Search for: "People in Interest of PB"
Results 441 - 460
of 472
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2007, 8:52 pm
Officers on bicycles were patroling outside a bar in Richmond where about 500 people were milling about when a fight broke out among about 20 females. [read post]
23 May 2007, 3:58 am
People v. [read post]
22 May 2007, 3:39 am
"Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost. [read post]
17 May 2007, 5:34 am
People v. [read post]
8 May 2007, 5:49 pm
In today's local paper is mention of a really interesting and excellent law review article: Ned Snow, A Copyright Conundrum: Protecting Email Privacy, 55 Kan. [read post]
1 Apr 2007, 5:16 am
Elvis's body snatcher took the Fifth on the number of people he's killed in his life. [read post]
28 Mar 2007, 12:48 pm
Reader PB took up the 27B reader challenge and asked Comcast a detailed set of questions about their data retention policies. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 4:40 am
People v. [read post]
10 Mar 2007, 9:57 pm
They have actually failed in their civic duty to the American people. [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 12:13 pm
People v. [read post]
6 Mar 2007, 7:56 am
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . . [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 5:10 am
White warned against unsupervised use of government power to spy on the people. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 5:46 am
Moreover, a privacy interest is not destroyed simply because an officer has open view into an area. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 10:41 am
People v. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 4:40 am
" Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407-08 (citing People v. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 3:46 am
Officers are well aware that people do not live in "individual, separate, hermetically sealed residences," but live with other people and often move from one residence to another. [read post]
11 Feb 2007, 7:08 am
" Oshinsky is interviewed here, on the PBS News Hour, on April 12, 2005. [read post]
6 Feb 2007, 12:53 pm
People v. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 3:07 pm
The violation was technical at best because, while the other people were awakened by the police arriving too early in the morning, the defendant was not one of them, and his interests were not involved or protected by the nighttime search rule. [read post]
