Rick Reimer, who was smoking a joint when he was pulled over by cops for a traffic violation (crossing the center line), has been found not guilty by a Canadian judge of driving while his ability was impaired.

Reimer, a retired Canadian lawyer with MS, had an exemption from Health Canada allowing him to smoke marijuana for medical reasons.

Defending himself in a trial to the Court, Reimer admitted he was driving while smoking pot, but said it did not affect his driving and was not the cause of his traffic violation. The Judge acquitted Reimer, saying he had a doubt as to whether it was the pot or the MS that caused Reimer to swerve.

"Reimer called several of his friends to testify in the case and they said they drive while smoking pot, too. Some said it made their driving better."

After the trial, Reimer said, "The most important thing, in my opinion, that the judge said is that this is an area that needs a lot more scientific study. It also, in my opinion, needs a lot more democratic debate."

The prosecutor in the case said that the Crown received a very fair trial from the Judge but has not decided yet whether to appeal.

"Hollywood didn't get its happy ending Tuesday when a Norwegian court acquitted a teen-ager of digital burglary charges for creating and circulating online a program that cracks the security codes on DVDs. The ruling, a blow to the entertainment industry's drive to curtail illegal copying of its movies, was a key test in how far copyright holders can go in preventing duplication of their intellectual property."

The Third Circuit has ruled that requiring sex offenders to submit to random lie-detector tests during the probationary period after release from prison is not unconstitutional, but forbidding them from owning a computer may be going too far.

Via How Appealing, we learn that the California Supreme Court ruled today that a male commits forcible rape if his female partner consents to intercourse, intercourse begins, and then she changes her mind and wants to stop. Here's the full opinion which begins with:

We granted this case to settle a conflict in Court of Appeal decisions as to whether the crime of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) is committed if the female victim consents to an initial penetration by her male companion, and then withdraws her consent during an act of intercourse, but the male continues against her will. (Compare People v. Vela (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 237 (Vela) [no rape committed] with People v. Roundtree (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 846 (Roundtree) [rape committed].) We agree with Roundtree and the Court of Appeal in the present case that a withdrawal of consent effectively nullifies any earlier consent and subjects the male to forcible rape charges if he persists in what has become nonconsensual intercourse."

The male in question was a juvenile at the time of the crime. His female partner was 17. The Lone dissenting Justice , Janice Rogers Brown, wrote:

"The majority provided no guidance about what constitutes withdrawal of consent and what amount of force turns consensual sex into rape. The majority relies heavily on [the defendant's] failure to desist immediately, but it does not tell us how soon would have been soon enough. Ten seconds? Thirty? A minute? Is persistence the same thing as force? And even if we conclude persistence should be criminalized in this situation, should the penalty be the same as for forcible rape?"

In her dissent, Justice Brown accused the majority of ignoring "critical questions about the nature and sufficiency of proof in a post-penetration rape case" and argued that prosecutors should still have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a victim clearly communicated withdrawal of consent, and the perpetrator exercised some degree of force.

She noted that the victim in John Z. had enjoyed the sex, had simply said she had to go and had never overtly told John Z. she didn't want to keep having sex.

"The majority finds Laura's 'actions and words' clearly communicated withdrawal of consent in a fashion 'no reasonable person in defendant's position' could have mistaken," Brown wrote. "But Laura's silent and ineffectual movements could easily be misinterpreted. And none of her statements are unequivocal."

[comments now closed]

"The Indiana Supreme Court temporarily blocked a new state law Friday requiring sheriffs to post photographs and addresses of convicted sex offenders on the Internet. The state Sheriff's Association had planned to begin posting the pictures and information by Monday, but the justices put the law on hold until they can decide whether it is constitutional."

What's wrong with the law?

"The Indiana Civil Liberties Union claims the law violates the rights of sex offenders, who already are listed in a registry that does not include photos and addresses. Other critics have said the changes would make it more difficult for offenders to find jobs and would expose them to harassment, violence and identity theft."

We'll track this one as we very much hope the law is struck down. Enough is enough already --we have become a nation of voyeurs and snoops.

We strongly oppose sex offender registration programs that provide information about an offender to the public via the Internet. What business does a web surfer in Oregon have looking at the record of a sex offender in say, Miami? If they have a legitimate reason to know, let them contact a law enforcement agency in Miami and get the information.

Not all convicted sex offenders are violent rapists or child molesters who society needs to be protected from. There should be some way of discerning those who are not and relieving them of the burden, stigma and economic consequences of lifetime registration laws and lifetime probation. For these offenders, once they've done their time, let them be. If they re-offend, they can be charged anew and sentenced to longer sentences due to having a prior conviction.

One of the primary purposes of sentencing is rehabilitation. Society has just as strong a need for rehabilitation as it does for punishment and deterrence, those being the other legitimate sentencing factors. (Retribution is not a legitimate sentencing factor.) Low-level sex offenders are going to be released some day--isn't it better if they have a means of supporting themselves when they get out? Oppressive and overly intrusive registration laws bring shame and humiliation which decreases self-confidence and causes isolation, neither of which is good for someone trying to re-enter society. They also keep the offenders from obtaining meaningful work--too many employers won't hire someone with a sex offense on their record.

Keep these offenders from obtaining work and take away their dignity and guess what they will do to survive? Right...they'll re-offend by committing an economic crime and it becomes a vicious cycle.

It's time to break the cycle, and thank goodness we still have an independent judiciary that can declare laws like the one in Indiana unconstitutional. We doubt we'll even have that after Bush packs the federal courts with his right-wing judicial activists.

[edited to add words in italics for clarity]

[comments now closed]

A federal judge has found that Kansas City police illegally searched a man's home for drugs in a case that defense lawyers say raises questions about hundreds of other searches in the county. The case involves no-knock warrants. The Judge in suppressing the drug evidence held, "However, there is no blanket exception to the knock and announce requirement in a drug investigation." She cited past federal court rulings that require police to give specific reasons to justify no-knock searches, such as a suspect's violent past."

In another case, a Kansas jury returned a $2 million verdict against the Kansas City police for their actions in a drug search. The search victim's lawyer, David Smith, author of the leading text book on forfeiture laws, said the verdict "could affect many other criminal cases and result in a wave of civil lawsuits against police. The Kansas City Police Department can't circumvent the Constitution."

Our congratulations to David Smith.

Update: Check out this great investigative series in the Kansas City Star from 1999-2000 called Taking Cash into Custody : A Special Report on Police and Drug Money Seizures.

A federal court has denied a motion by the Office of Homeland Security seeking to keep its activities private . The Court ruled that the agency must answer questions about its operations and activities.

The Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center last March requested Office of Homeland Security records on proposals for standardized U.S. driver's licenses, records associated with a ``trusted-flier'' program and other proposals concerning biometric technology for identifying individuals.

The Office of Homeland Security sought to have the case against the office and its director Tom Ridge dismissed, arguing that it could not be subjected to the Freedom of Information Act information requests because it was not an agency and that its sole function was to advise and assist the president.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling granted the Electronic Privacy Information Center's (EPIC) request to obtain information that would establish the status of the White House Office of Homeland Security.

You can access the full text of the opinion here. You

"After spending four years in prison for allegedly sexually abusing his children, a Leesburg, Va., attorney was acquitted of the charges this month in what may be Virginia's first case in which the susceptibility of children to suggestion played a major role."

A federal judge in Washington has ordered an ethics probe of six Justice Department attorneys in a lawsuit over billions of dollars claimed to be due Native Americans.

"A federal judge this week ordered a court ethics panel to investigate six Justice Department attorneys for their conduct in a landmark class-action suit against the government that seeks billions of dollars and was filed on behalf of more than 300,000 Native Americans."

"In a stinging 20-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth also blocked the Interior and Justice departments from continuing to send mass mailings to the Indian plaintiffs that include a provision that would terminate the Indians' rights to claim damages, even as the lawsuit continues."

"Lamberth has already held three Cabinet officials in contempt of court for their failures in Indian trust fund reform, including Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton."

We read a great article a few months ago about the lawyer for the Native Americans. We'll try to find it and post the link to it.

Update on our post about an Oregon judge invalidating a gargage search under the Oregon state constitution: (from the comments section of the post):

"Knowing this particular officer, and as a Medically Retired Officer from the same Bureau, I am very glad that Judge Maurer made the correct decision in this case."

"What wasn't printed in this article, nor in any others was the fact that the police actually "stole" her garbage can from her own property, NOT from the public right of way. The Drugs and Vice Officers that testified during the pre-trial motion hearing not only contradicted each other, but they contradicted themselves!"

"All of the drug tests came back negative. The DNA tests conducted on the "snort" straws proved that Hoesly's DNA was NOT on the straws."

"It's amazing that they can actually obtain a search warrant based on someone's unsubstantiated word, and an illegal garbage pull (of which anyone, including the police, could have planted objects inside)."

From the Scotus Quote Box: Comments made Wednesday during oral argument before the Supreme Court in the case about the constitutionality of a Virginia anti-cross burning law.

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in the Virginia cross-burning case.

The issue is whether burning a cross on your front lawn is protected symbolic free speech or illegal intimidation. Virginia, backed by the Bush Administration, says that it is illegal intimidation:

"The Bush administration, siding with Virginia, argued that cross burning "has a particularly strong association with acts of vigilantism and violence. "A person has no First Amendment right to burn a cross in order to intimidate others, whether or not he also intends to express an idea or philosophy," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told justices in court papers."

In the past, the high Court has been protective of the free speech rights of even the most controversial groups, such as "flag-burners, adult entertainers, people who display swastikas and those who set crosses ablaze."

Providing an opposing point of view is "John Whitehead, president of the generally conservative Rutherford Institute in Charlottesville, Va., who said in court filings that states may not limit controversial speech just because of concerns about the public reaction to that speech."

Twelve states have laws prohibiting cross-burning which could be affected by the decision in the Virginia case.