|
|
|
Corbett to pick Stevens for Pa. high court
Law Firm News |
2013/06/20 23:17
|
Gov. Tom Corbett plans to nominate state appeals court Judge Correale Stevens to temporarily fill a vacancy on the state Supreme Court.
Two people familiar with the decision told The Associated Press of Corbett's plans on condition of anonymity, saying the information was part of private conversations.
The decision comes more than a month after the opening was created following the resignation from the bench of Joan Orie Melvin. Melvin was convicted of using public employees to help her political campaigns.
Stevens will require a two-thirds approval by the state Senate to take a seat on the bench.
Stevens is a familiar face in state politics and government, and is currently president judge of state Superior Court, which handles criminal and civil appeals. His long career in public service also includes time as Luzerne County's district attorney, a county judge and seven years as a state representative.
Melvin and Stevens are both Republicans, so if he is confirmed the court will return to a four-to-three Republican majority. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intel chair says NSA court order is renewal
Law Firm News |
2013/06/10 17:02
|
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee says the top secret court order for telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon is a three-month renewal of an ongoing practice.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California spoke to reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference on Thursday after the Obama administration defended the National Security Agency's need to collect the records.
Other lawmakers have said previously that the practice is legal under the Patriot Act although civil libertarians have complained about U.S. snooping on American citizens. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees
Law Firm News |
2013/06/03 21:08
|
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse procedures like fingerprinting.
"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority.
But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers.
"Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.
At least 28 states and the federal government now take DNA swabs after arrests. But a Maryland court was one of the first to say that it was illegal for that state to take Alonzo King's DNA without approval from a judge, saying King had "a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches."
But the high court's decision reverses that ruling and reinstates King's rape conviction, which came after police took his DNA during an unrelated arrest. Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Upholds Rifle Sales Reporting Requirement
Law Firm News |
2013/06/01 18:19
|
A federal appeals court panel has unanimously upheld an Obama administration requirement that dealers in southwestern border states report when customers buy multiple high-powered rifles.
The firearms industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and two Arizona gun sellers argued that the administration overstepped its legal authority in the 2011 regulation, which applies to gun sellers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
But the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the requirement was "unambiguously" authorized under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The challengers argued that the requirement unlawfully creates a national firearms registry, but the court said because it applies to a small percentage of gun dealers, it doesn't come close to creating one. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
