Comments on: Attorney General Candidate Ignores Basic Principles of Justice

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:32:59 +0000

He prosecutes anyone to ticks him off. That’s not what we need in an Attorney General.

By: richie.rashad

richie.rashad — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:36:50 +0000

Ken Hodges defends the innocent and prosecutes the guilty. Ken is a friend of the black community in South Georgia. Bob Teilet is a politician who has no concept of the law and no experience in court.

By: Donna

Donna — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:57:25 +0000

From my post….too late to be typing.

BTW, I liked your article on the SOTU speech. All a bunch of nonsense, never accomplishing anything substantial.

By: Donna

Donna — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:56:07 +0000

The link worked for me, from your post!

This is the title of the story
“AG candidate in federal court — as the defendant’

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:39:53 +0000

Donna, That link didn’t work and I couldn’t find what you were referring to. What happened?

By: Donna

Donna — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:05:20 +0000

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/ag-candidate-in-federal-285004.html

Was surprised we didn’t have a story up about this.

By: Ready for the Defense

Ready for the Defense — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:11:00 +0000

I enjoy your blog, because I also consider myself to be a Libertarian. As a criminal defense attorney who regularly litigates Fouth Amendment issues, I think that the second paragraph of this post should be addressed.

A person may only be arrested if the police have obtained a valid warrant or if there is probable cause to support a warrantless arrest. If DNA is obtained by the police under circumstances where there’s neither a warrant or PC (as you have indicated), the DNA sample and any evidence obtained as a derivative of the DNA sample would be subject to suppression as unlawfully-obtained evidence or derivative evidence (sometimes referred to as “the fruit of the poisonous tree”).

Therefore, I don’t think that requiring an arrestee to provide DNA is offensive to our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties provided that the collection method is minimally intrusive. To say otherwise would be like saying that police cannot fingerprint an arrestee.

By: Tim Rogers

Tim Rogers — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:20:53 +0000

Typical politician. All of these guys are much more interested in ruling us than in serving us. But, this kind is especially dangerous. Thanks for keeping us informed.