Courtesy of fourthamendmentlaw.com here is an interesting summary of search  law from the Oregon Federal Public Defender.

First he acknowledges that a persons privacy right has been restricted over the years and with the advent of technology privacy may get harder to protect.

A. Introduction
The revolution of the Warren Court, especially in the area of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, was largely an expansion of federal constitutional rights in the face of state practices that limited the protection of individual rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. The following outline of federal cases construing the protections of the Fourth Amendment reflects a dynamic tension between the need to secure evidence to convict law breakers and the protection of citizens’ reasonable expectations of privacy. The result has been an overall contraction of privacy rights. This outline sets out basic principles and counterpoints from which criminal defense lawyers can fashion arguments for a more expansive view of the Fourth Amendment’s protections.

It appears that LTC Lakin may be feeling victimized?  safeguardourconstitution reports:

In facing court-martial, LTC Lakin is just the latest victim of the determined effort of the President not to provide simple proof of his eligibility under the constitution to hold office.

Thanks Dr. Conspiracy for catching that.

Military.com reports:

A US special forces member suspected of having accidentally killed a British aid worker held hostage in Afghanistan could face disciplinary action, officials said Thursday.

Reuters reports that:

the log (California’s Boating & Fishing News) reports:

The Coast Guard has ordered three petty officers to stand trial in a San Diego Bay crash that killed an 8-year-old boy during a holiday boat parade, an official said Oct. 6.

Rear Adm. Joseph R. Castillo, commander of the 11th Coast Guard District, ordered the general court-martial after reviewing a report by the investigating officer, Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Rick Foster said. That report concluded there was no legal justification for the Dec. 20, 2009, crash, the Los Angeles Times has reported.

I happened to have business at MDW today so I stopped by to take LTC Lakin’s pulse for his upcoming court-martial and watch today’s Article 39(a), UCMJ, session.

The writ was denied today.  A straight line standard denial [thanks to CAAFLog for a copy].

1.  Mr. Jensen was excused from further participation in the case at the specific affirmative consent of LTC Lakin, because he’d been “discharged.”  See R.C.M. 506(c).

curiouser and curiouser, the Houston Chronicle reports:

Army Col. James Pohl he told the defense it could put its arguments for the continuance into writing rather than air them in court. Defense attorneys did not want to explain their reasons publicly.

"I believe that would protect your client’s interest," Pohl said, adding that he would "give you that option rather than discuss it in open court."

safeguardourconstitution has this item:

Next court event:
Wednesday, October 13
at Ft McNair- 12:00 pm

Wednesday’s court appearance will address LTC Lakin’s change of counsel and should be only a brief session. Fort McNair is located at 4th and P streets, SW, near the Waterfront/Marina. Some landmarks are the Waterfront Metro, the EPA building at Waterside Mall, Arena Stage. Use the P Street Entrance to enter the installation.

Today the court will hear oral argument in Premo v. Moore, a case with potential ramifications for court-martials.  Courtesy of SCOTUSBlog here is a summary:

The Sixth Amendment secures a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel.  Under Strickland v. Washington (1984), that right is violated when a lawyer’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness, resulting in prejudice to the defendant.  Counsel’s representation is prejudicial when there is a reasonable probability that, but for the lawyer’s deficiencies, the proceeding would have ended differently.  Some defendants accept a plea bargain and then argue that their counsel was ineffective; in those cases, Hill v. Lockhart (1985) instructs a court to ask whether there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have gone to trial had his counsel been constitutionally adequate.  When the Court hears argument tomorrow in Premo v. Moore (09-658), it will attempt to clarify how Strickland and Hill apply to plea deals that are made after counsel fails to suppress an unconstitutionally obtained confession.

For those who want to go right to the papers here is the SCOTUSBlog page.

Contact Information