Washington DC May 2 2013 On April 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Missouri v. McNeely, ruling that obtaining involuntary specimens for blood alcohol testing without a search warrant is an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
This case has substantial impact on the procedure many police officers follow in investigating drunk driving cases.
The case began in October 2010, when Missouri State Highway Patrol Trooper Mark Winder stopped Tyler McNeely for speeding in Cape Girardeau County. Trooper Winder noticed that McNeely displayed symptoms of alcohol intoxication, asked McNeely to step out of his truck, and administered a series of standard field sobriety tests. McNeely performed the tests poorly, and Trooper Winder placed him under arrest for driving while intoxicated.
After handcuffing McNeely and placing him in his patrol car, Trooper Winder asked McNeely to submit to a breath test.
McNeely refused.
During the 17 years that Trooper Winder had been in law enforcement, he had many times obtained search warrants to secure blood specimens for testing when DUI suspects refused to provide a breath or blood test willingly.
However, shortly before this arrest, Trooper Winder had read an article in Traffic Safety News titled ,”Warrantless Blood Draws: Are They Now Authorized in Missouri?”
The article was written by a traffic safety resource prosecutor, and indicated that search warrants were no longer necessary in these cases, because Missouri had modified its implied consent law.
The old law specified that when a person refused both a breath analyzer and a blood test, then “none shall be given.” In 2010, that section was amended to remove the phrase “none shall be given,” and the author of the article opined that this enabled Missouri law enforcement officers to obtain forcible blood specimens when DUI suspects refused to provide them voluntarily.
Acting on this information, Trooper Winder drove McNeely to a hospital and directed a staff phlebotomist to draw his blood over McNeely’s objections. When tested, McNeely’s blood alcohol content was well over the 0.08% statutory limit.
At trial, McNeely sought to suppress the blood test results as an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court granted McNeely’s motion, and the state appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. That court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, as did the U.S. Supreme Court most recently.
Cops have been obtaining compelled blood alcohol specimens since at least the 1980s, when activist organizations like MADD raised awareness of the impact of drunk drivers.
Most states elevated driving while intoxicated from an expensive traffic ticket to a criminal offense with mandatory jail time. They allowed or required prosecution of repeat offenders as a felony, and many have warrantless nonconsensual blood draws written into their statutes when a suspect refuses a blood or breath test.
Some require special circumstances, such as prior convictions for DUI or involvement in an injury accident. Some jurisdictions in Texas have “no refusal weekends” when everyone arrested for drunk driving provides a blood or breath sample whether they want to or not.
Missouri’s amended statute only implied that officers could obtain blood specimens without a search warrant or consent, where laws in other states explicitly allow it. Nevada Revised Statutes 484C.160-7b states:

If a person to be tested fails to submit to a required test as directed by a police officer pursuant to this section and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be tested was [driving under the influence], the officer may direct that reasonable force be used to the extent necessary to obtain samples of blood from the person to be tested.
Quite a number of drunk drivers I arrested told me I couldn’t do that. They are all believers now.
The McNeely decision may, and probably does, make all of those compulsory blood draw statutes unconstitutional. Drunk drivers and their lawyers across the country are likely very happy with this development. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices are going to have to move fast to change their procedures.
Most states provide for telephonic or electronic applications for search warrants, and this process will have to be streamlined for DUI cases. The blood specimens have to be obtained quickly, as the evidence dissipates with the metabolization of alcohol in the body.
Some states and counties will have to establish a system of on-call magistrates, as the typical judge is not going to like being called out of bed several times every night.
This ruling potentially impacts every drunk driving arrest after April 17, 2013. If your agency has not developed new procedures and training to comply with the new ruling, it’s imperative you do it quickly.

This is amazing and any one reading this post needs to view the video by clicking the following link.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2308312794001/clueless-californians-sign-away-second-amendment-rights/

This transcript is automatically generated

The Second Amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms — wait until you hear how easy it is.

What asking people to surrender that right.

We’re gonna just repeal the second — men and take — guns away from the crazy right wing white extremists.

And just make sure that that the only illegal unregistered guns stay in the streets.

Thank you so much.

The media critic social analyst mark Geist joins us now he was the man behind petition.

He joins us live from San Diego mark that piece goes along for how many minutes and how many people did you talk to.

To see Al oblivious they were about the Second Amendment.

It’s incredible the segments probably five to six minutes long and it it probably took me fifteen minutes to shoot a lot of people think that I stood up there all day.

Talking to people in cherry picked.

The ignorant zombies as I call them but.

It was incredible how old.

Quick it yeah I collected the signatures well over a dozen.

Of them.

I don’t know the people were stone it was a Friday afternoon at the beach.

But the level.

Of ignorance — at least in Southern California.

Is shocking it is in this so much at stake are both counts just as much — their boat and they’re not paying attention.

Mark why did you do this and why did you do something I understand the First Amendment.

To what is — overall goal of yours.

I’m a big Jay Leno fan and everybody knows his famous Jay walking segment — asks Leo American public simple common sense questions and many people don’t know.

So I decided to put my own spin on it and see if I can get them to sign petitions.

To agree to absurd things and so.

This is a repeal the Second Amendment and — College Station store to door of Tea Party supporters of law abiding citizens was last Monday.

Then this Monday I posted one repealing the First Amendment so let’s hear my subscribe to my YouTube channel the next few weeks are just gonna get crazier.

And crazier I I don’t know what it’s — you essentially have — First Amendment to achieve.

We’re trying to do is just repeal them the First Amendment the so repeal the First Amendment.

And so that people can’t say mean things I’m tired of these people — and the rights to say what they want us saying.

You disagree you you don’t have the right to disagree.

The First Amendment is not really.

Needed it’s kind of outdated.

We’re just gonna put some.

– six thanks for your support.

Very scary mark.

I don’t know if it’s just the Southern California phenomenon or what but a point here about a one — – make his.

All ahead this say was the key words will you help support Obama.

And they do their eyes lit up well yeah let me yeah — – anything to support Obama.

Now you know what they’re running up against — we’re up against a — break we’re gonna continue to follow you and YouTube site — great work we’re gonna have you back okay.

Hey thanks for having me mark — – back and.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2308312794001/clueless-californians-sign-away-second-amendment-rights/

WASHINGTON — While President Barack Obama was delivering an emotional plea on Monday about gun control legislation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that he will be among those filibustering the gun package that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is trying to bring up.

"Sen. McConnell opposes the Reid bill," McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said in a statement. "While nobody knows yet what Sen. Reid’s plan is for the gun bill, if he chooses to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid bill, Sen. McConnell will oppose cloture on proceeding to that bill."

McConnell is the 14th Republican to join the filibuster effort being led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The GOP leader could have opted to stay out of it, letting the votes happen on the gun package and putting the pressure on House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to decide the bill’s fate, if it even made it out of the Senate. Instead, McConnell is making a calculated decision to be part of the filibuster effort that could derail the entire push for gun control legislation.

News of McConnell’s plan came at the exact moment that Obama was giving a speech in Hartford, Conn. — to a crowd that included families of victims from the Newtown shootings — about the need for Congress to hold votes on the gun proposals, regardless of whether lawmakers planned to vote for them. Obama, whose voice cracked at moments during the speech, used some of his toughest language yet in pressing lawmakers to act.

"What’s more important? Our children or an ‘A’ grade from the gun lobby?" the president asked of Congress.

Reid is trying to bring up the gun bill this week, though it is hanging by a few political threads. There have been some small developments in favor of the package, however, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) emerging as a prospective cosponsor for the background checks piece of the bill. The details of that proposal are still being finalized.

CORRECTION: McConnell becomes the 14th senator to join the filibuster effort, not the 15th, as previously reported.

Source: The Huffington Post

A father who was trying to eat with his family at Burger King was able to defeat an armed robber by pulling his own weapon and shooting at him, Miami police said.

It was at the height of lunch time, about 1 p.m., when a would-be robber walked into a Burger King, flashed his gun at one of the family diners, and demanded the diner fork over money and valuables, police said in a CBS report. The robber was exiting when the father, who feared for his and his family’s life, CBS said, took out his own gun and shot the suspect in the leg.

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control

The suspect then fled in his Ford F-150. Police later found him — 36-year-old Travis Harris — and the driver of the truck, 38-year-old Ramon Smalls, at a gas station down the road, CBS said.

The pair was linked to another robbery of a woman that took place earlier that day, CBS said. Mr. Harris was taken to the hospital for treatment and was charged with three counts of armed robbery, police said.

Source: The Washington Times

Allentown PA April 5 2013 A jury took about three hours to find a security guard guilty in the shooting death of an unarmed, aspiring rapper at an Allentown after-hours club.
Andrew Gesslein II, 43, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Maurice “O Head” Randolph on April 29 at the North End Republican Club. Gesslein, who was working for the Whitehall Township-based Eye in the Sky security firm, maintained he acted in self-defense when he shot Randolph, 23, three times after a brief struggle at the door. Gesslein faces up to 20 years in prison at sentencing scheduled June 11, said Lehigh County Judge Robert Steinberg, who ruled the Berks County resident could remain free on bail until that time. Gesslein didn’t make any statement when asked by the judge.

A large contingent of Randolph’s family and friends, including his mother, Michelle Randolph, were in attendance. After the verdict, Michelle Randolph said she wished Gesslein had apologized. “He’s never shown remorse,” Michelle Randolph said. “That just shows how heartless he was.”

Courtroom reactions After the verdict was read, a brief cheer erupted on the Randolph family’s side of the gallery, only to be quickly silenced by Steinberg. On the other side of the room, two women sobbed. Outside the courtroom the women were ushered away by sheriff’s deputies. The trial lasted four days.

The prosecution and defense finished their closing arguments this morning.

Both sides concur there was an escalating war of words between Gesslein and Randolph for about 20 minutes, as Gesslein repeatedly rebuffed attempts by Randolph and his companions to enter the club. Defense attorney James Connell said Gesslein feared for his life when Randolph and his companions made a “bum rush” at Gesslein to get into the club. Gesslein has maintained Randolph appeared to be reaching for a gun, although no weapon was found on Randolph. Connell said whether or not Randolph actually had a gun was not important, but rather that Gesslein felt legitimately threatened.

“He wants to go home to his wife and daughter,” Connell said. “The only way to do that in his mind is to shoot first.”

Surveillance key First Assistant District Attorney Steve Luksa said Randolph was running away from Gesslein at the time of the shooting. According to Luksa, Gesslein became angry and shot Randolph without justification.  A central piece of evidence was the surveillance video taken from outside of the club that night. Randolph and three companions are shown about 3 a.m. being stopped by Gesslein several times at the door.

Finally an agitated Randolph and his companions enter and the club door closes. Moments later, the group rushes out the door and Randolph falls to the ground outside the entrance. Gesslein immediately follows him outside holding his pistol, before going back in the club and closing the door. Gesslein is not seen shooting the weapon on the video, and that sequence of events was at the center of the trial.

The jury had asked to review the video during its deliberations, according to a court official.

Defense disputed Connell argued Randolph was inside the club for more than 30 seconds, plenty of time for the events Gesslein described to happen. Gesslein testified Randolph and a companion grabbed his jacket and arm once inside.

“Michael Randolph was the aggressor,” Connell said. “He created this situation.” Luksa argued Randolph is seen on the surveillance video diving out of the door in a “Superman” position, and that is when Gesslein is shooting him. Luksa argued Gesslein invented his self-defense story to justify his actions.

“He knows he’s angry and he shot Michael three times in the back,” Luksa said. “He knows he can’t do that.” The incident was controversial from the start, as a five-week lag in filing criminal charges after the shooting prompted city residents to hold protests calling for an arrest and questioning the police department’s transparency. Michelle Randolph was also displeased the charge was manslaughter rather than murder.

Sheriff’s deputies increased security outside the fourth-floor courtroom, including installing a metal detector.
Source: lehighvalleylive.com

This prosecutor is a moron. He is more about securing a conviction and  promoting his anti-gun agenda. He has no regard for the rule of law and protecting the U.S. Constitution. Steve hear is a news flash. Even I a former peace officer and Security officer know that your full of hot air and rely on the known fact that most “defendants” buckle under pressure and take plea bargains. Your days of getting a free pass in the court room are over. I promise you that. The Constitution is supreme law in this land and I am going to enjoy watching you get disbarred this article is two fold. Here is a statement of fact: Your Gun control days and misuse of the legal system are over as you are about to have your ass handed to you in a court of law by “Security Guard”….Use that statement against me I dare you.
NewsOn6.com – Tulsa, OK – News, Weather, Video and Sports – KOTV.com |

TULSA, OK — The man arrested in the Cushing case is featured on a popular social networking site flashing a handgun. It’s not the first time a suspect’s MySpace or Facebook page has raised eyebrows. It raises the question: can what you post online be used in the case against you?

Prosecutors say the simple answer is yes. And, web users should remember what you post may not always stay private, isn’t necessarily anonymous, and doesn’t go away.

They’re portals into someone’s world: their friends, their mood, their thoughts are captured on website like MySpace and Facebook. And, sometimes they can offer disturbing insight.

Chad Barella was arrested in connection with a triple homicide in Cushing. His MySpace profile picture is him posing with a handgun.

“I think anybody who is utilizing these services and thinks that they’re not going to be under the focus of law enforcement, that they’re not going to be paid attention by the district attorney’s office they’re sorely mistaken,” said prosecutor Steve Kunzweiler.

Barella’s MySpace page says his interests are money, guns and God. In the about me section, it says “they say I’m a good guy and some say I’m a bad guy. Tell you like this don’t get on my mad side.”

Tulsa County prosecutor Steve Kunzweiler says that is the kind of thing that could be used against you in a court of law.

“If these people want to come in and commit crimes and in addition give me some insight into who they are you, you bet I’m gonna use that against them,” said prosecutor Steve Kunzweiler.

You might think MySpace is just for you and your friends or that your Facebook profile is private, but all that can change in an instant. MySpace messages were used to convict former Hilldale band director Brian Giacomo of molesting his teenage student.

“What better way to corroborate a person’s testimony than the words out of the mouths of the perpetrator on their own MySpace page,” said prosecutor Steve Kunzweiler.

And, a word of warning for those addicted to posting party pictures and updating their status:

“There’s two certain things in life: death and taxes. I would add MySpace and Facebook to that. It’s permanent and I’m gonna use it if I can find it,” said prosecutor Steve Kunzweiler.

Some civil liberties groups like the ACLU have pushed back against people being punished for what they post online. But, those have mostly been cases involving students and non-criminal activities.

And it’s not just a judge and jury you should worry about, but a job. Employers are increasingly checking these sites before they make hiring decisions.

This one caught my attention and has so much truth. Gun owners are not “nuts” the politicians who want to take firearms from law abiding citizens are. If we take firearms from  citizens gun violence will still be a reality because the criminals and COPS will be the only ones who will have guns. An excerpt from the article reads “Members of the New Jersey Legislature were told Wednesday by a Second Amendment advocate that lawmakers — not gun owners — are the ones who need to undergo psychological background checks….The committee held a daylong hearing Wednesday on a series of gun control issues backed by state legislative Democrats.” Read More here: New Jersey Gun Hearing Overtaken By Procedural Debate, Suggestion For Lawmakers