Best Lab Equipment

Here are some more information for Citizen Digital Scale:

Does Uncorroborated Information Provided By Confidential Informant Provide Reasonable Suspicion For An Investigative Detention

Criminal Defense Attorneys in Reading, Eshelman & Shucker

It appears that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is ready to decide if uncorroborated information provided by a known, but history-less, confidential informant provides reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention.  Allocatur has been granted in Commonwealth v. Brown, 952 A.2d 1185 (Pa.Super.2008), reargument denied, petition for allowance of appeal granted (Pa. 2009), and decisions in other cases with the same issue are being withheld pending decision in the Brown case.

In Brown, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a tip by an informant, who had not proven to be reliable, stating that a white male was going to drive a car to a certain location within a two-hour window of time in order to distribute drugs, standing alone, was not enough to create a reasonable suspicion for the stop of defendant's car.  The police observed defendant Brown arrive, leave his car empty-handed, return with a brown paper bag, and drive away.
The car was stopped, but the evidence seized in plain view and later with a search warrant, was suppressed.  There was no showing that the informant was reliable or how he got his information.  Merely showing up at the stated location, getting out of a car, and returning with a paper bag, in and of itself, is not illegal and does not corroborate anything.  The Superior Court said that because there was no evidence that the confidential informant was reliable, "any statement by the informant must be considered akin to an anonymous tip, or at most a tip from a named citizen.  Therefore, there must be corroboration to provide reasonable suspicion."

I have a similar case pending decision in Berks County Court on a motion to suppress.  In this case, the defendant and the history-less confidential informant were already on the parking lot when the police arrived and began surveillance.  Both drivers exited their vehicles and had a conversation at the rear of the vehicles.  Although the police could not hear the conversation, they saw defendant motioning the confidential informant toward the defendant's vehicle.  Both then entered defendant's vehicle.  When the confidential informant exited the defendant's vehicle, he gave a prearranged signal that "drugs" were in the defendant's vehicle.  The police moved in, detained defendant, obtained incriminating statements, observed marijuana inside defendant's vehicle, and later after arrest and Miranda, obtained similar incriminating statements.  After obtaining a search warrant for the vehicle, 143 grams of marijuana and a digital scale were seized.  At no time had the police observed the defendant or the confidential informant examining any objects or exchanging anything.

[As a criminal defense lawyer in Reading,] I argued that there was no evidence of the reliability of the confidential informant, and the actions of the defendant on the parking lot observed by the police were innocuous.  In this context, the signal from the confidential informant to the police that drugs were in the defendant's vehicle was meaningless, especially since the police had observed neither the defendant nor the confidential informant examining any objects or exchanging anything, citing In the Interest of O.A., 552 Pa. 666, 678, 717 A.2d 490, 496-497 (1998) (plurality decision).  It was unclear whether the informant observed "drugs" in close proximity, nor was there any assertion that the informant had provided information leading to any prior narcotics arrests or other information which would establish the informant's familiarity with "drugs."  Accordingly, based upon the information provided by the known, but history-less confidential informant, and the lack of corroboration by the police, no reasonable suspicion existed for the investigative detention of the defendant.  Because the actions of the police were in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, all of the evidence should be suppressed.

About the Author

Why did the government force U.S. citizens to switch to the digital tv signal ?

It seems to me that a lot of people were not ready for the switch ! Even with the gov converter box coupon program some people are still without the ability to watch tv because they couldn't afford the converter box or didn't know about the coupon program

While the government converter box coupon was a good idea, many millions of people are still without access to tv because of economic reasons. Just because some of us were/are fortunate enough to either own an HDTV or buy a converter box doesn't mean everyone was that fortunate.

I understand we needed to free up space but I also feel we as a nation have way too many devices using the airwaves i.e. cell phones etc and those devices should have been redirected since cell phones are a personal choice and luxury for some people. I believe U.S. citizens have a right to TV the government or tv providers should have done more to make the transition accessible to every citizen !

What if the government decided to make everyone go GREEN within the next 5 years and find environmentally friendly ways to upgrade their homes to efficiently cool and heat. How many home owners/property owners would be prepared to do that and how many of them could honestly afford to do it within a certain time frame !

That's basically what the TV signal switch did ! It forced people whether they were prepared to or not to switch from an analog tv signal to a digital tv signal !
We would all be outraged at that and rightly so !

Spirit of Memphis Rebuffs ‘Miserable’ Status
The Spirit of Memphis community engagement meeting Tuesday evening opened with participants raising their right hands, solemnly swearing to defend the....

Thanks for visiting!