From John Wesley Hall at Fourth Amendment. Com:

Important forfeiture case: In United States v $242,484 (2003, CA11, Fla) 2003 US App Lexis 13273, the Eleventh Circuit on a petition for rehearing from (2003, CA11, Fla) 318 F3d 1240 (withdrawn), finding it could avoid even deciding the legality of the stop of the claimaint, held that possession of large amounts of cash is not alone indicative of criminal activity. The claimant had no criminal record and was carrying cash not bundled in a bank. On the totality of circumstances, the government could not show probable cause to link the money to criminal activity and reversed ordering judgment for the claimaint. The government claimed that its drug dog could differentiate between money that was in close proximity to drugs and money that merely had residue, but it put on no proof to support that claim. (In 1988, the DEA admitted that 80% of the money supply had cocaine residue on it, simply passed on by the money sorting machines at the Federal Reserve.)

In other fourth amendment news, John writes of this Texas case:

The Innocence Project is seeking a Finance/Administrator Director.

The Innocence Project, Inc. ("the Project") , seeks a Director of Finance and Administration to help build and manage its newly-formed 501©3 nonprofit entity. Founded in 1992 by Professor Barry Scheck and civil rights lawyer Peter J. Neufeld as a legal clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law/Yeshiva University, the Project represents prisoners nationwide for whom post-conviction DNA testing can prove innocence, and also works to redress the causes of wrongful convictions throughout the criminal justice system.

....In the coming months, the Project will retain its affiliation with the University while becoming legally and financially autonomous. The Project seeks a talented and experienced Director of Finance and Administration to create a financial and administrative infrastructure for the new nonprofit entity, and to manage the Project's finances and operations in the coming years. Salary mid-to-high five figures, depending on experience; full benefits. Experience with nonprofit fiscal management and administration essential.

Joe Conason went to see The Exonerated, an off-broadway play about the wrongfully convicted, and writes a powerful article about it.

Composed wholly from court records and interviews by playwrights Jessica Blank and Erik Jensen, this documentary drama recounts true tales of horror from the American criminal-justice system. The actors sit downstage and read their parts as the stories of six innocent citizens condemned to death row unfold. If this sounds like a worthy endeavor, it is; if it sounds dull or didactic, it isn’t.

The Exonerated is so compelling as theater, in fact, that it has drawn a rotating marquee of talent to the 45 Bleecker Street Theatre—including Richard Dreyfuss, Jill Clayburgh, Sara Gilbert, Gabriel Byrne, Aidan Quinn, and director Bob Balaban. At the performance I saw, Mariska Hargitay, star of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, gave brilliant voice to Sunny Jacobs, a woman who spent almost 17 years in a Florida penitentiary—including five years on death row—for a double murder she didn’t commit.

In the article, Conason retells the story of another death row inmate, one who was brutally executed when he caught on fire in the electric chair. He also touts, as do we, Taryn Simon's new book, The Innocents, with commentary by Innocence Project co-founders Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld.

Funded in part by a Guggenheim Fellowship, Ms Simon spent three years crisscrossing the country, interviewing and photographing the book’s subjects, whose wrongful convictions occurred in 18 different states, from California to Kentucky, Texas to Indiana.


The Innocents

Columnist Richard Cohen takes Howard Dean to task today for his change of heart on the death penalty--as expressed on Meet the Press last week.

In all my years writing about the death penalty, I have never heard any politician admit that he would countenance the death of an innocent person in order to ensure that the guilty die. Dean is maybe the first to acknowledge the unacknowledgeable.

First, we're not sure that's what Dean meant. But second, Cohen is wrong. Another politician did say it --Al Gore. We remember because we took him to task when he did it, and then wrote about it again a year or so later here on TalkLeft:

In February, 2000, Gore was interviewed in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. The article was called "15 Minutes of Al." When asked about his support of the death penalty in light of the rising number of innocents on death row, Gore said he is so strongly in support of the death penalty that he's willing to accept a few wrongful executions. Here's a portion of the interview.

"BG: What do you think about the Republican governor of Illinois calling a moratorium on the death penalty because there has been so much evidence that innocent people are on death row?

AG: Well, I support the death penalty.

BG: Well, so does he.

AG: I understand, and I also understand that the high-profile cases that have put a new spotlight on the error in capital convictions have put this issue in a new light. In Illinois, I don't want to make a judgment on what the circumstances are because I don't have the expertise. Nationally, I would not be in favor of a moratorium. The "Hurricane" notwithstanding.

BG: Are there people on death row elsewhere, or federal death row, who are innocent? Isn't that something we should be worried about?

AG: I would hope not. But I'll tell you this: I think that any honest and candid supporter of the death penalty has to acknowledge that that support comes in spite of the fact that there will inevitably be some mistakes. And that's a harsh concession to make, but I think it's the only honest concession to make, and it should spur us to have appreciation for habeas corpus, for the procedural safeguards for the accused, and for the fairness that's a part of the American judicial system and to resist efforts to take away the procedural safeguards. " (emphasis supplied by us)

Democrats came out swinging Wednesday at our macho, cowboy President's taunt to Iraqi attackers, 'Bring 'Em On' :

Though Congress is in recess, some Democrats criticized Bush's "bring 'em on" statement. "I am shaking my head in disbelief," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). "When I served in the Army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander -- let alone the commander in chief -- invite enemies to attack U.S. troops." Lautenberg's statement said Bush's words were "tantamount to inciting and inviting more attacks against U.S. forces."

In addition, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), a presidential candidate, said he had heard "enough of the phony, macho rhetoric" from Bush. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor also mounting a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Bush "showed tremendous insensitivity to the dangers" troops face.

All three are correct. Bush needs to remember he's running a country and a war, not coaching a football game.

Some other Bushism's:

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he said he wanted al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Bush also has said that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "crawfished" to escape United Nations sanctions, and that he would "smoke" Taliban operatives "out of their caves."

A federal magistrate judge in Alexandria, Virginia granted bail over the Government's objections to four defendants accused of running a 'jihad' network in the U.S. The Judge also rebuked the Justice Department. The Government plans to appeal the decision at least as to three of the men.

Update: Reviews of detention hearings conducted by magistrate judges are conducted by the district court judge to whom the case is assigned. In this case, it is Judge Leonie Brinkema, who also has the Zacarias Moussaoui case. On Weds., July 3, Judge Brinkema upheld the Magistrate Judge's release order and Hammad Abdur-Raheem should be released by Friday. However, the judge upheld another Magistrate Judge's decision to detain one of the other suspects, Mohammed Aatique.

Our favorite bounty hunter, Duane "Dog" Chapman arrived back in the U.S. today. His attorneys are working out his legal problems in Mexico.

Dog has bail bond businesses in Hawaii and Colorado. The Rocky Mountain News reports Dog is headed back to Colorado as soon as possible--he has his next job already picked out:

[Dog's Wife] Beth Smith said the cost of attorneys, chasing down Luster and not chasing several other fugitives have taken their toll on the couple's bank account.

"We're just about broke," Smith said. "That's why, as soon as he can get out, Dog is going to Commerce City where Bullet has been running amok while the bounty hunter is gone."

"Chapman is expected to renew his search for Colorado felon Robert "Bullet" Vigil, who, according to Smith, is hiding in Commerce City, Chapman's birthplace. Vigil, whose bond is $40,000, has a long arrest record, which includes domestic violence, assault and drug arrests, according to Colorado Bureau of Investigation records."

We think Dog will get a well-deserved hero's welcome here.

As bloggers, we have had some concerns about whether we would be liable for libelous comments posted by Talkleft readers. Last week the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said online publishers are not responsible for material written by others that gets published on their sites--with one caveat:

In order for the provider or publisher of the information to receive immunity, the publisher reasonably must have determined that the author/sender/user meant for his communication to be published. In cases where a user directly posts his own comments, this is obvious.

But when a user sends an email to an online publisher, such as a blog, and does not intend for it to be published, the immunity issue gets murky. The Ninth Circuit determined in this decision that the test should not be the intent of the author, but rather, whether the provider (publisher) reasonably could assume that the information was sent with the intent for it to be published.

A federal appeals courts says do-it-yourself online publishers can post material generated by others without being legally liable for its content. Although the case concerned an e-mail discussion list, publishers of online journals, called blogs, hailed last week's ruling by the 9th Circuit as also extending speech protections to them.

"It clarifies the existing law," said Eric Brown, who represented the defendant in the suit. "It expands it in the sense that no court had really addressed bloggers, listserv (e-mail list) operators and those people yet" at such a high level.

The court said noncommercial publishers are only liable when they post information that a reasonable person would have known wasn't meant to be published.

"Now we can publish information we receive from someone else without fear of getting sued," said Jeralyn Merritt, a lawyer and blogger who manages TalkLeft, a Web site about crime-related news and politics.

Merritt said it would be impossible to monitor the nearly 200 messages posted onto her site every day. "We write for the enjoyment of it," said Merritt. "If we could get sued, I'm not sure it would be worth it."

We'll have more to say about the decison next week. Here's another version of the article, with a greater explanation of the facts in the 9th Circuit case.

Howard Dean was a major critic of the War in Iraq. But he is now calling on Bush to send U.S. troops to Liberia to avert a human rights crisis.

When asked to reconcile his two positions, he said:

....Bush never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world. "The situation in Liberia is exactly the opposite. There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership."

Our friendly Pentagon is developing a new urban surveillance system that will track and record every vehicle within a city. It's called "Combat Zones That See."

The Pentagon is developing an urban surveillance system that would use computers and thousands of cameras to track, record and analyze the movement of every vehicle in a city.

Named "Combat Zones That See," the project is designed to help the U.S. military protect its troops abroad and fight in cities overseas. Police, scientists and privacy experts say the unclassified technology could be adapted easily to spy on Americans.

The program is the brainchild of DARPA. In addition to its planned massive database of personal records, DARPA is currently at work on a system that would create "a computerized diary that would record and analyze everything a person says, sees, hears, reads or touches."

While DARPA denies it intends these programs for civilian use, scientists are concerned:

Chisum Lee writes in this week's Village Voice that New York activists are fighting back against repressive police measures aimed at protesters.

Look what's in store when Bush visits for the Republican 2004 Convention:

Sharpshooters will man the rooftops. Counterterrorism agents will patrol in civilian guise. Bomb squads will case subway tunnels. At least this much will be certain when the Republican National Convention comes to Madison Square Garden next year, say two former NYPD officials who helped oversee previous conventions there.

....For the NYPD, in concert with the Secret Service and a slew of federal agencies, maintaining order will be a daunting challenge, and not just because of the obvious terrorism concerns. The Bush administration's policies have roused hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers to some of the most heated agitation the city has seen in decades.

We're glad to see New Yorkers fighting back:

Angry protesters have claimed police are meeting these demonstrations with new heights of repressiveness, amounting to a pattern of unfounded arrests and abuses. Now, with an eye to the near future, they are pushing back. A look at the activist scene today reveals a number of challenges that together form a multipronged effort to free the streets. New Yorkers want their right to protest to be as firmly entrenched as the police presence will be come 2004.

Passing this along to anyone's who is interested:

Peace Mile Parade to End the War on Drugs:

The 34th Annual Rally, Parade and Concert to End Marijuana Prohibition will be held Friday July 4th, 2003 in Washington DC.

The rally is from Noon - 3:00pm at Farragut Square, (17th and Connecticut Ave. NW between the Farragut West and Farragut North Metro stops)

Concert 2:00pm - 9:00pm (23rd & Constitution Ave. NW)

In related news, the Marijuana Policy Project has grant money available. The purpose of the grant program is,

To support, with grants up to $60,000, efforts that foster measurable changes in U.S. public policy that will lead to marijuana's being regulated similarly to alcohol and to marijuana's availability for medical use. The grants program does not fund political parties or candidates for office, state ballot initiatives, or hemp-related projects.

Applications must be in by September 1, details are here.