Chief Justice raises Ferris Bueller (incorrectly)

Well, the good news is that the Chief Justice of the United States made a Ferris Bueller reference during oral argument. The bad news is that he got it wrong!

The oral argument was in Collins v. Virginia, addressing the question of whether the Fourth Amendment’s “automobile exception” permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Roberts question was about the mobility of cars:

“I mean, if you have an automobile in the house, which is not, you know, Jay Leno’s house, right, where he’s got dozens of rare cars, or the Porsche in ‘Ferris Bueller,’ he says. “Are you saying that you … can just go in because they got it in there somehow and they can get it out?”

 Awesome stuff!  Except it wasn't a Porsche!! It was a Ferrari...

This shows the power of amicus briefs, which raised the Bueller hypo and even used a picture:

How much should a cop have to pay for illegally spying on you?

How much should a cop have to pay for illegally spying on you?

Yesterday, a jury said $15,000. Here’s Paula McMahon:

A South Florida police officer owes $15,000 in damages to a Broward County couple she illegally snooped on 167 times in two years, jurors decided Tuesday.

Pembroke Pines Police Officer Melodie Carpio admitted she broke the law and used her job to look up information about the couple — her boyfriend’s ex-wife and her new husband — on confidential law enforcement databases.

Carpio, a 41-year-old patrol officer, is personally liable to pay the civil judgment to Cindy Thibault and Claude Letourneau. She will also owe significantly more in legal fees to the attorneys for the victims and her defense.

The couple smiled and looked relieved when jurors announced their verdict after a one-day trial in federal court in Miami. They declined to comment.

AG Sessions names Ben Greenberg U.S. Attorney (interim)

AG Sessions has named Ben Greenberg interim U.S. Attorney. Greenberg has been serving as acting U.S. Attorney since Willie Ferrer stepped down. The Vacancies Reform Act allowed Greenberg to serve as Acting USA for a period of 300 days, which ended on December 28. Once that period ended, the AG had the statutory authority to name an interim USA for a period of 120 days (although it’s "interim", unlike the term "acting", that word is not part of the title). After this 120 day period, if there is no nominee, the AG will ask the court to appoint someone, which is usually the same person he appointed as interim USA but doesn't have to be. Greenberg is also up for district judge and if he gets it, there will be a different acting U.S. Attorney.

Here’s the press release from December 28:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Benjamin G. Greenberg as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida on December 29, 2017. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Greenberg served as the Acting United States Attorney beginning in March 2017 and has been the First Assistant United States Attorney since 2010. He previously held a number of leadership positions in the Office, including serving as the first Chief of the newly created Special Prosecutions Section, where he oversaw the Office’s efforts to combat violent crime, child exploitation, and human trafficking. In 2009, Mr. Greenberg became Chief of the Narcotics Section. In that capacity, he supervised the prosecution of international and domestic narcotics and money laundering cases, as well as violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.

Mr. Greenberg joined the United States Attorney’s Office in 2000 and has handled a wide variety of complex, challenging, and high-profile white collar, violent crime, narcotics, and organized crime cases. He was the lead prosecutor in a series of significant cases against various Israeli organized crime figures extradited to the United States. In recognition of these efforts, Mr. Greenberg received a national award from the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. Mr. Greenberg was also part of the trial team that prosecuted the President and Chief Executive Officer of a well-known financial institution for securities and bank fraud arising from a complex international accounting fraud scheme. The Daily Business Review recognized Mr. Greenberg as one of the community’s most effective lawyers for his work on this case.

Mr. Greenberg served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jon Phipps McCalla in Memphis, Tennessee after graduating from the Georgetown University Law Center. Prior to law school, Mr. Greenberg received a fellowship from the Rotary Foundation to study in Jerusalem, Israel after graduating with honors from the University of Pennsylvania.

Judge Scola rules that some of the Mickey Munday 404(b) material will come in (UPDATED — but prosecution not permitted to reference movie Cocaine Cowboys).

UPDATE — NBC6 also covers the ruling here:

A federal judge Friday gave prosecutors an opportunity to use some of a former cocaine smuggler’s words against him in a new mail fraud conspiracy case – but they must avoid using at least one phrase in front of the jury: cocaine cowboy.
In a series of pretrial rulings, US District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. said the government could try to introduce some of the comments Michael “Mickey” Munday made after his 1999 release from prison about his long-ago days as a pilot and smuggler during South Florida’s cocaine cowboy era – but “without bringing out ‘cocaine cowboys.’”
***“The judge allowed, for example, a 28-second clip from Rakontur Films’2006 documentary “Cocaine Cowboys,” in which Munday talks about using tow trucks as a cover to avoid law enforcement – but, the judge added, the government “does not have to tell the jury this is from the movie ‘Cocaine Cowboys.’ …. We can sanitize out ‘Cocaine Cowboys.’””

Sorry Billy & Alfred.

Original post — Judge Scola has ruled that some of the Mickey Munday 404(b) material will come in (background here). From the Herald (which picked up the story after the blog broke it):

If they’re picked for the jury in a new federal case against Munday, they can see some of that in trial, too — but prosecutors won’t get to shine a spotlight on the Cocaine Cowboys documentary that turned the ex-pilot from Miami into a media celebrity.
That would be too prejudicial, U.S. Judge Robert Scola ruled on Friday, noting that Munday isn’t facing drug charges this time around. Prosecutors have charged him in connection with an insurance fraud ring involving stolen cars.
“I’m trying to minimize the term Cocaine Cowboy being used,” Scola said, acknowledging later: “He’s in a more unique situation than most defendants with a criminal past.”
But the judge did approve a request from prosecutors to show Munday’s Twitter page, in which he dubs himself the “original Cocaine Cowboy,” and one short clip from the film. The reason: the fraud ring’s leader will testify that he recruited Munday specifically because of his notoriety from the 2006 documentary.

The Herald explains the movie:

But the judge did approve a request from prosecutors to show Munday’s Twitter page, in which he dubs himself the “original Cocaine Cowboy,” and one short clip from the film. The reason: the fraud ring’s leader will testify that he recruited Munday specifically because of his notoriety from the 2006 documentary.

Not sure about the Spellman part... Here’s the Plantain:

The Plantain has confirmed that Disney's Animated Studio has purchased the rights to adapt the 2006 documentary "Cocaine Cowboys" into an animated television show. The show will reportedly be geared at 5-10 year old children and feature such educational lessons as how to convert units of measurements into the metric system and the importance of not being a fucking snitch.

Cocaine Cowboys tells the bloody backstory of Miami's 1980's cocaine trade. The seminal Miami movie was created by local filmmaker Billy Corben and his partner, a fictitious individual created for tax purposes supposedly named "Alfred Spellman."

Mickey Munday Motion

Self-proclaimed Cocaine Cowboy Mickey Munday is going to trial before Judge Scola in a fraud case involving car title.  The Government wants to use all of his old Cocaine Cowboy interviews, including from the Billy Corben/Alfred Spellman movie itself, because his cocaine exploits as well as the current case involve “transportation.”  The feds also want to use his Twitter feed, news interviews, and so on.  The whole motion is below, but here is an excerpt about Cocaine Cowboys:

 In 2006, the Defendant starred in the documentary film “Cocaine Cowboys.”  The documentary focuses on the importation and trade of drugs in Miami in the 1970s and 1980s.  The Defendant brags about his ability to smuggle drugs and his proficient evasion of law enforcement.  For instance, the Defendant discusses his use of code words, such as “coming in the front door” or “children in the water,” to evade law enforcement.  The Defendant also states that he would move contraband through the use of a tow truck, a trailer, and a work order.  Further, there is video of the Defendant loading a car onto a trailer.  At trial, the Government intends to offer the testimony of Messrs. Johnson and Carrington, who will discuss their use of code words with the Defendant as part of the conspiracy.  For instance, if a car were to come up as stolen, the Defendant and his coconspirators would refer to it as a possible “Signal Ten.”  Mr. Johnson will testify that the cars hidden at the Defendant’s house were referred to as “Orphans” and the Defendant’s house was referred to as the “Orphanage.”  Similarly, if a lienholder were attempting to locate a car, the Defendant and his conspirators would refer to the car as a “Problem Child.”   Here, just as in the video, the Defendant used a tow service company to serve as a cover for his illicit activity and allow him to transport contraband while maintaining, at least as to the Defendant, plausible deniability.  

Mickey Munday Motion by David Oscar Markus on Scribd

Mickey Munday Motion by David Oscar Markus on Scribd">

Chief Justice Roberts’ year end report

Happy new year SDFLA readers! 

Chief Justice Roberts issued this year-end report, discussing how the courts dealt with natural disasters and how they will deal with sexual harassment.  Here’s the intro:

In October 1780, while American patriots engaged the British in decisive battles for independence, a storm was brewing in the Caribbean.  The Great Hurricane of 1780—the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record— tracked a course from the Lesser Antilles to Bermuda, leaving a trail of destruction that touched both Florida and Puerto Rico.  Historians estimate that more than 20,000 people died.  The “Great Hurricane” was just one of several storms that ravaged the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico that fall.  In all, more than 28,000 perished.   Nearly two and a half centuries later, we remain vulnerable to natural catastrophes. Modern communication has enhanced our ability to learn of impending disasters, take precautions, and respond to those in need.  But today’s news cycle can also divert attention from the continuing consequences of calamities.  The torrent of information we now summon and dispense at the touch of a thumb can sweep past as quickly as the storm itself, causing us to forget the real life after-affects for those left in misfortune’s wake.

***
Court emergency preparedness is not headline news, even on a slow news day. But it is important to assure the public that the courts are doing their part to anticipate and prepare for emergency response to people in need.  

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO THE SDFLA!

Happy New Year!

While the rest of the country freezes, we are nice and cozy down here in the Southern District of Florida.  I hope everyone enjoys their family and friends during this short break.  All the best for 2018!

If you are looking for some light reading over the holiday, here's a fun article from law.com with laugh lines at the Supreme Court.  A few examples:

Noel Francisco’s wedding cake. (Masterpiece v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission)
Justice Neil Gorsuch: “In fact, I have yet to have a wedding cake that I would say tastes great.”
Solicitor General Noel Francisco:  And, Your Honor, my wedding cake, the top of it is still sitting in our freezer, and I’m sure it no longer tastes great.”

An “obscure” question from Breyer. (Wilson v. Sellers)
Breyer: “Now, that’s extreme, but you see my point. Okay? What’s the answer to my point?”
Georgia Solicitor General Sarah Warren: “Justice Breyer, I’m not sure exactly what the, what the question was.”
Breyer: “Sorry. Well, from your pleasant expression, it sounded to me as if you were understanding my obscure question.”

Party like a justice. (District of Columbia v. Wesby)
Kagan: “And when looked at from the reasonable partygoer’s view, there are these parties that, once long ago, I used to be invited to, where you didn’t know the host, but you know Joe is having a party. And can I say that long, long ago, marijuana was maybe present at those parties? And, you know, so—and you know, it just is not obvious that the reasonable partygoer is supposed to walk into this apartment and say, ‘Got to get out of here.’”

“Given the caliber of nominees I’m seeing, I’m not comfortable creating a spot that might be filled by someone consistent with the qualifications, or lack of qualifications, of some of the folks I’ve seen nominated."

“Given the caliber of nominees I’m seeing, I’m not comfortable creating a spot that might be filled by someone consistent with the qualifications, or lack of qualifications, of some of the folks I’ve seen nominated." -- Anonymous appellate judge quoted in this BuzzFeed article from yesterday.

Of course there's no issue with staying on board until there's a President you agree with, but other than the occasional outlier, this criticism seems wrong to me.  Whether or not you agree with the politics of Trump's nominees so far, the majority of them seem qualified. Speaking of which, there are still 5 openings waiting to be filled in the Southern District of Florida.  Sources tell me that all 10 JNC finalists have been interviewed by the Senators and/or the White House.  Sources also tell me that the Senators won't be narrowing the list down to 5 recommendations for President Trump (as has been done with previous administrations).  Instead, all 10 nominees will be sent to the President's desk and he will pick 5 out of those... or 5 different selections... or a combination.  No one seems to know.

There's also this bubbling fight with the ABA over Trump's judicial picks.