Note question 24 in particular.

I taking some days off work and will attend at least part of the trial to post on Tidewater Liberty.

If the police officer is conducting a search in reasonable fashion, a citizen should not believe that he poses a deadly threat. If a police officer conducts a “search” in such fashion that a citizen reasonably believes the officer’s actions pose a deadly threat, that would strongly imply that the “search” was being done in an unreasonable fashion and was thus (per Amendment IV) illegitimate. Since an officer’s official duties cannot include illegitimate actions, the officer would not be performing his official duty.

To be sure, it’s vaguely conceivable that an officer could conduct a search in such fashion that a reasonable person would believe him to pose a deadly threat, without such search itself being unreasonable. On the other hand, such cases occur so rarely that I would feel comfortable answering that it is not acceptable for citizens to shoot cops who are performing their official duty.

“Is there anyone on the panel who believes a person should be permitted to kill a police officer who is performing his official duty at the direction of a judicial officer.”

The question wrongly implies that there is no circumstance under which a person may lawfully kill a police officer performing his official duty. In fact, so long as you reasonably believe your life is in danger (e.g., police failed to announce themselves), you should always be permitted to act in self defense. Thus, if a juror raised his/her hand to this question, the prosecutor would remove the person (hopefully on a peremptory challenge as opposed to for cause) despite the fact that there are circumstances in which a person should be permitted to kill a police officer performing his official duties. It will be interesting to see how the prosecutor gets rid of these jurors and what objections Broccoletti makes with respect to this question.

I know perfectly well what it means.

I also know perfectly well how it is used in what is laughingly called today’s criminal justice system.

Views appear to have “evolved” since Tinker.

The correct answer is no. Then, you refuse to convict. They don’t like it, they can boot you from the jury.

Sorry if someone already answered this. But yes, this has already happened. You must’ve forgotten that this is where much of the child porn hysteria began, when photo developers started reporting to the police the classic pictures of the naked kid sitting in the bathtub. I distinctly remember hearing about a 80-something grandmother being arrested for such a picture.

Where does it end? The complete removal of any nudity, sexual or not, from our culture.

The standard in school is generally “reasonable suspicion.” Which is lower than probable cause (roughly 25% v. 51%) likelihood that the search will turn up evidence of a crime or schoolr rule infraction. So it’s a low standard to say the least. However, in this case the student likely has an excellent 4th Amendment defense because searching the cell phone can not be said as likely to turn up any sort of evidence (so I think Wayne’s reasoning is spot on). Removal of the phone itself as a seizure of property is totally fine because it is the isntrument of the violation, but the school official would need a new reason (“articulable suspision”) as to why the phone’s pictures and messages themselves would turn up evidence of new wrong-doing. That seems to me to be completely lacking here barring a key fact omitted.

Dennis H, “students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school-house door” is a pretty close paraphrase of actual Supreme Court Jurisprudence so, you are (kinda) incorrect on that, but I do understand your point and frustration.

#41 SusanK

People hear “child porn” and freak out, so rational discussion is not an option…

Yep.

People love to have evil defined in black and white, especially when it gives them an untouchable justification to impose immediate unlimited punishment on someone. It’s nothing new. They just don’t carry pitchforks and torches anymore.

Nope. Child sex charges often have NO statute of limitations. So we are all guilty (unless you are some kind of weirdo that never masturbated until your 18th birthday) which of course is the intent of so many laws to begin with.

Prosecutor:
11. Does anyone believe that it should not be a criminal offense to grow marijuana in one’s house? Would that belief interfere with your ability to follow your oath and the instruction of the court if that instruction is contrary to your belief?

That one gave me pause in my normal determination to lie my ass off to get onto a jury, then my more pedantic grammarian side took over: No, it would not interfere with my ability to follow my oath and the instructions of the court, because there exists almost no ability to do both.

As for this question: is Ryan still facing a marijuana charge beyond misdemeanor possession?

Prosecutor questions 16-22 really raise my hackles: they imply that the police had no choice, that they were forced to execute that warrant by the magistrate (never mind that they requested the warrant). They further imply that they had to execute the warrant right then, right there, “even if the police must force entry into someone’s home in order to do so”.

Reduce police militarization and SWAT team abuse

It’s only at 90 ‘points’. A vote up or down moves it by ten. It’s been voted down a couple of times, I think.

“Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used “when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.”

Another tool in the policeman’s toolkit — police negligence. I guess they didn’t have enough advantages before, now they can profit from their own negligence.

Police negligence is all just a part of the “new professionalism.”

The State is the only organization that rewards failure.

Tell me again, why isn’t everyone (that doesn’t work for the State) an anarchist yet?

Voir Dire: A French term meaning “jury tampering”.

**************
No Frank it is not.

*************

Main Entry:
voir dire Listen to the pronunciation of voir dire
Pronunciation:
\?vwär-?dir, ?wär-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Anglo-French, literally, to speak the truth
Date: 1676

: a preliminary examination to determine the competency of a witness or juror

******************

Don’t children still play that game; you show me yours and I’ll show you mine? I guess they do!!