Federal Friday

Lots happening on this Friday in the SDFLA -- all of the federal practitioners and judges were in West Palm Beach at the Federal Bench and Bar Conference, with one exception.  Congrats to Adam Rabin for putting together a really nice event and to Judge Jordan for his remarks during the lunch hour. 

The one exception is that the Federal JNC members weren't there as they were interviewing the applicants for the Ft. Pierce open seat.  As soon as I hear who made the cut, I will post.  Tipsters, please email me and I will keep it confidential as always.

Judge Ungaro rules drug testing of state employees unconstitutional

The well-written 37-page order is here. 

From the Palm Beach Post:

Miami U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro Thursday morning ruling that random, suspicionless testing of some 85,000 workers violates the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures also raises doubts about a new state law quietly signed by Scott this spring allowing the governor’s agency heads to require urine tests of new and existing workers.
“To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing,” Ungaro wrote in her order issued this morning, citing previous U.S. Supreme Court orders which decided that urine tests are considered government searches.
Scott issued an executive order requiring random drug testing of new hires and all state workers after he took office last year. But he suspended the tests in June after labor unions and the ACLU challenged the order, objecting that the tests are a violation of the constitutional right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Instead, Scott limited his order for all but corrections officers pending the outcome of the Miami case.
***
Ungaro rejected Scott’s lawyers’ arguments and data showing that about 1 percent of workers at certain agencies who underwent the drug screens tested positive. And she was not persuaded by the governor’s arguments that private sector drug testing shows widespread drug use among workers. She also did not agree that prospective or current state workers could seek employment elsewhere if they object to the tests. New hires, but not current state workers switching jobs, could be required to take the tests, Ungaro ruled.
“All of the upheld drug-testing policies were tailored to address a specific, serious problem. In contrast, the rationale for the Governor’s policy consists of broad prognostications concerning taxpayer savings, improved public service, and reductions in health and safety risks that result from a drug-free workplace,” Ungaro wrote.

Congrats to the ACLU on a great victory.  The governor said he will appeal.

TD Bank admits to false statement; changes lawyers (UPDATED)

UPDATE -- Although the SFBJ says that TD Bank acknowledged making a "false statement," that is an overstatement.  The pleading that Greenberg Traurig filed says that it found a document that it previously said did not exist.  It did not say that it or the bank did anything intentionally.  Judge Cooke set a hearing to next month to show cause as to what should occur based on this "incorrect statement."  Above The Law has written a story covering the lawyer who supposedly made the statements and explains that she is no longer with Greenberg.  As for the trial lawyers on the case (on both sides), I can say that they are good and ethical lawyers. 

Wow, this is a big deal.  From South Florida Business Journal:

TD Bank has acknowledged that it made a false statement to a federal judge about evidence in a lawsuit related to the Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, according to a notice filed on Tuesday in federal court in Miami.
The bank has also announced that a new law firm will be handling the case, which is on appeal.
***
TD Bank lost a $67 million jury verdict in January to investors who were bilked by Rothstein. The verdict in Coquina Investments vs. TD Bank is considered to be one of the first ever to hold a bank accountable for aiding and abetting fraud by one of its customers.
Since the verdict, Coquina has filed a previous motion to penalize the bank further for allegedly tampering with another document called a Customer Due Diligence form. The latest controversy over the Standard Investigative Protocol has resulted in U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke setting a hearing to determine why the bank shouldn’t be held in contempt of court.
***
In court motions, TD Bank said it had replaced Greenberg Traurig with two new law firms, McGuireWoods and Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman. The bank is facing several additional lawsuits related to the Rothstein case, including one by investor Emess Capital. The bank also dropped Greenberg in the Emess case, but Greenberg continues to represent TD Bank in other cases, Acevedo said Wednesday.
***
TD Bank’s new counsel, including Marcos Daniel Jimenez of Kasowitz Benson in Miami, filed an emergency motion to stay the contempt hearing until the firm can study the case further. In that motion, Kasowitz Benson warned that a conflict of interest may exist among TD Bank employees, the bank and Greenberg Traurig regarding the production of documents in the case.

High profile Broward defendants lose in 11th Circuit...

...in unpublished decisions.

The first is USA v. Fitzroy Salesman:

Defendant Fitzroy Salesman, a former city commissioner in Florida, appeals his convictions and 51-month total sentence for two counts of accepting bribes in programs receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), and two counts of attempted extortion under color of official right, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. After review and oral argument, we affirm.

The second is USA v. Alan Mendelsohn:

Alan D. Mendelsohn appeals his forty-eight-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, file false tax returns, and make false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On appeal, Mendelsohn argues that the district court erroneously applied two separate sentence enhancements and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

***

We find no merit in this contention because the charges in the information, the pre-sentence investigation report, and the factual basis for Mendelsohn’s plea all provided Mendelsohn with notice by referring to the harm caused to Florida’s political institutions by his misuse of political action committees and his payments to the Florida legislator.

Monday morning...

I wish I had something exciting to post this morning, but it's pretty quiet.

The Justice Building Blog has been doing an excellent job covering all of the election action, including Rod Vereen's decision to run against Kathy Fernandez-Rundle.  Thank goodness that the public defender, Carlos Martinez, is unopposed.  Carlos deserves it, and he is a good guy.  It's incredible to me that we elect the public defender -- can you imagine a contested election.  What would you run on?  That you fight for indigent defendants more than the other guy.  Not sure that would help...

The John Edwards trial is starting today, and opening statements are due in Clemens this morning. Two pretty wasteful prosecutions if you ask me.

George Will has a good op-ed about why juveniles should never be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole here:

In 1958, the court said: “The [Eighth] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Justice Antonin Scalia has warned: “A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that ‘evolving standards of decency’ always ‘mark progress,’ and that societies always ‘mature,’ as opposed to rot.” But even the “originalist” Scalia, although disposed to construe the Constitution’s terms as they were understood when ratified, would today proscribe some late-18th-century punishments, such as public lashing and branding.
Denying juveniles even a chance for parole defeats the penal objective of rehabilitation. It deprives prisoners of the incentive to reform themselves. Some prisons withhold education, counseling and other rehabilitation programs from prisoners ineligible for parole. Denying these to adolescents in a period of life crucial to social and psychological growth stunts what the court in 2005 called the prisoner’s “potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity.” Which seems, in a word — actually, three words — “cruel and unusual.”

 
ATL covers the most influential lawyers (according to Time) here, and the Washington Post explains that lawyers are pretty careful in the Supreme Court when arguing legislative intent.  That's all I have for now.  Email me some tips!