Thursday, September 28, 2006

Search And Seizure Update

For the past decade, the Oregon Federal Public Defender has published an outline of federal search and seizure cases from a defense perspective. We set out the general state of the law and, through counterpoints to the cases restricting Fourth Amendment rights, keep track of cases in which defendants have succeeded in suppressing evidence based on creative use of facts and law. The point of the outline is to provide a starting place for research, a repository for cases that frequently are useful, and an optimistic approach to Fourth Amendment issues. The most recent update, prepared for the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association meeting this week, is available here.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judge Edward Nottingham engaged in witness intimidation of me to stop me from pursuing a case that alleged perjury. My facts in D of Colorado 02-1950 cited easily provable perjuries. To stop me from pursuing those in a different court, Judge Nottigham said:“So you’ll stay out of jail if all these cases are dismissed in time for me to vacate the hearing. Otherwise the next time you show up, you pack your toothbrush, because you are going to jail.” Judge Edward W. Nottingham to Mrs. Sieverding 2/16/06 p.14 Judge Nottingham appointed Christopher Beall as a prosecutor and he said:
9/8/06 Christopher P. Beall: (for Mutual Insurance in Colorado) “The absence of criminal information in this case is meaningless…the remedy that the Newspaper Defendants seek, coercive incarceration will end as soon as Mrs. Sieverding establishes compliance with this Court’s orders to withdraw the Kansas and D.C. cases…no statement of probable cause, under oath or otherwise, is required… The Court has made it clear to Mrs. Sieverding that she is required to terminate all litigation against all of the defendants, including the Newspaper defendants, when such litigation is filed pro se…Rule 65 has no bearing on this matter…the Anti-Injunction Act only prohibits a federal court from order a stay of a state court proceeding and neither the D.C. nor Kansas litigation is in state court … The Court’s instruction to Mrs. Sieverding to “dismiss’ or “withdraw” the D.C. and Kansas litigation necessarily included a prohibition against…filing motions or any other paper besides of notice of dismissal …she may effect her release from incarceration under such a contempt citation by actually “withdrawing” the Kansas and D.C. litigation.”

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:54:00 AM  
Blogger saintjoseph said...

“The absence of criminal information in this case is meaningless…the remedy that the Newspaper Defendants seek, coercive incarceration will end as soon as Mrs. Sieverding establishes compliance with this Court’s orders to withdraw the Kansas and D.C. cases…no statement of probable cause, under oath or otherwise, is required… The Court has made it clear to Mrs. Sieverding that she is required to terminate all litigation against all of the defendants, including the Newspaper defendants, when such litigation is filed pro se…Rule 65 has no bearing on this matter…the Anti-Injunction Act only prohibits a federal court from order a stay of a state court proceeding and neither the D.C. nor Kansas litigation is in state court

===================================

saintjoseph

Washington Drug Treatment

Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:45:00 PM  
Blogger A White Bear said...

The November 2007 version of Developments in Federal Search and Seizure Law is now available on the Oregon Federal Public Defender website here. We have been collecting Fourth Amendment cases for over ten years, integrating defense wins into an outline that provides counterpoints to the trends away from protection of individual rights. The outline is getting pretty long, and we have added a table of cases on the recommendation of users who wanted to be able to go directly to the name of a case.
---------------
Shakira

kansas drug rehab

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:03:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home