by Last Night in Little Rock

Caution: The following post contains lawyertalk and opinion quotes.

Judge Roberts today dissented in a 2-1 reversal of a denial of a motion to suppress the search of the trunk of a car based on the park police officers' belief that it might contain documentation of ownership or a stolen license plate, a concept the majority found illogical. United States v Jackson (D.C. Cir. 04-3021, July 22, 2005). This is his first Fourth Amendment opinion since being nominated to the Supreme Court, and it led to an interesting exchange on the panel.

It appears that Judge Roberts prefers to defer to police discretion in determining the reasonableness of a search and seizure. This does not bode well for the Fourth Amendment.

Good news for Roman Polanski, he has won his libel suit against Vanity Fair. Many wonder why he brought the suit. Here's why.

In July, 2002, the magazine had reported Polanski propositioned another woman at Elaine's on the way to Sharon Tate's funeral. Polanski wasn't in New York at the time - he had been in London when his pregnant wife was murdered, and flew directly to L.A. He proved that at the libel trial, and eventually, even Vanity Fair conceded they were wrong. But then, they said, they were only wrong as to timing. But Mia Farrow testified that he had been brushing women's attention off after Sharon Tate's death and that he was devasted by the murder. Polanski testified by video from France, since had he gone to London where the trial was held, he would have been arrested and extradited back to the U.S. for a charge that he had sex with a 13 year old girl more than 25 years ago. Polanski fled the U.S. while on bail before sentencing on the charge. He is a French citizen and cannot be extradited from France.

by TChris

The Bush administration didn't want you to see a parade of flag-draped coffins -- more than 1770 of them, at this point -- returning from Iraq. The administration wants to control the message, and the tragic reality of this war isn't the message it wants to convey. Nor does it want you to see images of torture at Abu Ghraib, but it seemed to be losing its struggle to withhold those pictures and videos from the Center for Constitutional Rights. As TalkLeft reported, the government was ordered to release them by today. Didn't happen:

They were given until today to produce the images, but at the eleventh hour filed a motion to oppose the release of the photos and videos, based on an entirely new argument: they are now requesting a 7(F) exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold law enforcement-related information in order to protect the physical safety of individuals. Today’s move is the latest in a series of attempts by the government to keep the images from being made public and to cover up the torture of detainees in U.S. custody around the world.

As Daily Kos remarks: "The coverup continues."

Here are the text of the witness statements at today's hearing, “A Special Joint Oversight Hearing On The National Security Consequences of Disclosing the Identity of a Covert Intelligence Officer”, held jointly by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and the House Government Reform Committee Minority. All are in pdf format:

• James Marcinkowski,
  Former CIA Case Officer
• Larry Johnson,
  Former CIA Analyst
• Ret. Col. W. Patrick Lang,
  Former Director, Defense Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Service
• Senator Byron Dorgan,
  Chairman, Democratic Policy Committee

Via Atrios, from Steve Clemons at The Washington Note:

TWN has just learned from a highly placed source -- and in the right place to know -- that John Bolton was a regular source for Judith Miller's New York Times WMD and national security reports.

The source did not have any knowledge on whether Bolton was one of Miller's sources on the Valerie Plame story she was preparing, but argues that he was a regular source otherwise.

by TChris

Morale at the nation's intelligence agencies can't be helped by the knowledge that the president won't fire Karl Rove for leaking Valerie Plame's identity unless Rove is actually convicted of a crime. Former intelligence officers testified today that the president's inaction is jeopardizing national security.

In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the war on terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.

"I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief -- protect and defend the Constitution," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."

Johnson is a Republican, and he says he expects "better behavior out of Republicans." Don't we all? How long will it take the Rove machine to smear Johnson as a disgruntled bum? Or this retired colonel:

Sentencing Law and Policy reports on a new bill in Alabama that seeks mandatory castration for certain sex offenders. Here's the AP article.

The House passed a bill Thursday that would require mandatory castration of persons convicted of violent sex crimes against children under 12 and would require them to wear electronic monitoring devices for the rest of their lives after release from prison.

...A milder version of the legislation passed the Senate 35-0. The Senate version provides stiffer penalties for sex offenders, provides for electronic monitoring for at least 10 years and toughens requirements for them to report their location to police, but does not include the castration requirement or other tougher language added in the House.

....Either the House or Senate version must pass in the other chamber before the legislation can become law.

Over at Huffington Post, here is Larry O'Donnell's latest on Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney.

by TChris

It sounded yesterday as if the government might endorse the boneheaded idea of encouraging civilians to patrol the nation’s borders, turning vigilante justice into a government policy. Today, saner heads have prevailed.

"There are currently no plans by the Department of Homeland Security to use civilian volunteers to patrol the border," spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement. "That job should continue to be done by the highly trained, professional law enforcement officials of the Border Patrol and its partner agencies."

No kidding. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner, who supported the useless and potentially dangerous Minuteman Project, apparently didn’t bother to ask around before floating the notion that Homeland Security should rely on volunteers to enforce immigation laws.

by TChris

More than 60 people gathered in Utica to talk about police insensitivity and racism following the police shooting of a black resident.

The Rev. Fred Daley, pastor of St. Francis De Sales, said city police and the district attorney's office -- which investigated Washington's shooting -- don't have credibility because of "a history of racism ... (in) the power structure."

Muhammed said "there was gross insensitivity" by police toward the Washington family. He said police would not tell the family the status of the investigation and the family was not even allowed to see Walter Washington's body. "Insensitivity opens the door to injustice," he said. "I want it investigated."

Residents questioned whether the district attorney's office engaged in a meaningful investigation before pronouncing the officer blameless.

With all the new articles mentioning grand jury testimony in RoveGate, here's some information I thought might be helpful for the non-lawyers analyzing the leaks by unnamed sources. It's not meant as legal advice, and I'm sure somewhere there will be a lawyer that can think of an exception, but generally, here's the deal on trying to figure out which side the leaks are coming from.

The key is Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Here's another key: If someone says they reviewed a grand jury transcript of anyone's testimony, it's a leak from someone now or formerly on Fitzgerald's team.

If someone says they are familiar with, or were briefed on the testimony (but doesn't mention seeing reading the transcript) it's probably the defense or allied Republican lawyers trying to help their "Administration official" friends.

Here's Bloomberg's Update Two today on RoveGate. Tom Maguire parses it out.

TalkLeft's detailed post on Ari is here.

David Corn says Ari won't reveal who his lawyer is? How come?