So I'm doing a ton of research for PSLR and came across this sweet Florida statute that was "void for vagueness because it did not give fair notice of what conduct was forbidden and because it encouraged arbitrary and erratic arrests by the police." (Lexis) Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 26-57 provided at the time of these arrests and convictions as follows: "Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers, persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children shall be deemed vagrants and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court shall be punished as provided for Class D offenses." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 158 (1972). "Four of the ...

Ted Stevens - No Mistrial (Yet!) but Williams & Connolly are good. OJ Simpson - Not Guilty (Yet!) but the jury is out. The Washington Post and the Legal Times have the story of D.C. District Judge Sullivan's harsh words for the Prosecution in the criminal case against Ted Stevens. WaPo - After a surprise revelation Wednesday night that Justice Department lawyers had not disclosed the potentially exculpatory information, the ruling followed a hearing on the matter late yesterday. "Although the court is persuaded there is a . . . violation, the court is not persuaded that dismissal of the indictment or mistrial is the appropriate remedy," said U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. He added that the government's actions had broken his trust in the prosecutors and ordered them to give Stevens's attorneys copies of all witness interviews. "The court has no confidence in the government's ability" to meet its obligations to ensure a fair trial, he said. . . . . The potentially exculpatory material involves remarks by the executive, Bill Allen, a key prosecution witness, to FBI Agents that he believed Stevens would have paid for the renovations if Allen had billed him. Attorneys for the government did not disclose those remarks to ...

The Tech Law Prof Blog and Ars Technica have been reporting on the MIT students who were enjoined from sharing their research into the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's faulty "Charlie Card" system with hackers at Defcon. Specifically, the students were able to hack their Charlie Cards into reporting incorrect amounts of money. US District Judge Douglas Wood granted a preliminary ten-day gag order on the students on August 9th. As a result, the students were unable to present their paper as they had planned at Defcon, which took place between August 8-10. Meanwhile, MIT's student-run newspaper, The Tech, decided to publish the students' presentation (the document itself is actually a really interesting read if you can get it to load). At the hearing on Tuesday, Judge George O'Toole refused the MBTA's motion to extend the injunction by five months. Judge O'Toole did not consider the First Amendment argument presented by the Eletronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of the students. Instead, after reviewing evidence that the students did not actually abuse the system, but had simply discovered a theoretical exploit, the Judge found that the students had not violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That brings me to the one point that this ...

Adam Liptak published this article at the New York Times today. I find the topic of digital privacy to be exceptionally interesting. While I don't particularly have a problem with customs stopping me to look through my luggage, I don't particularly like the idea of them flipping through my journal. Imagine how ridiculous this conversation would be: Customs Agent: What's this? Me: My journal... it's very persona... * Customs Agent opens up the journal and begins reading it, making faces as he reads. * Customs Agent: I see that you let your little sister have some champagne on New Years. Me: Well, yes, but... Customs Agent: Hah! So you admit it? You're under arrest. Essentially, that's what happened in the cases to which Mr. Liptak is referring. So why does the government have the right to do this? What happened to the Fourth Amendment? The answer is that the government relaxed the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, mostly to fight drug smuggling. In 1977, the Supreme Court stated that a standard of "reasonable cause" to conduct a warrantless search of someone attempting to cross the U.S. border -- later reinterpreted in some circuits to include an airport terminal where the destination is the United States. United States v. Okafor, ...