Last Monday, in a chart accompanying a story on the appellate court races, Minnesota Lawyer reported the amounts of the contributions to the appellate court candidates in the upcoming election. There was an error in the information listed for Court of Appeals Judge Terri Stoneburner, who faces a challenge from International Falls attorney Dan Griffith. The chart erroneously showed that Stoneburner has raised $25,066. As of Oct. 8, Stoneburner's campaign had, in fact, raised only $8,700. The figure reported for Griffith, $2,275 is correct.
So far, Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, who has reported contributions of about $35,000, is in the lead for fundraising in the appellate races.
Showing posts with label Court of Appeals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court of Appeals. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The innocence of the joint vehicle owner
The Court of Appeals today ruled that a jointly-owned vehicle should not be forfeited based on the illegal conduct of one of its owners when the other owner proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she did not know the vehicle would be used illegally.
In Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, a case of first impression, the wife pled guilty to second-degree DWI-refusal to test, and had a prior conviction. The husband persuaded the trial court that he did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the vehicle would be used illegally. This innocent-owner offense is set forth in Minn. Stat. sec. 169A.63, subd. 7(d) but has never been applied in a joint owner situation. The appellate court did not elaborate on the nature of the husband’s proof and said that the statute should be liberally construed.
Judge James C. Harten wrote the opinion, in which Judge Matthew E. Johnson concurred. Judge Kevin G. Ross dissented.
In Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, a case of first impression, the wife pled guilty to second-degree DWI-refusal to test, and had a prior conviction. The husband persuaded the trial court that he did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the vehicle would be used illegally. This innocent-owner offense is set forth in Minn. Stat. sec. 169A.63, subd. 7(d) but has never been applied in a joint owner situation. The appellate court did not elaborate on the nature of the husband’s proof and said that the statute should be liberally construed.
Judge James C. Harten wrote the opinion, in which Judge Matthew E. Johnson concurred. Judge Kevin G. Ross dissented.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Environmental advocates claim win in taconite case
The Minnesota Court of Appeals yesterday upheld the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's denial of an application by Northshore Mining Co. to relax an air quality standard at its taconite plant in Silver Bay.
That standard, known as a control-city standard, states that asbestos levels in the air in Silver Bay can't be any higher than those normally found in a control city, which in this case is St. Paul.
A federal judge in December also let the standard stand in the face of an appeal by Northshore.
The court wrote that processing the ore used at the Silver Bay plant "results in the release of asbestos fibers that may be dangerous to human health," the appeals court wrote in its decision. Northshore insisted that the mineral released is not the same thing as asbestos fibers. The court also said the Northshore was trying to "eliminate a substantive monitoring requirement" and that the company had failed to demonstrate that the control-city standard is obsolete.
That standard, known as a control-city standard, states that asbestos levels in the air in Silver Bay can't be any higher than those normally found in a control city, which in this case is St. Paul.
A federal judge in December also let the standard stand in the face of an appeal by Northshore.
The court wrote that processing the ore used at the Silver Bay plant "results in the release of asbestos fibers that may be dangerous to human health," the appeals court wrote in its decision. Northshore insisted that the mineral released is not the same thing as asbestos fibers. The court also said the Northshore was trying to "eliminate a substantive monitoring requirement" and that the company had failed to demonstrate that the control-city standard is obsolete.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
A valuable shield protects your right to know
Minnesota's seldom-tested shield law has taken a couple of interesting shots in recent weeks.
Earlier this month it was revealed that KMSP reporter Tom Lyden had two months of cell phone records seized by St. Paul police as part of an ongoing investigation into whether a Ramsey County sheriff's deputy leaked private data to Lyden. The data was later determined to be public, and the investigation was dropped after protests from First Amendment advocates.
Then, on Tuesday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a ruling ordering a reporter to give prosecutors unpublished notes from an interview with a man who shot two police officers before killing himself.
Every first-semester journalism school student is taught the importance of shield laws, but few reporters are ever called on to invoke the law in response to a request that they reveal their sources. Media members in Minnesota are fortunate to be covered by the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act, which provides a greater level of protection for reporters by requiring that three strict standards are met before disclosure is compelled by the court. The fact that the two recent shield law squabbles went the way of media outlets should be a relief not only to journalists, but to everybody who values transparency and disclosure from government entities.
Earlier this month it was revealed that KMSP reporter Tom Lyden had two months of cell phone records seized by St. Paul police as part of an ongoing investigation into whether a Ramsey County sheriff's deputy leaked private data to Lyden. The data was later determined to be public, and the investigation was dropped after protests from First Amendment advocates.
Then, on Tuesday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a ruling ordering a reporter to give prosecutors unpublished notes from an interview with a man who shot two police officers before killing himself.
Every first-semester journalism school student is taught the importance of shield laws, but few reporters are ever called on to invoke the law in response to a request that they reveal their sources. Media members in Minnesota are fortunate to be covered by the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act, which provides a greater level of protection for reporters by requiring that three strict standards are met before disclosure is compelled by the court. The fact that the two recent shield law squabbles went the way of media outlets should be a relief not only to journalists, but to everybody who values transparency and disclosure from government entities.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Randall's articulate voice will be missed
Court of Appeals Judge R.A. “Jim” Randall has submitted his retirement letter to Gov. Tim Pawlenty effective Friday, April 4, 2008. Randall has served on the court for 24 years.
I hope he spends some time at the court as a retired judge because I will miss his opinions. Not only do I generally agree with him, but in addition, he can really write.
My favorite opinion may be in State v. Thoreson, issued last April, where Randall wrote a 16-page dissent. The defendant was convicted of misdemeanor prostitution after a Hennepin County District Court judge refused to dismiss the case on the ground that police misconduct violated the defendant’s due process rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Randall disapproved of the police officer’s investigative technique, which was to induce the woman to disrobe completely in the front seat of an unmarked squad car at 38th and Nicollet, thereby assenting to prostitution.
Randall thought the woman didn’t commit a crime by taking her clothes off without accepting money for sex. He called the police conduct “somewhat egregious.” Arrest her, if you must, but do not “make sport” with her, said the judge.
Randall's well-thought-out dissent includes the following nugget:
“Respondent argues that asking a strange woman to take off all her clothes and go naked in front of a strange man is a ‘legitimate’ police tactic. Respondent argues this is so because ‘good girls won’t do that but bad girls will.’ Looking back, at my age, perhaps I did miss part of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Maybe there never was a senior prom where, after the midnight close of the official school gym dance, the party continued until the wee hours of the morning at some neighboring park by a lake where drinking and swimming, bathing suits optional, were varsity sports du jour. Maybe nobody was ever 19, went to college, went to fraternity and sorority parties, and in a large group both male and coed, ceremoniously ‘mooned’ their school’s arch rival football team as it drove into the parking lot or, for that matter, tried to moon their arch rival’s entire student body until the college president sent security in. Funny how the memory is affected. Funny how life imitates art.”
I hope he spends some time at the court as a retired judge because I will miss his opinions. Not only do I generally agree with him, but in addition, he can really write.
My favorite opinion may be in State v. Thoreson, issued last April, where Randall wrote a 16-page dissent. The defendant was convicted of misdemeanor prostitution after a Hennepin County District Court judge refused to dismiss the case on the ground that police misconduct violated the defendant’s due process rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Randall disapproved of the police officer’s investigative technique, which was to induce the woman to disrobe completely in the front seat of an unmarked squad car at 38th and Nicollet, thereby assenting to prostitution.
Randall thought the woman didn’t commit a crime by taking her clothes off without accepting money for sex. He called the police conduct “somewhat egregious.” Arrest her, if you must, but do not “make sport” with her, said the judge.
Randall's well-thought-out dissent includes the following nugget:
“Respondent argues that asking a strange woman to take off all her clothes and go naked in front of a strange man is a ‘legitimate’ police tactic. Respondent argues this is so because ‘good girls won’t do that but bad girls will.’ Looking back, at my age, perhaps I did miss part of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Maybe there never was a senior prom where, after the midnight close of the official school gym dance, the party continued until the wee hours of the morning at some neighboring park by a lake where drinking and swimming, bathing suits optional, were varsity sports du jour. Maybe nobody was ever 19, went to college, went to fraternity and sorority parties, and in a large group both male and coed, ceremoniously ‘mooned’ their school’s arch rival football team as it drove into the parking lot or, for that matter, tried to moon their arch rival’s entire student body until the college president sent security in. Funny how the memory is affected. Funny how life imitates art.”
How about an appellate opinion with that cup of coffee?
It used to be like clockwork. Go grab a bite to eat for lunch, come back to the office and find out how your case did on appeal. Both state appellate courts would release their week's opinions at exactly 1:00 p.m. (Tuesdays for the Court of Appeals, Thursdays for the Supreme Court.)But, as Minnesota Lawyer reports this week, all that recently changed thanks to those ink-stained wretches who make up the Fourth Estate. (Since journalists don't really use ink now, perhaps I should keyboard-clicking wretches.)
Effective Dec. 11, the appellate courts started releasing the week's opinions at 10:00 a.m., barely giving lawyers time for a cup of coffee and a scone before getting the good or bad news about their case. (The release days stayed the same.)
"It was really a courtesy to the press, so they have a little more time during the day to prepare their story," clerk of the appellate courts Fred Grittner told Minnesota Lawyer.
Meanwhile, appellate lawyers are happy to get the results sooner too. "Once you know [your decision] is coming out, the longer you have to wait, the more painful it is," said Minneapolis attorney Bill Hart.
It's good to see the courts being media-friendly. It will be interesting to see if the media returns the favor by using that time to make the reports on decisions more comprehensive and fair.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Looks like a good pool of finalists for appellate vacancies
A quick glance at the eight finalists for the three newly created seats on the Minnesota Court of Appeals tells me Gov. Tim Pawlenty has some good folks to pick from. The list includes:
-- Three District Court judges;
-- Three shareholders from private law firms;
-- One Chief Administrative Law judge (and former Tax Court judge); and
-- One chief public defender.
Hennepin County Chief Public Defender Lenny Castro (on right) probably has the greatest name recognition of everyone on the list due to the fact that he has a high-visibility job. He is also a really nice guy who would make an excellent choice.
But I really can't complain about any of the finalists. All of them have a lot of great experience that would add something to the mix. It looks like yet another job well-done by a Minnesota gubernatorial commission charged with vetting judicial applicants.
-- Three District Court judges;
-- Three shareholders from private law firms;
-- One Chief Administrative Law judge (and former Tax Court judge); and
-- One chief public defender.
Hennepin County Chief Public Defender Lenny Castro (on right) probably has the greatest name recognition of everyone on the list due to the fact that he has a high-visibility job. He is also a really nice guy who would make an excellent choice.
But I really can't complain about any of the finalists. All of them have a lot of great experience that would add something to the mix. It looks like yet another job well-done by a Minnesota gubernatorial commission charged with vetting judicial applicants.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Judge Forsberg dies at age 80
Our condolences to the family and friends of Judge Thomas Forsberg, who died Sunday at the age of 80. Forsberg was one of the earliest Court of Appeals judges, joining the court in 1984. He retired in 1995 but continued to serve the court under the rule allowing retired judges to handle cases by appointment. A complete obituary is available by clicking here.
In recent years, Forsberg wrote several Court of Appeals opinions of particular interest to attorneys, including the following:
In recent years, Forsberg wrote several Court of Appeals opinions of particular interest to attorneys, including the following:
- a 2003 decision holding that the billing records of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in the tobacco litigation were not protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege;
- a 2004 decision finding that an assignment of proceeds from a lawsuit was champertous; and
- a 2005 decision allowing the former Cottonwood County attorney to sue the county for defamation following an investigation into allegations made by employees.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Fighting like Petersons and Johnsons
As if it was not enough to have three “Justice Andersons” serving on the Minnesota Supreme Court (Russell, Paul and G. Barry, in case you’ve lost count), I recently uncovered more evidence that a severe shortage of surnames continues to plague the state.
Flipping through the handful of published Court of Appeals opinions last week, I happened to come across an interesting decision on negligent hiring. When I pulled up the case to take a second look, I was surprised to find that the court opinion in front of me involved a homeowner’s suit against a builder over construction defects, not negligent hiring.
After a few moments of frustration, I was able to clear up the basis of my confusion. The negligent-hiring case was named Johnson v. Peterson, while the homeowners’ case was named Peterson v. Johnson. They were two completely different cases for which the Court of Appeals issued published decisions simultaneously.
Lest you think I extrapolate too far in arguing that this demonstrates Minnesota is last-name deprived, the Court of Appeals this week also issued a published opinion on the assumption-of-the risk doctrine. The name of that decision? Peterson v. Donahue. I assume Johnson took the day off.
Flipping through the handful of published Court of Appeals opinions last week, I happened to come across an interesting decision on negligent hiring. When I pulled up the case to take a second look, I was surprised to find that the court opinion in front of me involved a homeowner’s suit against a builder over construction defects, not negligent hiring.
After a few moments of frustration, I was able to clear up the basis of my confusion. The negligent-hiring case was named Johnson v. Peterson, while the homeowners’ case was named Peterson v. Johnson. They were two completely different cases for which the Court of Appeals issued published decisions simultaneously.
Lest you think I extrapolate too far in arguing that this demonstrates Minnesota is last-name deprived, the Court of Appeals this week also issued a published opinion on the assumption-of-the risk doctrine. The name of that decision? Peterson v. Donahue. I assume Johnson took the day off.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Negligent hiring claim KO'd
Can an insurance company be held liable for negligently hiring an agent who allegedly used her position to bilk a vulnerable adult out of $104,000?
No, the Court of Appeals answered today in Johnson v. Peterson, et al. (The appellate court upheld dismissals of claims for negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision.)
The agent allegedly convinced the vulnerable man to give her the money to be used for medical emergencies faced by her and her family and because of her "dire financial situation."
In upholding the dismissal of the negligent hiring claim, the court found an employer cannot be liable on such a claim in the absence of evidence it was foreseeable an employee would pose a threat of physical injury at the time of hiring, or the employee inflicted a physical injury.
"The complaint only alleges emotional distress that may have caused heart problems and anxiety disorders," wrote Judge Christopher Dietzen. "But emotional distress is not a physical injury."
No, the Court of Appeals answered today in Johnson v. Peterson, et al. (The appellate court upheld dismissals of claims for negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision.)
The agent allegedly convinced the vulnerable man to give her the money to be used for medical emergencies faced by her and her family and because of her "dire financial situation."
In upholding the dismissal of the negligent hiring claim, the court found an employer cannot be liable on such a claim in the absence of evidence it was foreseeable an employee would pose a threat of physical injury at the time of hiring, or the employee inflicted a physical injury.
"The complaint only alleges emotional distress that may have caused heart problems and anxiety disorders," wrote Judge Christopher Dietzen. "But emotional distress is not a physical injury."
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Worker entitled to benefits despite outburst
Call it the “take this job and shove it” defense. In March 2006, when a worker at Brooklyn Center Motors was told by his lot supervisor that the sales supervisor wanted him to pick up litter around the lot, he responded with a very specific (and anatomically challenging) request of his own. The worker, Douglas Williams, was fired for insubordination, and his subsequent claim for unemployment insurance benefits was rejected by the state.
Fifteen months later, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel overturned the decision by Unemployment Insurance Minnesota (UIMN), the state organization that dictates who gets such benefits. The court ruled that because the outburst “constituted a single incident” and didn’t have “a significant adverse impact on the employer,” Williams should receive a relatively rare reversal of a UIMN decision.
We’ve all been tempted to fly off the handle at work, but most of us manage to hold our tongues when we’re stressed out or get what seems like an unreasonable order. So on one hand, it’s a little distressing to see someone get rewarded for losing his temper. On the other hand, it’s hard not to cheer at least a little for someone who told off the boss and got away with it.
Williams is now employed as a courier. If I were his boss, it would be tempting to send him on a frantic cross-metro rush-hour delivery run, just to see how he’d react.
Fifteen months later, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel overturned the decision by Unemployment Insurance Minnesota (UIMN), the state organization that dictates who gets such benefits. The court ruled that because the outburst “constituted a single incident” and didn’t have “a significant adverse impact on the employer,” Williams should receive a relatively rare reversal of a UIMN decision.
We’ve all been tempted to fly off the handle at work, but most of us manage to hold our tongues when we’re stressed out or get what seems like an unreasonable order. So on one hand, it’s a little distressing to see someone get rewarded for losing his temper. On the other hand, it’s hard not to cheer at least a little for someone who told off the boss and got away with it.
Williams is now employed as a courier. If I were his boss, it would be tempting to send him on a frantic cross-metro rush-hour delivery run, just to see how he’d react.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Assault on separate is not equal?
The Court of Appeals recently added another chapter to the continuing saga of race-based differentials in the law. In this case, the court called it the line drawn a political differential and, as Robert Frost might have said, "that has made all the difference."
Greene v. Commissioner of the Department of Human Services involves a challenge brought by member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe who wants to receive employment services from Aitkin County. Under an agreement between the tribe and the county, tribe members are to receive employment services from the tribe in lieu of receiving such services from the county, even though the tribe member would otherwise be entitled to the county services. The plaintiff argued that forcing her to trade county employment services for tribal ones constituted a violation of her equal-protection rights.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, applying a rational basis standard and following the U.S. Supreme Court case of Morton v. Mancari, which said that preferences for American Indians are not racial but political when the preferences apply to members of federally recognized tribes.
Judge Gary Crippen wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Bruce Willis. Judge R.A. "Jim" Randall dissented. I always enjoy reading Randall's dissents, often written in high dudgeon, and this one is no exception.
"The goal of helping tribes help their members cannot subvert the rights of a Minnesota citizen to pass up a race-based preference and simply deal with their county ... on the basis of 'I'm an independent human being and a resident and this service is open to me,'" Randall writes.
The judge then plays his ace: "[The defendants] ... never mention and never come near Brown v. Bd. of Educ. ... You see, what we have here are [defendants] pushing for 'separate but equal' treatment for enrolled members of MCT, and the majority reiterating 'separate but "equal"' under the guise of 'helping' tribes help their members. ... [The defendants'] hydra-headed assault on the doctrine that separate but equal is inherently unconstitutional has to be recognized."
Greene v. Commissioner of the Department of Human Services involves a challenge brought by member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe who wants to receive employment services from Aitkin County. Under an agreement between the tribe and the county, tribe members are to receive employment services from the tribe in lieu of receiving such services from the county, even though the tribe member would otherwise be entitled to the county services. The plaintiff argued that forcing her to trade county employment services for tribal ones constituted a violation of her equal-protection rights.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, applying a rational basis standard and following the U.S. Supreme Court case of Morton v. Mancari, which said that preferences for American Indians are not racial but political when the preferences apply to members of federally recognized tribes.
Judge Gary Crippen wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Bruce Willis. Judge R.A. "Jim" Randall dissented. I always enjoy reading Randall's dissents, often written in high dudgeon, and this one is no exception.
"The goal of helping tribes help their members cannot subvert the rights of a Minnesota citizen to pass up a race-based preference and simply deal with their county ... on the basis of 'I'm an independent human being and a resident and this service is open to me,'" Randall writes.
The judge then plays his ace: "[The defendants] ... never mention and never come near Brown v. Bd. of Educ. ... You see, what we have here are [defendants] pushing for 'separate but equal' treatment for enrolled members of MCT, and the majority reiterating 'separate but "equal"' under the guise of 'helping' tribes help their members. ... [The defendants'] hydra-headed assault on the doctrine that separate but equal is inherently unconstitutional has to be recognized."
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Court's power to order funding unresolved
The Minnesota Legislature passed its budget bills before adjourning but they still could be vetoed by the governor. If the courts have to intervene in order to keep the state operating, the purview of their power isn't clear under State ex rel. Sviggum v. Hanson, issued by the Court of Appeals today.
At least that's the opinion of the attorney for the appellants in the case, Erick Kaardal, who represented a group of legislators in a quo warranto proceeding that the court found nonjusticiable.
The state legislators had claimed that the Commissioner of Finance had violated the Constitution and statutes by disbursing funds during the 2005 partial government shutdown without a legislative appropriation. The state legislators challenged the Ramsey County District Court's actions in the context of the 2005 partial government shutdown to order the Commissioner of Finance to disburse funds without a legislative appropriation. The state legislators alleged such action was unconstitutional and violative of statutes, explained Kaardal in a press release.
The Court of Appeals left unresolved the critical issue of whether the Ramsey County District Court in the future can order the Commissioner of Finance to disburse funds without a legislative appropriation in the next partial government shutdown, said Kaardal.
"Now, the Governor, the state legislature, the courts and the public are left to wonder whether the Minnesota Constitution will be applied in the next partial government shutdown situation," Kaardal said.
At least that's the opinion of the attorney for the appellants in the case, Erick Kaardal, who represented a group of legislators in a quo warranto proceeding that the court found nonjusticiable.
The state legislators had claimed that the Commissioner of Finance had violated the Constitution and statutes by disbursing funds during the 2005 partial government shutdown without a legislative appropriation. The state legislators challenged the Ramsey County District Court's actions in the context of the 2005 partial government shutdown to order the Commissioner of Finance to disburse funds without a legislative appropriation. The state legislators alleged such action was unconstitutional and violative of statutes, explained Kaardal in a press release.
The Court of Appeals left unresolved the critical issue of whether the Ramsey County District Court in the future can order the Commissioner of Finance to disburse funds without a legislative appropriation in the next partial government shutdown, said Kaardal.
"Now, the Governor, the state legislature, the courts and the public are left to wonder whether the Minnesota Constitution will be applied in the next partial government shutdown situation," Kaardal said.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Judge Randall bares his mind
Court of Appeals Judge R.A. “Jim” Randall vented his frustration with the Minneapolis Police Department in a 16-page dissent in a case released earlier this week, State v. Thoreson.
The defendant had been convicted of misdemeanor prostitution after a Hennepin County District Court judge refused to dismiss the case on the ground that police misconduct violated the defendant’s due process rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Randall disapproved of the police officer’s investigative techniques, which included inducing the woman to disrobe completely in the front seat of his unmarked squad car.
Randall thought the woman didn’t commit a crime by taking her clothes off without accepting money for sex. He called the police conduct “somewhat egregious.” Arrest her, if you must, but do not “make sport” with her, said the judge.
Randall is no stranger to a well-turned phrase as the following excerpt from his dissent illustrates:
“Respondent argues that asking a strange woman to take off all her clothes and go naked in front of a strange man is a ‘legitimate’ police tactic. Respondent argues this is so because ‘good girls won’t do that but bad girls will.’ Looking back, at my age, perhaps I did miss part of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Maybe there never was a senior prom where, after the midnight close of the official school gym dance, the party continued until the wee hours of the morning at some neighboring park by a lake where drinking and swimming, bathing suits optional, were varsity sports du jour. Maybe nobody was ever 19, went to college, went to fraternity and sorority parties, and in a large group both male and coed, ceremoniously ‘mooned’ their school’s arch rival football team as it drove into the parking lot or, for that matter, tried to moon their arch rival’s entire student body until the college president sent security in. Funny how the memory is affected. Funny how life imitates art.”
Hmm ... It’s good to get the naked truth from a judge.
The defendant had been convicted of misdemeanor prostitution after a Hennepin County District Court judge refused to dismiss the case on the ground that police misconduct violated the defendant’s due process rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Randall disapproved of the police officer’s investigative techniques, which included inducing the woman to disrobe completely in the front seat of his unmarked squad car.
Randall thought the woman didn’t commit a crime by taking her clothes off without accepting money for sex. He called the police conduct “somewhat egregious.” Arrest her, if you must, but do not “make sport” with her, said the judge.
Randall is no stranger to a well-turned phrase as the following excerpt from his dissent illustrates:
“Respondent argues that asking a strange woman to take off all her clothes and go naked in front of a strange man is a ‘legitimate’ police tactic. Respondent argues this is so because ‘good girls won’t do that but bad girls will.’ Looking back, at my age, perhaps I did miss part of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Maybe there never was a senior prom where, after the midnight close of the official school gym dance, the party continued until the wee hours of the morning at some neighboring park by a lake where drinking and swimming, bathing suits optional, were varsity sports du jour. Maybe nobody was ever 19, went to college, went to fraternity and sorority parties, and in a large group both male and coed, ceremoniously ‘mooned’ their school’s arch rival football team as it drove into the parking lot or, for that matter, tried to moon their arch rival’s entire student body until the college president sent security in. Funny how the memory is affected. Funny how life imitates art.”
Hmm ... It’s good to get the naked truth from a judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
