's of the equipment.

Comment on this post

Fresh Eye on the Radio: Obama's response time

Posted at 5:33 PM on December 28, 2009 by Bob Collins (8 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Fresh Eye on the Radio (with Mary Lucia)

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_newscasts_2009_12_28_fresh_eye_dec_28_20091228_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/newscasts/2009/12/28/fresh_eye_dec_28_20091228_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Comment on this post

Are Minnesota DUI laws too lax?

Posted at 4:37 PM on December 28, 2009 by Bob Collins (13 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A man with a history of drunk driving, who was caught driving drunk in Newport over the long weekend, will not be charged with felony drunk driving.

Paul Garay, 55, is going to prison either way. He was ordered held on a parole violation and will have to serve 10 months remaining on a 90-month sentence, the Woodbury Bulletin reported.

This is one of the stories where the headlines lead to more outrage than the facts. It can sound like a lenient judge or lax drunk driving laws in Minnesota, but neither is true.

The law is funny like that.

Here's what has to happen for a drunk driving conviction as a felony:

Minnesota criminal law defines the term felony to mean any crime for which incarceration of more than one year may be imposed. Under Minnesota's felony DWI law, a person who commits first-degree DWI is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to:

>>imprisonment for not more than seven years
(or more than seven years if the person has
other prior criminal history);

>> a fine of not more than $14,000;or both.

A person is guilty of first-degree DWI if the
person violates DWI law:

>> within ten years of three or more qualified
prior impaired driving incidents (defined as
prior convictions or license revocations for
separate impaired driving incidents); or

>> has previously been convicted of a felony
DWI crime; or

>> has previously been convicted of a felony level
crime of criminal vehicular homicide or injury (CVO) involving alcohol or
controlled substances.

You can read the law starting on page 7 here.

While the headlines note Garay's 20 DWI arrests, only two have occurred in the last 10 years. He can still get a year in jail and $3,000 fine if he's convicted of the charges, which would put him behind bars until late 2012. He'll lose his license and probably the vehicle he was driving.

It may not be as tough as some would like, but the law in Minnesota is tougher than in some other states. In Montana, for example, there's an effort underway to crack down on drunk driving by adopting language similar to Minnesota's law.

Tinkering with the present Minnesota law, however, invites scenario-playing. Should the 10-year clause be removed? If so, that would lead to felony charges and prison time for someone who had two DUIs as, say, a 20 year old, and then had another as a 50-year old.

What's the solution?

Comment on this post

Heightened security un-heightened

Posted at 2:51 PM on December 28, 2009 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The new restrictions on airline travelers, caused by this weekend's attack on a Northwest Airlines flight, have been eased, the Associated Press reports.

At the captain's discretion, passengers can once again have blankets and other items on their laps or move about the cabin during the tail end of flight. In-flight entertainment restrictions have also been lifted.

The airline officials spoke on condition of anonymity because federal safety officials had not publicly announced the changes.

That's significant becuase federal safety officials hadn't yet publicly announced the new rules were in effect, either. The Transportation Security Administration has only publicly said this:

During flight, passengers will be asked to follow flight crew instructions, such as stowing personal items, turning off electronic equipment and remaining seated during certain portions of the flight.

Technically, all of those guidelines were in place before Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device hidden in his clothing on the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Time Magazine takes the glass-half-full approach, noting that security rules prevented Abdulmutallab from assembling a better bomb:

And it turns out that pulling off such an explosion on a plane is no simple feat. "It's a bit more complicated than just putting a flame to the powder," says Jimmie Carol Oxley, the director of the Center of Excellence in Explosives Detection, Mitigation, Response and Characterization at the University of Rhode Island, Kingston

The use of preemptive action in Muslim countries isn't very popular in the US, but President Obama needs to consider it for Yemen, which has a population of about 23 million. He's already promised $70 million for the elected government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh in its fight against terrorist groups. The government recently responded with effective air strikes on leaders of Al Qaeda affiliates in December, perhaps killing many of them.

For his part, President Obama sought to calm a nation that doesn't seem particularly nervous about air travel.

Comment on this post