Search of Cell Phones by Police

Yet another big issue in the news right now is whether or not police have the right to search a persons’ cell phone without a warrant when they arrest someone. This addresses our Fourth Amendment right as US citizens as provided in the Constitution. For those not familiar, the Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and states there must be probable cause. This means police must have a warrant to search a person’s house (or even to enter the house to arrest a person), warrants are needed to search specific places or objects, such as a vehicle or computer, and often this must be separate from the warrant to enter the house.

Cell phones these days are primarily “smart” phones, meaning they are not just a phone, but a source of photographs, messages, emails, and web access. A person may also use their computer for these same purposes. If a warrant is needed to search someone’s computer, why would one not be needed to search their cell phone? Well, that is because as it stands currently, anything in the possession of a person at the time of their arrest can be searched. This forty-yearprecedent means the arresting officers can search pockets, wallets, and, now, cell phones on a person at the time of arrest.

The US Supreme Court is currently addressing this case. The justices hold conflicting views at this time. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor has been reported to have said, part of the discussion includes photographs and wallets and cell phones hold a great difference in the number of photographs. A person cannot put 2,000 photographs in their wallet, but their cell phone can hold that many. This means that which is in a cell phone could likely be more incriminating than that which would be in a wallet. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg basically says it is a slippery slope to allow the search of a cell phone without a warrant, as police could choose to search cell phones when they arrest someone on a small violation, such as a traffic violation, when it doesn’t make sense to search it.

My stance on this issue is that cell phones should not be allowed to be searched without a warrant as they now are closer to computers than phones. I mean, let’s be honest, most people I know use their phone’s smart features more than they do as a telephone. This is why cell phone companies are now offering unlimited talk and text but charging outrageous amounts for data. That is where primary cell phone usage is. I agree with Justice Ginsberg that allowing warrantless searches is a slippery slope. If I get stopped for speeding, for instance, a police officer has no right to search my cell phone. Some police officers can be very shady, it is these officers we need protected against. 

A few articles/links about this:

• http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/55067307/#55067307
• http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/supreme-court-justices-struggle-with-issue-of-cell-phone-searches/
• 
  

The "Botched" Execution

Early this morning, it became major news that an inmate up for execution in Oklahoma experienced a "botched" execution. He died of a heart attack. Since he died, was it really botched? Things didn't go as planned, but, in the end, they actually did. 

The inmate in this story was Clayton Lockett. Why was he on death row? Back in June of 1999, Lockett and two other men were involved in a bit of a crime spree. He raped one 19-year-old female, killed another 19-year-old female, and kidnapped a 9-month-old child, the two females, and a male. According to Amarillo Globe News: "In addition to the murder charge, Lockett was found guilty of conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force or fear. The charges were after former convictions of two or more felonies, according to the court clerk's office." Due to all these convictions, he was sentenced to death by lethal injection. Seems reasonable if you believe in the death penalty. Several arguments can be made for or against this, that is not really the point of this post.

What has been reported as going wrong was that Mr. Lockett's vein into which the drugs were being administered blew during the procedure. What shame!! Right? Wrong. Maybe I should note here that I am a registered nurse, in hematology and oncology no less. In my career, I have started several IVs and done several lab draws - too many to count of either, really. During this time, I have also blown several veins. It happens. Do you know what contributes to this? Intravenous drug usage (legal or illegal), age, ethnicity, gender and sometimes pure luck - some people just naturally have fragile or small veins. Mr. Lockett was 38, so age, in his case, was not really a factor. He is a male, which again, makes it not a factor. (Women are more likely to have fragile or small veins.) He is African-American, which does factor against him. I can't say whether or not intravenous drug usage contributed to him possibly having fragile veins. It could have been luck (or bad luck). Veins blow. We can't hold that against the person who started the IV or the state/person performing the execution. Maybe the person/people performing the execution should have responded more appropriately when the first drug didn't take effect as expected. When they realized the IV blew, they should have started a new one. That is not inhumane. If it were, those who work in oncology or geriatrics are inhumane, because those patients frequently get more than one IV or need stuck more than once to get an IV. (Full disclosure: When I was hospitalized twice recently, I was stuck probably 50 times over the course of two weeks because it was that hard to get a good IV or lab draw on me. I never once got angry with the nurses/lab techs. Instead, I encouraged them to keep trying - they were just doing their job, it wasn't their fault I was edematous, dehydrated, and ill.)

Lethal injection in America is not something new. What is new is the drug of choice. Since 2010, the European Union has banned the US from receiving sodium thiopental (ST). ST was previously the drug of choice either as the only drug for execution or the first in the two- or three-drug cocktail. It was banned due to the realization that it was only being used in the US for executions, which the EU does not believe in (according to several articles). Since then, ST has been replaced by one of three drugs - pentobarbital, propofol (aka the drug that killed Michael Jackson), or midazolam (Versed). If administered by itself, a fatal dose is administered. If administered as part of a cocktail, a smaller dose is given, with the intent to sedate the person. In a two-drug cocktail, midazolam is administered and then hydromorphone (dilaudid, an opiate). In three-drug cocktails, following the administration of the sedative, a paralytic (pancuronium bromide) is then administered, and finally a lethal dose of potassium chloride to stop the heart. 

For Mr. Lockett, the state of Oklahoma used the three-drug cocktail. This means they intended to cause a fatal heart attack. Why, then, is it being called botched? Those not in-the-know should also realize that some people have a tolerance to drugs. Often, this is due to similar drug usage, but it can be a natural tolerance - the body processes drugs slower and therefore responds to it more slowly. Was this the case of Mr. Lockett? I can't say, but it is a possibility. We must remember the heinous crimes one must be convicted of in order to be sentenced to death. Is it not fair to their families that these people have to suffer some during their death? Life isn't fair, but we should keep these facts in mind. 

Many argue that lethal injection, or the death penalty in general, can and should be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", something we are protected against as citizens of the United States. Have your own opinion on this. I don't feel like getting into that. 

Here are several articles about Mr. Lockett and lethal injection.

• http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/58333/botched-execution-why-us-has-turned-untried-drugs
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/clayton-lockett-oklahoma-execution-witness
• http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/death-looms-for-clayton-lockett-years-after-killing-oklahoma-teen/article_e459564b-5c60-5145-a1ce-bbd17a14417b.html
• http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/clayton-lockett-lethal-injection-witness-3478158
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-lethal-injection
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/lethal-injection-moratorium-executions-ends-after-supreme-court-decision
• http://gawker.com/a-brief-history-of-botched-executions-in-america-1569812432?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Donald Sterling

Something that has been in the news a lot this week is the recordings released by someone which have been determined to be Donald Sterling sharing his views on black people. This has sparked quite a debate - first on what should happen as a result of this release, then on whether the sanctions were fair and just. I have a lot of thoughts on this topic.

First let's discuss the recordings. They were recorded and released illegally - that is, without his prior knowledge. Whoever did release them, if it is proven, will surely face some sort of legal action from Sterling, especially since he is known as a big litigator. That being said, the words on that recording just further support his views on other races, particularly blacks. Sterling (and his wife, for that matter) have had several suits against them for racism in the rental properties they own - suits have alleged that they don't want blacks or latinos living in their facilities, one suit also stated that they didn't want children or anyone who would be hanging out front or playing in the hallways to be living in their properties, as this is not the image they want portrayed. (That all according to this article.)

Next, let me please address the fact that this man has a wife (now, allegedly "estranged wife", according to several news articles) and has had several girlfriends. If we are to judge this man on his racism, why are we not also supposed to pass judgement on his adultery? Is adultery not one of the cardinal sins? I have great issue with people who think it is so wrong that a man share his honest feelings about blacks to his black girlfriend, but don't think it's wrong that he is sharing this with his girlfriend. The Sterlings have been married since 1955 (yes, folks, that's 58+ years). Mr. Sterling has not only had this recent girlfriend who has made headlines, but made headlines with another mistress approximately 11 years ago when he sued for housing he had gifted to this mistress but wanted back when their relationship ended. For the record, many reports state that Mrs. Sterling is currently attempting to get the recent girlfriend (V. Stiviano) to give back several lavish gifts Mr. Sterling gave her during their relationship, including cars and a residence. Surely Mrs. Sterling hasn't been blind to all of this adultery, so it is interesting that she is just now choosing to separate from him.

Something else I would like to address is the fact that Donald Sterling is 80 years old. He was born in 1934, which means he grew up during extremely racist times. It should also be of note that he is Jewish and grew up in a time when Jews were condemned by others, so some might believe that he would have some compassion. While I, a white, Christian female born in the 1980s, believe that equality applies to race, those who were born prior to affirmative action often don't hold these views. It doesn't mean their views are right (or wrong), but it should be understood. That being said, Sterling owns an NBA team which counts only one white American player. The Clippers also have one player from Turkey and twelve players who are at least partial African-American. Yes, friends, out of fourteen players, not one is like Mr. Sterling, but one is close (mid-western & white). Seems kind of crazy to me that he would be so racist yet make so much money off of those he is racist against. Right?

The last thing I would like to address is not directly about Donald Sterling. Instead it is about professional sports in general. I fully support (based on what I know at this time) what Adam Silver did to punish Mr. Sterling - banning him from life from association with the NBA and fining him $2.5 million (the max allowed per the NBA constitution). However, I wish Mr. Silver and all professional sports commissioners would hold players, owners, and coaches responsible for their actions. These men and women are paid highly to perform a job in the public eye, which many people, especially children, look to as heroes or someone to aspire to be like. These people are also usually at least in part paid by taxpayers - usually because their facilities are built with and kept running by tax money and owners and therefore players & coaches make money off of these facilities. So many professional athletes, coaches, and owners are arrested for activities which would put those without money in jail, yet they often are not punished at all or not very hard. If these people had a system of the old "three strikes, you're out", maybe they wouldn't be so apt to screw up. Instead, the more money a person puts in others' pockets, the less likely they are to be harshly punished.

Did Mr. Sterling do wrong? Yes. Was he appropriately sanctioned by the NBA? Probably. Was it fair? No, because others haven't been held to the same standards.


Lastly: Here is a great article by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar for Time magazine.