August 15th to 18th
Sunday, August 15, 2010: Another "do-nothing" day. I spent most of my time working on my Trek story and doing some laundry... although, I did stop around 10 o'clock to make Marty some bacon and eggs. I pre-published Chapter 23 of "The Pon T'Keshtan" even though my beta FarStrider hasn't editted it yet -- and since she does it for FREE, I really can't complain. Still, it had been 10 days since I publsihed the last chapter, and I don't like too much time passing between releases. I got a few more gratifying reviews on the chapter, and was VERY pleased to see some readers remarking that love my character, Sa'aat, and describe him as "bad ass". One reader, DawnCandance, wrote: "Also, Sa'aat is officially the most bad ** Vulcan ever. I disliked him at the beginning of this story, but now I am a total fan." Yay! Other reviewers comment that they also "love" my character Dr. Andrew Surrey, a psychiatrist. When the readers care about the characters and come to "anticipate" and care about them, then as a writer you know you're doing a good job.
Monday, August 16, 2010: Back to school day. I was so pleased when, during my Word 2007 class, the instructor, Mr. Alexander, called on me to help him while he was trying to help another student with a problem involving the Word software on the school computers. Later he also said I was a "great role model" for other students. Awwww! How sweet is that?!
In my Family Law class we went over how child support was calculated by the State, and I was appalled to find that out of the dozen or so people in the class, NONE of our support calculations came out the same. It all depended on how we put the case data into the State's on-line calculator. Wow! Support ranged from over $800 a month to less than $380 per month depending on who put the data in and what little boxes they checked or didn't check! How is that fair to the guys who have to pay the support?! These calculations are only a guideline, of course, but if the person who has to pay the support doesn't know any better, he or she may never challenge the guideline and end up paying more (or less) than they really should be! Of course, the court makes its own calculations, but very often it will just look at whatever the attorneys submit, and decide which of the two versions it will choose to adopt. Gad! I had no idea!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010: This morning, after a pretty good night's sleep, I polished up my brief on the Arizona v. Gant case for my Criminal Law class. At first, I wasn't too impressed with this Supreme Court decision, but after re-reading it a couple of times, and streamlining my brief, I can see how it impacts on all sorts of things... including the unlawful search or my home by Animal Control officers. The Gant case involves vehicles, but the precedent it sets is pretty cool. Here's how my brief of the case read (and keep in mind that the brief hasn't been reviewed by Mr. Cashdollar yet, so it may not be the best it can be):
Brief of Arizona v Gant, 556 U.S. ___ ,No. 07-542 (2009)
Issue: Whether police officers, in performance of their duty, have the authority for a warrantless search of an area outside of an arrestee's immediate control, in this case a vehicle, after the crime scene has been secured, without violating the arrestee's rights under the Fourth Amendment.
Rule: The Fourth Amendment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4
Analysis: In this case Rodney J. Gant was arrested by Arizona police officers in Tucson, AZ, after being apprehended in the yard of a friend, for driving without a valid driver's license. He was then handcuffed and locked inside the police officer's patrol car. While Gant was locked away from his vehicle, police officers conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle and found cocaine in the pocket of a jacket left inside the vehicle. He was then additionally charged with possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia.
Gant claimed the search was a violation of his Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, which reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4) The Arizona court refused to suppress the evidence gained under the warrantless search, and Gant was convicted. The Arizona court based its ruling, under the auspices of stare decisis, on the Supreme Court ruling of 1981 in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (herein referred to as "Belton"). Under Belton the Supreme Court had ruled that police can legally search the passenger compartment of an arrestee's vehicle without securing a warrant on the grounds that such a search was "within the scope" of the arrest.
Gant appealed the Arizona court's decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court based heavily on the following:
Although Belton spoke to the "scope" of an arrest crime scene, it did not speak directly to the issue of warrantless searches. Gant's attorneys argued that if Gant had initially been stopped and charged with drug possession, the subsequent search of his vehicle may have been justified, but he was not. He had been arrested for driving under a suspended license, and was not charged with drug possession until after the warrantless search took place. Therefore, Belton did not apply to Gant's case because the unlawful search of the vehicle wasn't covered under the "scope" of the crime of driving without a valid license.
The Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure could only be violated under a "few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576), and two of those few exceptions included: (1) if the officer's safety would be compromised, and/or (2) if evidence might otherwise be destroyed or lost if the search and seizure didn't take place (Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d. 685). Since Gant had already been handcuffed and placed in the patrol car and the crime scene was already secure, the police officer's safety was not an issue. Further, Gant was unable to compromise any "evidence" his personal vehicle might have held because, handcuffed and locked away inside the patrol car, he had no access to anything inside his vehicle. Therefore, the warrantless search of his vehicle was unconstitutional.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed Gant's appeal and held that the search of Gant's vehicle was, indeed, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, stating that Arizona's "blind adherence" to Belton ignored and "undervalued" the rights to privacy granted under that amendment. Stare decisis was not applicable, the court said, in that the Supreme Court was not compelled to adhere to Belton, which, in its 28-year history, had proven itself to be over-broad. Adhering to Belton would, in the court's opinion, open up the door to "authorize myriad unconstitutional searches".
Pretty cool, huh? The Supreme Court overruled ITSELF in this decision!
In Criminal Law class, we got a lecture on serial killers, and then got to see a DVD about the serial murderer, John Wayne Gacy, who killed over 30 homosexual men and boys in the 1970s. What a creepy dude! Seeing him in his clown suit, and realizing he'd built a BBQ over the bodies he'd buried in his yard was gross. Glad he's gone.
When I got home, I couldn't get near the house because the Comcast guy had shown up (unannounced, an hour early, and park his truck right in front of the driveway -- even though the whole street was empty, and he could have parked anywhere. Cripes. The guy had also come early and unnanounced. Marty is glad to have his movie channels back, but wasn't pleased with the service.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010: I had a headache all day and I think it's caused by stress from the court crap coming up. I'm not "worried" about the outcome; it's just that court seems to "consume" you. It's hard to focus on anything, it's sometimes hard to sleep... Nevertheless I did well in both my Word 2007 class (during whcih I was able to help a couple of the students), and my Family Law class, so I'm okay. In Family Law class, the teacher, Mrs. Englund, was being "reviewed" by the program director (Ms. Peterson) after a couple of students complained about her because she wouldn't show any sympathy for their whining. When Mrs. Englund came back in, she let us know how her review went, and was totally willing to listen to and accept our suggestions about the class. As the rest of us were leaving at the end of class, I told her I thought she was doing an awesome job, and several other students chimed in and said, yes, they really liked her too. She needed to hear that -- and I believe she was grateful to hear it. She thanked us as we left.