Podcasts about strieff

The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. Unless the government wants to unreasonably search and/or seize. In that case, the Supreme Court says "go for it babes!"If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.]5 to 4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our production manager is Percia Verlin, and our assistant producer is Arlene Arevalo. Our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

See all the Healthcast at https://www.biobalancehealth.com/healthcast-blog/ Dr. Streiff is an expert OBGYN who has been in practice for over 29 years in St. Louis. She has received specialized training in a type of hysterectomy called a robotic hysterectomy. Today she will discuss with Dr. Kathy Maupin, an anti-aging doctor who functioned for 30 years as an OBGYN in St. Louis. Both women have been in the forefront of medicine as it concerns treating women and between them have performed thousands of procedures, treatments, and hysterectomies. Dr. Maupin has recently produced a podcast discussing various types of hysterectomy, one of which is the Robotic type. Because this is not her area of expertise, Dr. Maupin reached out to her friend and colleague, Dr. Streiff, who is expert in this procedure for information to share with you. Dr. Strieff will tell us what a DaVinci or Robotic hysterectomy is and how it differs from other types of such operations. She says that the FDA authorized robotic surgeries for gynecologists and cardiac surgeons in 2005. Such surgeries require specialized instruments and special training for the physician. She will also explain that if you need a hysterectomy and are considering having it done robotically, you can find a surgeon trained in this procedure on the DaVinci website. You and your doctor might consider such a type of hysterectomy if you suffer from severe endometriosis, cancer, or uterine and bladder prolapse.   The Davinci hysterectomy, also called a robotic hysterectomy, removes the uterus with or without the tubes and ovaries through a number of very small incisions using laparoscopes and tiny instruments that are able to do delicate surgery without causing adhesions or damage to other organs. All hysterectomies are done under anesthesia; however, a normal abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy is done through an abdominal or vaginal incision. The surgeon uses her hands to clamp, cut and tie vessels, and the ligaments and tissues that connect the uterus and ovaries to the pelvis.   Robotic surgeries are much more complex, and your gynecologist must be specially trained to use special instruments and the robot to do the clamping cutting and tying. In the robotic surgery, cameras are placed in the abdomen with lights that allow the surgeon to see what they are doing. No large incisions are made.  Robotic surgery requires a lot of manual dexterity on the part of the doctor. As this type of surgery takes place, there is a team of people (nurses, several surgical assistants, the surgeon and the anesthesiologist to provide this complex surgery. All of this team and the robot maneuvers around the woman's body to achieve the proper angles to operate.  The doctor uses a console providing a three-dimensional image and operates the tiny micro tools to provide the laparoscopic robotic surgery to remove the womb and or ovaries, and sometimes to elevate the bladder and or vagina if there is prolapse. The robot is synchronized with the tiny little drivers inside the gloves that operate the robot so that the surgery can even be done at a long distance for patients in remote parts of the world. Robotic surgery isn't ideal for everyone. Robotic surgery takes longer, the patient is under anesthesia longer, and the cost is higher because of the personnel needed.  This type of surgery is ideal for patients with a lot of adhesions that block the view in normal surgery or for surgery where the bowel and or bladder are stuck to the uterus and ovaries like in endometriosis.  In order to be trained, the doctors who do robotic surgery are sent to specialized labs where the instruments (including the robot) are located and practice the surgeries on fetal pigs. This is a humane treatment of the animal, but it helps the doctor to move slowly and precisely so that when they operate on a human being, they have the skills and knowledge that is important to successfully operate on a human patient. This training is just like all medical training, a doctor learns by studying, by watching, then by helping or assisting more experienced doctors, and then, finally by doing it themselves. It is complex and requires additional medical and technologic knowledge as well as a lot of practice. Doctors are only certified after they operate on patients under the supervision of a proctor who is an expert in the field. That way, the patient is safe. You will hear these two doctors talk about the different procedures they have performed on female patients with specific health issues. It is interesting and informative, and you will learn what you need to know in order to discuss with your own doctor what your treatment needs are. After all, an informed consumer is the best consumer. This will lead to better medical outcomes for you.

Criminal law saw some game-changing cases this year that cracked down on jury bias and developed exceptions to the exclusionary rule. In this episode of The Florida Bar Podcast from the 2018 Annual Florida Bar Convention, host Karla Eckhardt talks to Denis deVlaming about a couple important US Supreme Court cases including Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado, Birchfield v. North Dakota, and Utah v. Strieff and what their outcomes mean for future criminal law cases in Florida. Denis deVlaming is a criminal defense lawyer. He is board certified in criminal law and has been approved by the Florida Bar to give continuing legal education seminars on every aspect of the criminal trial.

In re Jarrell C., 2017 IL App (1st) 170932 (December). Episode 447 (Duration 14:47) Holding your crotch is not indicative of carrying a gun; Illinois fails to apply the exclusionary rule after police discover a warrant notwithstanding Utah v. Strieff. See Utah v. Strieff Episode 185 – Thomas Guts the Exclusionary Rule – Utah v. Strieff […] The post State Argued For Application Of The Attenuation Doctrine In The Face Of This Obvious 4th Amendment Violation first appeared on IllinoisCaseLaw.com.

Professor Jeffrey Fisher, co-director of Stanford Law's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, helps wrap the show's coverage of SCOTUS' just-completed term, considering Utah v. Strieff's impact on the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule. Hon. Jeffrey Winikow (Ret.) considers a recent employment ruling that renders summary judgment a less reliable resort for employer defendants, and David Gammill, of Geragos & Geragos discusses Ninth Circuit oral arguments in an appeal regarding the LA Sheriff's Department's obstruction of an FBI jailhouse investigation.

In this episode, the guys analyze the recent Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty. First, though, we discuss why the show rejected a potential sponsor. Next, we answer a great listener question from our (only?) conservative listener, "Dan Dan the Conservative Man."  Dan wanted to know about the exclusionary rule, so-called "illegal" aliens, a recent Supreme Court decision, and how all of those things play in to "Sanctuary Cities."  We think we answered this. In our main segment, Andrew breaks down the meaningless portions of the Trump EO and contrasts them with the Definitely Unconstitutional provision. Then, we answer another listener question, this one from Shane Argo, who wants to know about the legal and philosophical reasons for treating "attempted murder" differently than regular murder. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #22 about a buyer who finds a priceless artifact at a yard sale and knowingly buys it for a fraction of its true value. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links In Episode 52 of the show, we linked to this Facebook post by an immigration lawyer about the term "illegal" immigrant.  We recommend you revisit both! Here is a link to Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), the case Dan asked about. This is the text of President Trump's Religious Liberty EO. And this is a link to David French's delightful article in the National Review complaining that Trump's EO doesn't go far enough. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today, Jonathan and Lex discuss Birchfield, which deals with the fourth amendment and blood alcohol and breath tests; Strieff which focuses on attenuation and the fourth amendment; Luis which touches on seizure of funds before a trial; Ocasio, conspiracy, Hobbs Act extortion; Voisine and misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; and Musacchio, which touches on instructions, appeals, and sufficiency of evidence Looking forward to the 2016 Supreme Court term which begins in October, we preview Bravo-Fernandez and double jeopardy; Moore and the eighth amendment and Steinbeck.

This time On the Road at the 2016 ABA Annual Meeting, host Joe Patrice talks with Rachel Moran, Dean Emerita and Michael J. Connell Distinguished Professor of Law, and Nicole Austin-Hillery, Director and Counsel of The Brennan Center’s Washington, D.C. office, about the current state of the Supreme Court. Rachel reviews the gap left by Justice Scalia’s passing and states that she’s not sure if there is a clear heir to his seat but there are several justices who are aligned with him philosophically and jurisprudentially. Nicole notes that there seems to be a “lightness” to the current court without Scalia and that the justices appear to now share more of the decision making and influence in terms of the cases. The persistence of this climate, Nicole continues, really depends on who fills the vacant seat since the justices’ personalities have a huge bearing on the Court’s tenor and operation. Both guests contemplate Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s presumptive confirmation to the Supreme Court and the potential larger implications of Justice Sotomayor’s written dissent in the Utah v. Strieff case. They close the interview with a discussion of Justice Kennedy’s recent, uncharacteristic vote on affirmative action and upcoming court cases that attorneys should be on the lookout for. Rachel F. Moran is Dean Emerita and Michael J. Connell Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She received her A.B. in psychology with honors and with distinction from Stanford University and her J.D. from Yale Law School. Following law school, she clerked for Chief Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and worked for the San Francisco firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe. Prior to her appointment at UCLA, Professor Moran was the Robert D. and Leslie-Kay Raven Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law. Nicole Austin-Hillery is the first director and counsel of The Brennan Center’s Washington, D.C. office and serves as the organization’s chief liaison to Congress and the Administration. She practiced with the law firm of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC as part of the firm's civil rights employment class action practice and as the George N. Lindsay Civil Rights Law Fellow at the national office of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington, D.C. Nicole is a graduate of the Howard University School of Law and Carnegie Mellon University.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that if an officer makes an illegal stop and then discovers an arrest warrant, the stop and its fruit will not be excluded in court. Jim and Doug discuss how Strieff pokes a hole in the long-held doctrine that police and prosecutors cannot benefit with “the fruit of the poisonous tree” and how it impacts police interpretation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure doctrine, and the accompanying exclusionary rule.

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Utah v. Strieff. A police officer detained Edward Strieff after seeing him leave a residence that the officer believed, based on an anonymous tip and his own surveillance, was a base for drug dealing. A relay of Strieff’s identification to a police dispatcher revealed an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation. The officer then arrested Strieff and searched him, discovering methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff ultimately persuaded the Utah Supreme Court to order that evidence suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful stop. -- By a vote of 5-3, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Utah Supreme Court. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest was admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Orin S. Kerr, who is Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School.

This week's episode covers three big cases that were issued in the last week.  Utah v. Strieff seemingly erodes the 4th amendment into a nub, U.S. v. Taylor seemingly destroys federalism, and Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons seemingly opens the gates for frivolous copyright claims.  You; however, luckily have an episode that addresses these concerns in order, for purposes of determining whether or not the sky is truly falling.  Law starts at (3:56).

Utah v. Strieff, SCOTUS No. 14–1373. Argued February 22, 2016—Decided June 20, 2016. Episode 185 (Duration 13:49) Does the discovery of a valid arrest warrant sufficiently intervene to break the causal chain between an unlawful stop and the discovery of drug-related evidence? Facts Officer has a tip of a drug house. Over a week he […] The post SCOTUS Refused To Apply The Exclusionary Rule After Some Constitutional Violations first appeared on IllinoisCaseLaw.com.

On this episode we review the Court's oral arguments in Utah v. Strieff, in which the Court is asked whether evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful.

Brett and Ross continue their discussion about criminal cases before the Supreme Court, including Ocasio v. U.S., Lockhart v. U.S., Utah v. Strieff,  & Beylund v. Minnesota.  They also discuss the implications of Hurst v. Florida, and how Montgomery v. La may influence the upcoming case of Molina-Martinez v. U.S.

Utah v. Strieff | 02/22/16 | Docket #: 14-1373

This week's podcast covers police searches under the 4th Amendment in two different regards.  First, Brett and Nazim take a closer look at dog sniff searches and the 4th Amendment, and specifically whether dog sniffs are a flawed practice and what could be done if they are.  Then the case of Utah v. Strieff is covered, where the Court decides whether or not an officer who makes an illegal search is excused when the defendant had an arrest warrant and therefore could have been searched had the officer known about it, which could open the door for the bizarro "bad faith exception".