text:
Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller
by de officiis » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:19 pm
by Atanamis » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:21 pm
by de officiis » Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:59 am
From its inception, Google Street View fascinated users with detailed, "360-degree street-level imagery"1 of locations ranging from famous landmarks to small town neighborhoods.2 To capture these images, Google sent a fleet of cars equipped with cameras and GPS receivers around the world.3 In addition to taking photographs, Google utilized car-mounted antennas to take snapshots of the surrounding Wireless Fidelity ("Wi-Fi") landscape, scanning the airwaves for traces of Wi-Fi beacons to identify Wi- Fi networks by their name, numeric hardware ID, and other details.4 Google then uploaded lists of Wi-Fi network identities and signal strengths in order to create a Wi-Fi network location database to broaden Google's geolocation-based services.5 This database allowed Google to track a mobile device's—and thus a user's—approximate position based on Wi-Fi network signals and the degree to which those signals overlap with the signal of the mobile device.6
Today, most homeowners encrypt their home Wi-Fi networks. However, when Google first began deploying its Street View vehicles, far fewer households encrypted their Wi-Fi networks.7 Google's Street View cars intercepted the data packets coming from and leaving homes with unencrypted Wi-Fi networks by employing a device called a packet sniffer.8 Though Google claimed it was interested only in the public names of the wireless networks, Google used the packet sniffer to collect and analyze all types of data broadcasted through unprotected Wi-Fi connections,9 including sensitive private information such as e-mails and passwords.10
The ease with which Google conducted large-scale interception of wireless communication for a period spanning multiple years gives rise to the possibility that governments might use similar technology to conduct large- scale surveillance of the wireless communications of individual citizens, without any perceptible legal checks in place. The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"11 but the extent to which the Fourth Amendment will provide individuals a right to privacy for the contents of their wireless communications remains an open question. This question falls at the intersection of the Federal Wiretap Act and the Fourth Amendment. The Federal Wiretap Act prohibits the intentional interception of "any wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless one or more statutory exceptions applies.12 Importantly, § 2511(2) of the Wiretap Act provides a statutory exception where the "electronic communications system [is] configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public."13 Under this exception, companies like Google have virtually free rein to intercept Wi-Fi communications if the Fourth Amendment does not protect those communications. If Congress or Courts do not limit this exception, the exception could set a dangerous precedent permitting law enforcement officials to freely intercept information exchanged through unsecured wireless networks.14
This Note examines the budding tension between the Fourth Amendment and the Federal Wiretap Act, concluding that although current cases read the Wiretap Act as permitting certain private instances of Wi-Fi sniffing, the Fourth Amendment should prohibit the government from intercepting unsecured Wi-Fi signals.
by de officiis » Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:44 am
Given the prevalence of location-tracking information today and lack of judicial guidance on the matter, many looked to the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Jones8 as a case that would breathe fresh life into the relevance of the constitutional standards for reasonable search and possibly stop the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections.9 The various opinions in Jones, however, answered few questions about how the Fourth Amendment should be applied in the face of new technology—such as remote GPS tracking—that can transmit information without a trespass. Yet, while the Jones majority did little to stop the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections because it focused exclusively on the government's trespass on the defendant's vehicle, the two concurrences suggest future judicial evaluation of changing expectations of privacy in the digital age.
This Note reviews prior standards for Fourth Amendment search, and explores the effects of the Jones opinions on the development of Fourth Amendment law. It analyzes the opinions in Jones, as well as the lower D.C. Circuit decision, in order to shed light on the implications of the case for pressing Fourth Amendment questions in the Information Age.
Part I frames the later discussion by examining the legal history of reasonable search, focusing on the shift from a trespass-based standard to one that turns on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. In particular, Section I.C highlights the role of technology in increasing the relevance of the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test given the frequency with which citizens "voluntarily" share their data and actions in the Information Age.
Part II lays out the facts and judicial history of Jones and examines the majority and concurring opinions.
Part III explores the practical implications of Jones, reviewing the effects that the case has already had on judicial decisions and legislation. It examines the effects both of the binding aspects from the majority Jones decision related to trespass, as well as the dicta and potential second holding from the concurrences related to reasonable expectations of privacy in the Information Age.
Part IV explores the unresolved questions raised by the Jones concurrences as to whether, and how, judicial understandings of reasonable expectations of privacy should adapt to the Information Age. It analyzes opinions from the cases examined in Part I and from Jones to focus on third party doctrine and mosaic theory in reexamining the volition at the heart of "voluntary" communication of information today.
Finally, Part V notes the shortcomings of Jones in addressing pressing Fourth Amendment questions in the Information Age. It concludes that courts may need to reexamine what constitutes voluntary communication of information in order for the Fourth Amendment to remain relevant in the Information Age.
The D.C. Circuit, in a case titled United States v. Maynard, sided with Jones on this claim and stated that the evidence obtained by the warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used in court.60 The D.C. Circuit relied on a "mosaic theory" of exposure to hold that individuals have a greater expectation of privacy in the summation of their exposed movements than in each individual movement.61 Under this theory, the court distinguished between actual and constructive exposure and concluded that a person's vehicular movements over the course of one month, while actually exposed to the public because they took place on public streets, were not constructively exposed because "the likelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil."62 The court argued that the unlikeliness of such observation rendered Jones' expectation that it would not occur reasonable under the Katz test.63 The court analogized the "intimate details" that would inevitably be collected during long-term surveillance of a car to the "intimate details" that were originally considered important enough to lead to the sanctity of the home under the Fourth Amendment.64
by Fife » Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:30 pm
Today the Third Circuit handed down United States v. Katzin, an important cases on three related issues of Fourth Amendment law: first, whether the installation of a GPS device requires a warrant; second, the scope of the Davis good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule; and third, who has standing to suppress the evidence from the physical search of a car following a GPS search.
The divided court ruled in the defendants' favor on all three issues. First, installation of a GPS device requires a warrant; second, the Davis good-faith exception applies only when there was directly on-point binding appellate precedent allowing the government's acts; and third, every passenger in the car at the time it is stopped has standing to challenge the fruits of the subsequent physical search. There's a lot in the Katzin case, so I thought I would blog on the three issues and offer my perspective on them.
I. The Facts
The police were tracking a string of burglaries at Rite-Aid pharmacies across several states, and they came to have very strong suspicion that Katzin and his two brothers were committing the burglaries using Katzin's van. The police found the van one day, so they called the local U.S. Attorney's Office. The prosecutors at the office advised them that they could put the GPS device on without a warrant. (This was December 2010, before the Supreme Court's GPS decision in Jones.) The police attached the GPS device on the car when it was parked on a public road. The device allowed the police to monitor the location of the car in real-time remotely. The GPS device quickly paid off: Just several days after placing the GPS device on the car, the GPS showed the car parked for a few hours right next to a Rite-Aid pharmacy. The police waited for the car to move, and then stopped the car. All three brothers were inside, and a search of the car revealed lots of stolen property from the Rite-Aid pharmacy. All three defendants moved to suppress.
II. The Warrant Requirement
The Court first holds that a warrant is required to install and used a GPS device on a car. The Court rejects several arguments by DOJ that a warrant isn't necessary. I think the most difficult and most interesting argument is the automobile exception. As I explained back when Jones was decided, there is at least a plausible doctrinal argument that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause but not a warrant to install a GPS device under the automobile exception. The automobile exception creates a bright line rule that searches of cars don't require a warrant, and that should be just as true when the search of a car occurs through the GPS device as through any other search of the car. The Third Circuit disagreed on the ground that a GPS search of a car happens over time:
[Past cases on the automobile exception were] limited to a discrete moment in time. For example, the exception permits the police to enter upon and search a vehicle to ascertain whether it indeed contains the evidence that they suspect is inside. . . . Attaching and monitoring a GPS tracker is different: It creates a continuous police presence for the purpose of discovering evidence that may come into existence and /or be placed within the vehicle at some point in the future.
It is no argument, then, to say that a GPS search presents the type of circumstances that usually trigger the automobile exception. It does not. While the police are still physically intruding into a target vehicle for evidence-gathering purposes, a GPS search extends the police intrusion well past the time it would normally take officers to enter a target vehicle and locate, extract, or examine the then-existing evidence. . . .
Ultimately, in executing a GPS search, the police were not attempting to recover or ascertain the presence of evidence already present in Harry Katzin's vehicle. If they were, the automobile exception would have sanctioned their search in so far as it allowed them to enter Harry Katzin's van and retrieve and/or verify the presence or absence of the sought-after evidence. It would not (and, indeed, did not) permit them to leave behind an ever-watchful electronic sentinel in order to collect future evidence. Were we to hold otherwise, we would unduly expand the scope of the automobile exception well past its "specifically established and well delineated" contours, Ross, 456 U.S. at 824, permitting the police to intrude indefinitely upon a target vehicle based solely on the prospect that it will, in the future, contain some contraband or be used during the commission of a crime.
I don't yet have fixed views on whether the warrant requirement should apply to Jones GPS searches, although the Court's answer here strikes me as plausible. In my view, though, the best argument for introducing a warrant requirement is the practical implication of the time-bound aspect of the search, not its mere existence. In a traditional one-time automobile search, the search is allowed based on probable cause to believe that there is evidence in the car at that moment. With a GPS search, however, the government doesn't want to search the car now: It wants to know where the car goes over time. As a result, the concept of probable cause has a necessary implied time window. That is, probable cause would mean a reasonable likelihood that the location of the car will yield evidence of the car not at this instant, but rather over some period of time into the future. If there's a warrant requirement, courts can allow searches that are particular to that probable cause, in effect establishing a particularity in time instead of the usual particularity in physical space. Without a warrant, there's no obvious way to regulate the time window; the police won't know how long they can use the GPS device once it is installed. As I see it, this is why the one-time search versus search-over-time makes a difference. The scope of the search is defined by time instead of space, and a warrant can impose a time restriction that otherwise is hard to imagine. Cf. Berger v. New York (1967). Given that, it's plausible to say that the automobile exception applies only when there is probable cause to believe there is contraband or evidence to search the car at that moment, not over some unspecified future period of time. So consider that a friendly amendment to the Third Circuit's reasoning.
III. The Good-Faith Exception
The court next rules that the good-faith exception doesn't apply because there was no binding appellate precedent allowing the installation of the GPS device. If you're unfamiliar with this subject, you might want to read this recent post on lower court interpretations of Davis v. United States to get up to speed on the issue. (Seriously, I'll wait.)
The court's holding on the good faith exception has several moving parts. First, the court adopts the narrow view of Davis that it only applies when there is binding appellate precedent. Caselaw from other circuits is irrelevant: Unless the Supreme Court or the Third Circuit has approved the search, Davis cannot apply. As far as I know, this is the first federal circuit court to squarely address the issue of whether Davis extends beyond binding circuit precedent; as I note in Part 4 of my earlier post, this is an issue that is being litigated across the country with very broad divisions in the district court.
Second, the court holds that Davis only applies when the binding appellate precedent "clearly sanctions" the search in the subsequent case. Here the court takes a somewhat different view than other circuits, specifically on the issue of whether cases involving beepers clearly sanction cases involving GPS devices. Other courts have indicated that cases from the 1970s and 1980s involving beepers can "clearly sanction" the installation of a GPS device. See, e.g., United States v. Sparks, 711 F.3d 58 (1st. Cir. 2013) (concluding that an officer relied reasonably on radio beeper cases from 1970s and 1980s to install a GPS device because "nothing inheres in the technology to take it out of" those cases, and those cases "gave scant reason to think that the duration of the tracking in that case was material to the Court's reasoning") The Third Circuit disagrees, concluding that officers should know that GPS devices are so different from beepers that the beeper cases can't apply to GPS surveillance:
As our foregoing discussion suggests: we disagree with this position. The difference between beepers and GPS trackers is one of kind, not degree. Any time technology shifts in this way, courts should expect that law enforcement will tread lightly and will refrain from reasoning by (potentially ill-fitting) analogy.
Third, the court holds that the good-faith exception shouldn't apply under the broader Herring/Davis culpability standard:
[T]he police did not act in a total vacuum, but their chosen course of action when presented with such a novel constitutional situation is nonetheless troubling: In lieu of a binding proclamation from either this Circuit or the Supreme Court — and instead of seeking approval from a neutral magistrate — law enforcement personnel looked to other (non-binding or distinguishable) authorities like our sister circuits' decisions. Essentially, they extrapolated their own constitutional rule and applied it to this case. We fail to see how this absolves their behavior. The assumption by law enforcement personnel that their own self-derived rule sanctioned their conduct — to say nothing of their unstated belief that this Circuit would automatically side with a majority of the minority of our sister circuits — was constitutionally culpable.
I'm no fan of the Davis good-faith exception — as regular readers know, I think it was wrongly decided — so on one hand, I appreciate the fact that the court construed the case narrowly. Limiting the case to "binding" appellate precedent seems correct, as the Supreme Court clearly relied on that limitation to justify its holding. With that said, as much as I oppose the introduction of a free-floating culpability requirement on the exclusionary rule, if courts are to recognize such a requirement, it probably should mean something: The court here seems to add the requirement (which it didn't have to do) but then construes to mean almost nothing. The police here didn't apply a "self-derived" rule, as the court says; they applied the rule that was reflected in the caselaw and found in the treatises. If there's a culpability requirement to be applied, then it seems like a relatively tough fit with the facts here. Anyway, much of good-faith exception material is likely to lead to relatively deep splits in the next two to three years, so all of this is probably just percolation that will end up leading to future Supreme Court decisions.
IV. Standing
Finally, the court also decides that all three brothers have standing to object to physical search of the van even though only one of them, Harry Katzin, owned the van. All three brothers have standing, the court rules, because Third Circuit precedent dictates that an unlawful seizure of a car leads to the suppression of evidence of all evidence found in a search or the car. That's what happened here, the court reasons: The illegal warrantless GPS search led to the illegal stop of the car, and all the passengers therefore had standing. Accepting that Third Circuit precedent as fixed, that result seems correct, although it's important to note that the standing here is as to the physical search of the car, not the GPS search: As far as I can tell, the court doesn't reach the issue of who has standing to challenge the admissibility of the GPS evidence directly.
by LifeIsBrief » Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:58 pm
Between 130 and 250 bullets were fired in all, according to various accounts, an arsenal's worth. A cleaning service recently found a bullet while vacuuming.
In the basement, in a small room to the left of the stairs, there's a large pile of tubing and plastic containers. It's here that Matthew David Stewart, a 37-year-old Army veteran, committed the crime that precipitated the armed raid on his home -- an assault that left one police officer dead and five others wounded, and eventually led to Stewart's death as well. It's here that he grew marijuana...
The police claim to have knocked and announced themselves several times. But Stewart said he never heard them. He worked the graveyard shift at a local Walmart and was asleep at the time. Awaking to the sound of armed men storming into his house, he jumped out of bed, naked, threw on a bathrobe and grabbed his 9-millimeter Beretta.
Who shot first remains in dispute. But after exchanging fire with the officers for about 20 minutes, Stewart dove out a bedroom window and attempted to take shelter in the shed behind his house. The police opened fire on the shed, "lighting it up," as one officer later put it. Stewart, who had been shot in the arm and the hip, crawled out and surrendered...
Statements by Matthew David Stewart's neighbors support his assertion that he didn't know police officers were in his house. They told Stewart's attorneys and the local media that they heard gunshots first, then lots of yelling, but never any police announcement...
In the days and weeks after the raid, the task force, the district attorney and other Weber County officials began to malign Matthew David Stewart in the media. A "source close to the investigation" first told the Ogden Standard-Examiner that police had found a picture of Stewart "dressed as a terrorist," and "posing in a suicide bomber's vest" in the house. The police reported that they had found a bomb in Stewart's closet and child pornography on his computer.
He was portrayed as a violent, anti-government extremist. Wilson, his ex-girlfriend, told investigators that Stewart had once told her that if the police ever came for his marijuana plants, he'd "go out in a blaze," and he'd "go out shooting." She claimed that he didn't believe the federal government had the authority to collect taxes, and that he had told her of plans to shoot up the IRS after he lost his job there working as a security guard.
"I know the drug war really bothered him," his father Michael says.
"He was passionate about the way the government was going. He didn't like it," Erna adds. "I remember he was really upset about what Obama was doing with indefinite detention. But he was never volatile about it. I think he just internalized it. It made him sad."
The photo of Stewart dressed as a terrorist was actually him posing in an Osama bin Laden Halloween costume, his family says. Regarding the bomb that police allegedly found in a closet, an agent from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms later told the Salt Lake Tribune, "to characterize it as a bomb or device is not accurate."
In August, Stewart received a phone call from the Ogden police. More than 19 months after the raid, they were calling to let her know that, despite their earlier allegations, they had never actually found any child pornography on her brother-in-law's computer.
by nmoore63 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:32 am
by de officiis » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:14 pm
Since 2001, federal prosecutors have indicted and convicted hundreds of defendants for terrorism, espionage, and other national security crimes. 1 And for every prosecution, there are dozens of investigations into foreign threats that never result in a trial. Between 2001 and 2010, for example, the federal government obtained 16,306 foreign intelligence warrants in the course of its security operations. 2 Between 2004 and 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI") issued 119,192 National Security Letters for records deemed to be pertinent to national security investigations. 3
Despite these numbers, security investigations and prosecutions proceed on uncertain constitutional footing. The rights of terrorism suspects to receive Miranda warnings, 4 confront accusers, 5 and obtain civilian trials are unclear. 6 Similar constitutional questions surround the Fourth Amendment and its application to national security matters. The balance between the Fourth Amendment's protections and the President's inherent power to defend the nation [*1346] has become a focus of litigation in recent years yet still remains murky. 7
To clarify the constitutional parameters of national security investigations, this Article examines the Fourth Amendment's historical influence in security affairs. 8 Claims about historical practice pervade debates over modern surveillance programs, including those about the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program and recent amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). These historical treatments remain cursory, however, 9 and have failed to detail how the Fourth Amendment regulated national security operations in the pre-September 11 era.
Archived materials reveal that the federal government has long embraced the notion that national security constitutes an exception to the traditional rules of the Fourth Amendment. Starting at the end of World War II, federal agents investigating security cases began to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance and physical searches on the theory that a national security exception permitted this otherwise unconstitutional conduct. 10 During the Cold War, leaders in the White House and Justice Department relied on this same exception to authorize aggressive surveillance of suspected foreign threats. 11 Tentative support from the judiciary in the late 1960s and 1970s encouraged greater national security surveillance, in many cases beyond the ordinary constitutional bounds imposed on law enforcement. 12
The national security exception, however, by no means gave federal agents carte blanche investigatory power. Well into the 1970s, the executive branch assumed that the national security exception permitted only, in the words of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, "purely intelligence" focused investigations. 13 This "pure intelligence" rule meant that evidence gleaned from warrantless searches and surveillance was constitutionally inadmissible in subsequent prosecutions - a limitation with important ramifications. On various occasions, prosecutors concluded that the Fourth Amendment barred the admission of evidence gleaned or derived from security investigations at trial. Prosecutors elected not to present such information; as a result, spies and foreign agents escaped conviction, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing. 14
Commentators who fail to identify the limits of these early investigations overemphasize the government's power to investigate foreign threats at the expense of liberty interests or, instead, dismiss this period as lawless and irrelevant for purposes of legal precedent. In reality, a clear legal framework regulated the scope of national security investigations, and records reveal a palpable opinio juris - a sense of legal obligation - that governed the constitutional boundaries of security operations. This Article, contrary to some contemporary assertions, shows that the Fourth Amendment played a pronounced, restrictive role in early national security investigations, even in the face of grave security risks. 15
The history described in this Article also bears directly on lawsuits challenging the government's newest national security surveillance programs, including the Supreme Court's recent case of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA. 16 As explained below, civil litigation has been stalled by the apparent fact that the government has not used data collected from these surveillance programs in subsequent criminal prosecutions. 17 While this issue has only been discussed in the context of procedural matters - particularly standing - this Article notes that it has substantive significance as well. Limiting the use of collected information to nonprosecutorial purposes strengthens the government's claim that its conduct to date has complied with the Fourth Amendment by establishing a practice parallel to the restraints imposed upon the early security investigations. Even if the government never formally acknowledges this limitation, the empirical evidence indicating restraint (i.e., the vast amount of intelligence collected versus the marginal amount used at trial) should assure courts that these new programs have not eroded historical protections.
This Article proceeds as follows. Part II summarizes national security investigations, pending Fourth Amendment issues, and the legal relevance of the executive's historical practices. Part III explores the legal framework for earlier national security investigations, focusing on the period between the end of World War II and the passage of FISA in 1978. Specifically, Part III explains the origins of the national security exception, the limits placed on this exception (particularly the pure intelligence rule) and the consequences of those limits (most notably, failed prosecutions). Part IV evaluates the legal and policy merits of the pure intelligence paradigm and juxtaposes early practice with that of modern surveillance programs.
by de officiis » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:34 pm
A persistent puzzle in immigration law is how the removal adjudication system should respond to the increasing prevalence of violations of noncitizens' constitutional rights by arresting officers. Scholarship in this area has focused on judicial suppression of unconstitutionally obtained evidence, typically by arguing that the Supreme Court should overrule its 1984 decision in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza not to enforce the exclusionary rule in civil immigration court. This Essay, in contrast, considers the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys in upholding the Fourth Amendment, taking as a launching point the recent exercise of prosecutorial discretion by ICE attorneys in Charlotte, North Carolina, in cases arising from systemic unlawful policing.
Part I briefly describes how ICE lawyers (also called "Trial Attorneys" or "ICE prosecutors") in the Charlotte Immigration Court have closed deportation cases against noncitizens arrested through unlawful policing by local officers in North Carolina, following a Department of Justice (DOJ) report on the discriminatory targeting of Latinos in Alamance County, North Carolina. The Essay then explores two potential bases for an ICE prosecutor's decision to take remedial action when arresting officers violate the constitution. First, Part II examines ICE prosecutors' constitutional responsibilities as executive branch attorneys in light of the Supreme Court's decision to underenforce the Fourth Amendment in the context of immigration arrests. Part III then considers whether ICE's remedial actions in North Carolina comport with internal agency guidelines for exercising prosecutorial discretion in deportation cases.
by de officiis » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:45 pm
More than ten years of war in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan have taught a generation of Total Force Airmen valuable lessons about the use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) 1 and other Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets. The lesson yet to be learned, however, is that this battle space experience is not directly applicable to operations in the United States (U.S.). 2 As the nation winds down these wars, and United States Air Force (USAF) RPA and ISR assets become available to support other combatant commands or U.S. agencies, the appetite to use them in the domestic environment to collect airborne imagery continues to grow, as does Congressional 3 and media interest 4 in their employment. Commanders, operators, intelligence and legal professionals must understand the limited circumstances in which USAF RPAs and ISR assets may be used to collect, process, view, analyze, retain and distribute domestic imagery (DI) consistent with Intelligence Oversight (IO) rules, 5 the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) and other laws and policies. 6 Although numerous directives, instructions, regulations and policies exist relevant to the most common airborne DI requests in the U.S., determining which guidance actually applies and who can approve a particular mission remains a challenge in some cases. The purpose of this article is to review existing rules and present a comprehensive analytical framework to guide practitioners in obtaining the appropriate level of approval for typical airborne DI requests. 7
As a general proposition, the Department of Defense (DoD) cannot domestically collect information on non-DoD affiliated individually identifiable U.S. persons (USPER) or organizations using airborne DI or otherwise unless some very specific conditions are met. Yet, at the same time, the DoD has a wide range of national security responsibilities which may require DI collection. The DoD needs to train using DI for combat proficiency, including for combat search and rescue operations. At any given time, and without warning, the DoD may be called upon to give support to civil authorities with DI during crisis situations ranging from hurricanes, to lost hikers, to acts of domestic terrorism. Commanders at local units may need to use DI to protect the people, facilities and equipment under their charge. These examples of potential DI needs are but a few. Given this broad spectrum of operational requirements, the DoD has issued a host of policies and rules that govern this sensitive area. The challenge is to determine which rules apply and when. This is an important determination because the rules designate whether DoD can participate in the mission, whether DoD participation requires a request from an outside agency, which agencies can make the request (and at what level), what DoD capabilities, if any, can be utilized, who can approve DoD participation in the mission and under what constraints. Capability does not equal authority.
The rules applicable to DoD collection of airborne DI are codified in terms of the capability to be used, the mission to be accomplished, or as a combination of both. Below is an overview of the current legal landscape to provide the baseline understanding necessary to analyze a DI request.
. . .
3. Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs)
In September 2006, the DepSecDef issued a Memorandum, Interim Guidance for the Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, which still remains in effect. 28 According to this memo, DoD RPA operations "shall not conduct surveillance on specifically identified U.S. persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with U.S. law and regulations." AFI 14-104, reiterates this requirement verbatim. 29
SecDef approval for RPA use is also required for specific missions, including Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA), Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA), Counter-Drug (CD) Operations and National Guard use of DoD RPAs for governor-requested state missions. For training purposes, use of RPAs "outside of DoD-controlled airspace," requires notification to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). 30 These missions, including training, will be further discussed below in the Mission Focused Guidance section.
B. Mission Focused Guidance
The mission sometimes lends itself to using airborne assets, whether IC/ICC, Non-IC/ICC or RPA, to acquire DI for a particular purpose. The DoD and the USAF have mission focused regulations that commanders, operators, intelligence professionals, judge advocates and paralegals must consult, in conjunction with the capability focused rules addressed above, to determine applicable approval authorities, procedures, and other guidance. A brief discussion of the relevant directives, instructions, regulations and policies for the most common airborne DI missions in the U.S. follows.
1. Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA)
A request from civil authorities for DoD assistance, or independent authorization from SecDef or the President of the United States (POTUS), triggers DSCA. 31 DoDD 3025.18, Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA), governs DoD's provision of temporary support to U.S. civilian agencies for "domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events." 32 The USAF has further implemented DoDD 3025.18 through AFI 10-801, Defense Support to Civil Authorities. 33
The typical approval process for DCSA involves a Request for Forces or Assets from a civilian agency to the DoD Executive Secretary. This request goes up to SecDef, then down to the Joint Staff's Joint Director of Military Support (JDOMS), who sends it to the appropriate Combatant Command as well as to the Services, who then provide the people, equipment or other capabilities needed. For USAF assets or forces, JDOMs will send this request to the Headquarters Air Force, who will likely send it to Air Combat Command (ACC) 34 for the sourcing solution. 35 However, the SecDef has delegated seven specific authorities to the Commanders U.S. Northern Command (CDRUSNORTHCOM) and U.S. Pacific Command (CDRUSPACOM) in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) Standing DSCA Execute Order (EXORD). 36 Once SecDef validates the mission from the primary agency in charge of the incident (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA), USNORTHCOM and USPACOM can provide Incident Awareness and Assessment 37 for:
. situational awareness
. damage assessment
. evacuation monitoring
. Search and Rescue
. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Enhanced Conventional Weapons (CBRNE) assessment
. hydrographic survey
. dynamic ground coordination.
Of note, the DSCA EXORD permits USNORTHCOM and USPACOM to request traditional IC/ICC resources to conduct DSCA missions. SecDef approval authorizes the use of IC/ICC capabilities for non-intelligence purposes. However, these missions must be conducted in accordance with IO requirements, including DoDD 5240.01-R. 38
SecDef has also delegated approval authority for several DSCA events to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs (ASD(HD&ASA), with the following exceptions: assistance to respond to CBRNE events and civil disturbances, assistance to law enforcement, responding with assets "with the potential for lethality," and any time USAF equipment will be operated under the command and control of civilian authorities. 39
DSCA normally requires high levels of approval, but when time does not permit the type of coordination discussed above, under "imminently serious conditions," and upon civilian authority request, local commanders may exercise Immediate Response Authority "to save lives, prevent human suffering or mitigate great property damage." 40 Absent higher headquarter direction, the local commander should reassess his or her position at least every 72 hours and terminate the response when the necessity giving rise to it no longer exists. 41 Commanders also have "Emergency Authority" to quell civil disturbances, which will be discussed further below in the section on Military Assistance to Civil Disturbances. 42
The DoD Directive on DSCA does not address particular assets or capabilities, with the exception of RPAs. Thus, in this limited manner, the DSCA regulation is both capability and mission focused. It states:
No DoD unmanned aircraft system (UAS) will be used for DSCA operations, including support to Federal, State, local, and tribal government organizations, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense. Use of armed UAS for DSCA operations is not authorized. 43
Defense support to civilian law enforcement agencies (LEA) and civil search and rescue (SAR) are forms of DSCA. 44 Discussion follows on the additional regulations and policies that apply to each.
2. Support to Law Enforcement Activities (LEA)
DoD support to Law Enforcement Activities (LEA) is limited by law, including the Posse Comitatus Act, and policy, for fear of military encroachment on civil authority and domestic governance. DoDI 3025.21, Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, provides guidance on the sharing of information collected during military operations, the use of military equipment and facilities, training with LEA, funding and reporting mechanisms for such support. 45 Among other activities, Search and Rescue (SAR), Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD), domestic terrorist incident support and Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO) are specifically authorized. 46 The directive also addresses training with LEA in great detail. 47
Restrictions on DoD support to LEA include many prohibitions including interdicting vehicles, searches and seizures, arrest and similar activities (apprehension, stop and frisk), as well as engaging in questioning of potential witnesses, using force or threats to do so except in self-defense of defense of others, collecting evidence, forensic testing and surveillance or pursuit of individuals or vehicles. 48
The LEA directive, like the DSCA directive, addresses not only the support to LEA mission, but also use of specific capabilities for that purpose. While the directive generally applies to all DoD assets and capabilities (non-ICs/ICCs), it specifically requires that LEA requests for DoD IC/ICC assistance be processed pursuant to DoDD 5240.1 and DoD 5240.1-R and subject to SecDef approval. 49 While the LEA directive does not directly address use of RPAs, the DSCA directive does and requires SecDef approval. 50
by de officiis » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:50 pm
Public video surveillance is changing the way police fight crime and terrorism. This was especially clear in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing when law enforcement found images of the two suspects by analyzing surveillance images gathered by numerous public and private cameras. Such after-the-fact video surveillance was equally crucial to identifying the culpritsbehind the 2005 London subway bombing. But the rise of camera surveillance, as well as the emergence of drone-based video monitoring and
GPS-tracking methods, not only provides an important boon for law enforcement, but also raises a challenge for constitutional law: As police gain the ability to technologically monitor individuals' public movements and activities, does the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches" place any hurdles in their way?
In the 2012 case, United States v. Jones, five justices, in two separate concurrences, signaled that it does—at least when the monitoring becomes too intense or prolonged. Their suggestion, however, raises two significant problems. First, it provides no principled basis for marking the point at which public surveillance morphs from a means by which police monitor public space into a Fourth Amendment "search." Under the "mosaic theory" embraced by the D.C. Circuit, such surveillance becomes a search only when it captures enough data points from an individual's public life to construct a detailed picture (or "mosaic") of her movements and associations. But how detailed may such a picture be before it is too detailed? Do police engage in a search simply by watching someone continuously, even if they do so without drones, GPS units, or other advanced technology? Second, the concurring opinions do not explain why the Fourth Amendment, if it does cover public surveillance of this kind, does not also cover the information-collecting police do when they simply watch a pedestrian or a driver. As Justice Scalia wrote in Jones, "Th[e] Court has to date not deviated from the understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search." But if police collect the same information from watching a driver as they do from tracking him with GPS technology, why would their watching not also be a search?
This Article proposes a solution to each of these challenges by offering a two-part definition of a Fourth Amendment "search" in a public space. Police engage in a search when they (1) not only observe, but also record, images or sounds of people or events outside police presence; or (2) magnify details on a person or documents or other items the person is carrying and thereby reveal information that would not otherwise be apparent without a pat-down or a stop-and-search of a person's papers or effects.
This technology-based or design-based definition of what constitutes a "search" avoids the problems that arise when the Fourth Amendment analysis regarding what constitutes a "search" is based on an investigation's duration or intensity. Under the technology-based or designed-based definition, police engage in a search as soon as they begin recording remote events or magnifying otherwise invisible details, whether they have done so for two minutes or two weeks. Additionally, under this approach, Fourth Amendment constraints only apply to surveillance that goes beyond unadorned visual surveillance. This test is more workable and more in accord with Fourth Amendment logic. Recording is a search because, more than any other element of public surveillance, it allows police to engage in dragnet-style investigation of all activities in a public space. By transforming ephemeral occurrences into permanent records, recording allows government officials to search public lives frame by frame, much like they might search documents file by file. Certain types of magnification could also constitute a search because, just as a telescope focused on a home may be functionally equivalent to a home entry and search, certain types of magnification may be functionally equivalent to a physical search of persons, papers, or effects.
by de officiis » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:58 pm
Google recently asserted that email "users have no 'reasonable expectation' of privacy." Headlines like this fueled outrage when the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog posted Google's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit online. This statement has been called "a stunning admission," but how surprising is it? In reality, Google's statement reflects well-established law, which only fairly recently started to receive judicial criticism. Law enforcement agencies can often gain access to email information with little more than a subpoena. This ease of access may surprise many Americans who use email as their primary means of communication. The rapid and exponential growth of the Internet and technology over the past decade has made it easy to communicate with others around the world. However, these advantages have revealed a host of privacy issues.
In the 1980s, manufacturers such as IBM and Apple began marketing more affordable computer systems, which allowed greater access to computer technology. This increased access spurred the creation of novel and now widely used methods of communication. Concerns that the law did not adequately protect the privacy of those communications prompted Congress to enact the Stored Communications Act (SCA) as part of the broader Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (EPCA). The SCA protects communications in three important ways: (1) it provides a private cause of action against anyone who intentionally "obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access" to certain stored communications; (2) it regulates when network service providers may voluntarily disclose customer communications and records; and (3) it outlines specific rules that govern when state actors may compel disclosure of stored communications from network service providers.
Diverging judicial interpretations regarding the SCA's applicability to modern technologies, such as Webmail, have created serious concerns as to the statute's continued viability. Some courts interpret the SCA broadly by applying modern conceptions of new technologies, while others strictly follow the statutory language and history of the Act and assess new innovations within the confines of 1986 technologies. These differing interpretations have created uncertainty regarding the scope of the SCA. In Jennings v. Jennings, for example, the Supreme Court of South Carolina unanimously held that unauthorized access by any person to emails stored on Yahoo!'s server did not create a cause of action under the SCA. The Supreme Court of South Carolina's issuance of three opinions in Jennings is indicative of the "headaches" courts encounter when applying the SCA to new technologies.
This Note argues that Congress needs to update the SCA to ensure adequate protection of electronic communications. Moreover, it advances that the ultimate outcome of Jennings was correct, but that the case's different opinions have increased the uncertainty of the SCA's application. To that extent, this Note proposes crucial legislative reforms and a simple and consistent approach for courts to follow and effectuate Congress's intent.
by de officiis » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:03 pm
Since the founding of our Republic, Congress has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country.1
Our country has maintained a traditional policy of balancing legitimate international commerce with the right of the government to protect its citizens from acts of terrorism, illegal immigration, and rampant contraband importation. The chaos that followed the tragedy of September 11 heightened the awareness for more thorough security and inspections at U.S. borders. These more stringent safety measures often result in complex search and seizure issues for the courts to decide.
The Fourth Amendment provides that a search or seizure conducted through state action must be reasonable and that any warrant issued by a magistrate be supported by probable cause. The Supreme Court has defined the Fourth Amendment as creating a presumed warrant requirement on all governmentally conducted searches and seizures, but courts have judicially created certain exceptions to these requirements. Probably the most notable exception to the Fourth Amendment requirements is found in searches and seizures occurring at our international borders. By virtue of the sovereign's right to protect its citizens by searching persons and property crossing its borders, routine searches have been found to be reasonable simply due to the fact that they occur at the border. While at first blush one does not consider Florida to be a border state, it nonetheless is treated as such by virtue of the fact that it has no less than 14 international airports,2 which are deemed the functional equivalent of the border.
. . .
An Overview of the Fourth Amendment
The Principles of Border Searches
Searches Conducted at the Extended Border
What Constitutes a Search?
What Constitutes a Seizure?
Routine Searches
Nonroutine Searches with Reasonable Suspicion
The Search of Personal Property
Prolonged Detentions
Strip Searches
Body Cavity Searches
The Use of X-ray Searches
Border Searches of Laptops and other Electronic Storage Devices
Following the catastrophic events of 9/11, the monitoring of our nation's borders has been stepped up considerably. Border patrol agents are faced with a growing concern for the safety and well-being of international travelers, thousands of whom cross our borders daily. While Florida is not a traditional border state, by virtue of it being the functional equivalent of a border regarding incoming nonstop flights from foreign destinations, search and seizure issues have become the topic of choice in the law enforcement arena. Each traveler and each factual scenario present challenging legal issues for the courts to consider. Even by availing themselves of all of the basic Fourth Amendment rules and a wealth of case law, the courts face challenging decisions in light of the fact that the dynamics of domestic and foreign travel continues to change in the face of international terror.
by de officiis » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:08 pm
Midway through the oral argument in Maryland v. King, Justice Alito spontaneously interjected: "[B]y the way, I think this is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this Court has heard in decades." The juxtaposition between the breeziness of his comment and the solemnity of its content befit the case, which is best characterized as a sleeper in a Term overshadowed by monumental rulings on gay marriage, voting rights, and affirmative action. What looked on its face like just another Fourth Amendment dispute — with civil libertarians on one side and law enforcement on the other — garnered no special attention. But King is no ordinary Fourth Amendment case.
At first glance, King simply upheld the Fourth Amendment constitutionality of a state statute authorizing the collection of DNA from arrestees. But the opinion in the case represents a watershed moment in the evolution of Fourth Amendment doctrine and an important signal for the future of biotechnologies and policing. This Comment places King into context from three different vantage points, each one step removed. Specifically, the three Parts below address the significance of the opinion: for DNA collection from arrestees, for forensic DNA practices more generally, and for the Fourth Amendment.
Part I briefly summarizes the opinions in the case and may be skipped by those familiar with them. Part II reads between the lines of the majority opinion, in light of the greater constellation of facts and claims placed before the Court, to underscore the significance of what was not said about the constitutionality of arrestee DNA collection. Part III considers King as it exemplifies the judicial response to forensic DNA typing more generally, and imagines its precedential value in future biometric cases. Part IV situates King in the broader landscape of the Court's recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and analyzes its insights for the evolution of the field as a whole.
by de officiis » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:13 pm
We are at the cusp of a historic shift in our conceptions of the Fourth Amendment driven by dramatic advances in surveillance technology. Governments and their private sector agents continue to invest billions of dollars in massive data-mining projects, advanced analytics, fusion centers, and aerial drones, all without serious consideration of the constitutional issues that these technologies raise. In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court signaled an end to its silent acquiescence in this expanding surveillance state. In that case, five justices signed concurring opinions defending a revolutionary proposition: that citizens have Fourth Amendment interests in substantial quantities of information about their public or shared activities, even if they lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in the constitutive particulars. This quantitative approach to the Fourth Amendment has since been the subject of hot debate on and off the courts. Among the most compelling challenges are questions about quantitative privacy's constitutional pedigree, how it can be implemented in practice, and its doctrinal consequences. This Article takes up these challenges.
The conversation after Jones has been dominated by proposals that seek to assess and protect quantitative privacy by focusing on the informational "mosaics" assembled by law enforcement officers in the course of their investigations. We think that this case-by-case approach both misunderstands the Fourth Amendment issues at stake and begets serious practical challenges. Drawing on lessons from information privacy law, we propose as an alternative that legislatures and courts acting in the shadow of Jones focus on the technologies. Under this technology-centered approach, any technology that is capable of facilitating programs of broad and indiscriminate surveillance would be subject to Fourth Amendment regulation. This does not mean that government would be barred from using these technologies. Rather, it would require that the terms of their deployment and use reflect a reasonable balance between privacy concerns and law enforcement's interests in preventing, detecting, and prosecuting crime. This Article offers concrete proposals for how legislatures and courts might strike this balance while providing the clear guidance and predictability that critics of the mosaic theory rightly demand.


text:
In July, 82-year-old lawyer Mary Pat Toups was planning ahead.
She wanted me to be ready in August to tell the public about a new law that would make it easier for Californians to leave their homes to their heirs. The governor hadn't even gotten the measure, but Toups was lining up press to explain it.
The bill was sitting in a Senate committee, and Toups was poised to make her regular commute from Laguna Woods to Sacramento to testify. Then she'd celebrate.
Turns out, Toups was optimistic.
This past week, as many noble bills died quiet deaths in Sacramento, you could say AB 724 was murdered in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Cancel the party. California still does not allow a revocable transfer-on-death deed. The measure was killed, Toups says, by opposition from trust and probate lawyers.
Sounds accurate.
But here's where Toups reveals the depth of her optimism: At her age, she still counts on seeing the measure become law.
So, yes, this is about a less expensive way to bequeath your house – but it's also about a one-woman quest to make it happen.
When we met, Toups asked about my children and I asked about a revocable transfer-on-death deed. Topics of children and inheritance go together.
Toups' crusade is impressive not only for her tenacity, but also for the political savvy she's acquired along the way.
Toups is a little old lady with her hair in a bun wearing comfortable shoes, but she isn't tilting at windmills. As a semi-retired lawyer she saw a need several years ago and morphed into a bulldog. She's sunk her teeth into this issue.
"When I'm right and everybody else is wrong, I just can't let go."
The issue is what happens to your house after you die.
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement
Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to republish your name and comment in additional Register publications without any notification or payment.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Brad Pitt Hits Between Two Ferns for Funny Interview With Galifianakis [WATCH]
Wow Zack Galifianakis pushes Brad Pitt's buttons with a reference to Jennifer Aniston and Friends. Check out the video and feel that awkwardness! Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis: Brad Pitt from Zach Galifianakis
Toys R Us pulls 'Breaking Bad' dolls
NEW YORK (AP) — Toys R Us is pulling its four collectible dolls based on the characters of AMC's hit series Breaking Bad after taking heat from a Florida mom who launched a petition campaign last week. The dolls are based on the series about a high school chemistry teacher named Walter White who turns […]
No Cover Charge Here! Club Sessions with Cato K 2am on Power 96
Cato K brings the party to You! Club Sessions bringing all the biggest names in House, Progressive, and Electro to Power 96! Tune In 2am-4am and check out the Official Club Sessions Podcast Here —> https://soundcloud.com/clubcatok
Calvin Harris Releases Slow Acid [VIDEO]
Calvin Harris released the latest single from the fourth coming new album "Motion". As you can hear it looks like Calvin will be delivering a balance of radio and club tracks. Check out the video here.
Club Sessions with Cato K Brings The Club To You!!!
Club Sessions in the mix tonight 2am-4am with Cato K! All the biggest dance music from around the galaxy!
DIY Space Princess Halloween Costume
This one is for all my Ariana fans who have been asking me for this tutorial for awhile! I show you how to recreate Ariana's break free outfit for a halloween…
Club Sessions with Cato K Late Night! Special Guest Set: Ollie Sanders
Tune into Club Sessions with Cato K Late night Fri & Sat 2am-4am! This week brings you a Special Guest Set from Dj Ollie Sanders (Miami)! Check out the latest Club Sessions Podcast Here!
EDM Superstars Krewella Mired In Legal Mess Involving DJ's Newfound Sobriety (Exclusive) – Hollywood Reporter
The story of Krewella starts out like an American fable: Two sisters and one former boyfriend from a Chicago, Illinois suburb form a music group, and using some social media savvy, rocket to fame as headliners of popular EDM festivals worldwide.


text: It would take more than 1,000 1,200-page volumes to contain the content of Wikipedia, but PediaPress has made an example volume to show what it might look like. "Our goal is to allow everyone to explore the physical dimensions of Wikipedia," says PediaPress founder Christoph Kepper. PediaPress hide caption itoggle caption PediaPress All Tech Considered Printing Wikipedia Would Take 1 Million Pages, But That's Sort Of The Point March 30, 2014 A German-based group called PediaPress estimates that a print version of the ever-evolving, online encyclopedia would fill more than 1,000 1,200-page volumes. Now they just need $50,000 to do it. Listen Loading… 4:16 Download Playlist


text:
Couple arrested in suffocation of baby
Updated On: Sep 03 2014 05:17:42 PM EDT
The Ware County Sheriff's Office has charged a Waycross couple with involuntary manslaughter in what they call the accidental suffocation of their 1-month-old child.
Gavin Arnold died early the morning of June 23 at the family's home on Will Lee Road. The investigation revealed that the baby was sleeping in the bed with his mother, Chelseay Arnold, 20, and her boyfriend, 45-year-old Ashley Lee. According to the Sheriff's Office, both adults were under the influence of amphetamine at the time and Arnold and Lee waited 30 to 40 minutes after finding the infant unresponsive before calling 911.
The medical examiner determined the child's cause of death was "asphyxia due to adverse sleep environment."
The Sheriff's Office report goes on to say:
"The residence was found to be in poor livable conditions with the residence being extremely dirty inside, an open panel box, open sewer, open electrical lines in the yard, etc. Ware County Planning & Codes Officer James Shubert was notified and he responded to the location to cite all the Codes violations to ensure the residence was brought up to a livable, safe standard. Ware County DFACS was also notified and responded to the scene, due to the severity of the circumstances."
When deputies went to the home last week to make the arrest, Arnold was found hiding inside. Lee was arrested at a Bacon County home without incident.
"This was a tragic situation that could have been avoided if the child's caretakers had used reasonable precautions in their care of that baby boy," Ware County Sheriff Randy F. Royal said. "This arrest came when it did in order to ensure no one rushed to judgment and an in-depth investigation could be completed."
Copyright 2014 by News4Jax.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The views expressed below are not those of News4Jax or its affiliated companies. By clicking on "Post," you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and your comment is in compliance with such terms. Readers, please help keep this discussion respectful and on topic by flagging comments that are offensive or inappropriate (hover over the commenter's name and you'll see the flag option appear on right side of that line). And remember, respect goes both ways: Tolerance of others' opinions is important in a free discourse. If you're easily offended by strong opinions, you might skip reading comments entirely.


text:
Sign in
Sign Up
lowest rate guarantee
52B Street
Sheikh Zayed, Trade Center 1
Nasser Square
Port Saeed, Near Deira City Center
P O BOX 61871, Deira City Centre, Baniyas Road
Great reasons to book with Agoda
Over 500,000 hotels worldwide – more added every day
Trusted by over 17,000,000 satisfied customers
Best Price Guarantee
8 million+ hotel reviews by Agoda customers
With availability in over 55,000 cities worldwide
agoda special offers
including last minute offers(even same day!)free nightsfree upgrades!
Customer Support
Great location, fantastic...
0.04 Km.
Best Hotel in DUBAI for Business...
0.24 Km.
location, decoration and staff...
0.26 Km.
Location, Friendly and helpful...
0.43 Km.
It had wide rooms, but empty no...
0.44 Km.
1. in town 2. good service for...
Location, Comfortable, Excellent...
0.46 Km.
its location made it possible to...
Size of room. Support from staff....
Location to Metro, supermarket and...
0.48 Km.
spacious, walking distance to...
0.5 Km.
Clean room, breakfast, use of...
0.54 Km.
Cleanliness, Value for Money,...
0.56 Km.
Staff is great, facillities...
0.59 Km.
The service, the room, the position...
0.63 Km.
0.66 Km.
0.67 Km.
Cleanliness, location and...
0.72 Km.
close to station, restaurants, and...
0.74 Km.
A few minutes' walk to the metro...
0.75 Km.
4.5 / 5
over 80,000 reviews
of users recommend us
Go To Top
All material herein © 2005 – 2014 Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., All Rights Reserved.
AGODA ® is a registered trademark of AGIP LLC, used under license by Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. Agoda is part of


text: We went up early in the morning. Our driver told us to go early and he was right because it was very hot and humid. We climbed the mountain. The view is amazing on top. It's very different to all the hikes I've done in the past. Back to the parking place, they have toilets where there are many monkeys.


text:
About Oklahoma Second Amendment Association
OK2A was founded in 2009 because there seemed to be a lack of a consistent voice for the people at the State Capitol for important issues such as open carry, nullification, etc. There were other groups that dealt with hunting issues and so forth, but no one was standing up for these other Constitutional issues. OK2A has stood strong on behalf of the average Oklahoman and in three short years achieved what had been so illusive: in 2012 we were instrumental in the passage of the open carry law. OK2A was the primary group behind it, working to negotiate behind the scenes to ensure its passage. In total, OK2A has helped usher almost 30 different measures through the process in just three years, while stopping 5 bad bills from becoming law (see the full list here). No other 2A group in Oklahoma can boast such a resume.
OK2A pledges to continue to push for greater liberty for gun owners in Oklahoma and to stand in the gap to protect the gun rights of every Oklahoman against the federal government's attempts to infringe on our rights.
With your help, we can continue to restore lost rights for every Oklahoman. Consider joining OK2A today.
What's New
Meetings (11/17/14)This Week NO TULSA GROUP MEETING THIS MONTH. Thursday 11/20 - Freedom Fellowship meets at 6:30 pm at Heartland HQ (4506 S Vancouver Ave) in Tulsa. Thursday 11/20 - Tea... Read More
2014 Election RecapNovember 4 turned out to be a good day for gun-owners' rights in Oklahoma. OK2A issued 41 endorsements for federal, statewide, state legislative, judicial, and local candidates. Thirty-five of those... Read More
Meetings (11/10/14)This Week Lawton group meets Monday, November 10 at 6:30pm at Billy Sims BBQ (1820 W Gore Blvd). Cherokee Co GOP meets Monday, November 10 at 6:30pm at the Tahlequah... Read More


text:
LSU to play in Tiger Stadium Saturday night
Published: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 1:44 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 1:47 p.m.
BATON ROUGE LSU will return to Tiger Stadium on Saturday night to host North Texas, one week after postponing its game with Troy because of damage to campus and the community caused by Hurricane Gustav.
LSU officials were confident they could have Tiger Stadium ready by this weekend but wanted to make sure the area would not be threatened by Hurricane Ike.
As of Wednesday, Ike appeared to be headed for the Texas coast.
It is apparent that the storm will move far enough to the west that we can play the game in Baton Rouge, LSU athletic director Joe Alleva said. Our prayers go out to our neighbors in Texas that they will stay safe.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article


text:
More Videos...
Custom 2000 Mercury Cougar : Video Edit : Full HD 1080p : GoPro Hero 2 Test : Sail - Awolnation
This was my first ever full edit. I used only a GoPro HD Hero 2. The
program I used to edit this was iMovie. It was my first time ever using
iMovie. Please leave me some feedback on either my video editing or of my
car, positive and negative welcomed.
All of the custom interior modifications was done by M&M Autoworks based
out of the NH/MA border. Check them out online and on Facebook:
Current Mod List:
-11" Hitachi Monitor installed in location of factory passenger side airbag
on dash wrapped in Vinyl to match interior
-Ps3 cut into glovebox location painted white and glovebox wrapped in vinyl
-Two Sets of Rockford Fosgate T1652-S Component speakers in custom
fiberglass pods in front door panels
-Tweeters in seperate pods
-Crossovers on display through door panel with blue LED lights that turn on
when the doors open
-Kenwood Excelon DNX6980 Head Unit with GPS, iPod hookups, DVD, remote
control, Bluetooth etc.
-Rockford Fosgate P1683 Speakers in the rear factory speaker location
-Beltronics RX65 Radar Detector Hardwired to ignition switch with separate
mute/alert module
-Custom painted interior (Code 12 White with Omni Blue Peal)
-Aftermarket Shift Knob
-Compustar 2 Way Alarm system with LED located flush in headlight switch
-Four 12" Alpine Type S subwoofers in custom fiberglass enclosure (painted
the same white with omni blue pearl as the exterior) fitted to the trunk
-JL Audio 600/1 Amplifier hovering on a pexi glass platform with blue LEDs
lighting the perimeter which powers the four subs
-Two JL Audio 400/4 Amplifiers also on plexi glass platforms with blue
LED's powering each set of T1652-S components
-Vinyled black platform above the subwoofer enclosure
-The floor of the trunk has a white center which the amps "hover" over
-Vinyled floor around white center piece holding amps which merges into a
carpeted floor to match the factory carpeted walls
-Custom Code 12 White with Omni Blue Pearl full paint job
-Velox VX-8 17" Rims
-Continental ProContact Tires
-20% Tinted Rear Windows
-Tinted Tailights
-Tinted 3rd Brake Lights
- Wings West Super Style Wing (Eclipse GSX Style)
-Kaminari Fiberglass Hood
-Cougar Mud Flaps
-6000K HID Headlights
-Backup Camera Installed in factory trunk keyhole location
Engine Bay:
-Optima Yellow Top Battery
-Header Back 2.5" Straight Pipe Exhaust
-Gutted Pre cats
-Main cat delete
-Y-Pipe with Carbon Fiber Design mufflers angled up and out
-Carbon fiber GMK short ram intake
-Spectre Filter
1972 Mercury Cougar XR7 Convertible 351 Cleveland V8
I thought you might like a look at this 1972 Mercury Cougar XR7
Convertible. It is a very well-preserved original survivor, with only
88,xxx miles on the odometer. It's powered by the numbers matching 351
Cleveland 2 BBL V8, backed by a C6 automatic trans. All the power is sent
back to the extremely durable 9 inch rear. The interior is all original
and is in very good condition. It really is in remarkable condition, given
it's age. I hope you find it interesting, thanks for taking a look!
This video was filmed at Country Classic Cars in Staunton, IL
The background music track is Whiskey on the Mississippi by Kevin MacLeod.
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
Mercury Cars of 1949 to 1951
The Mercury car model has been around since 1939 and was introduced as a
mid range priced vehicle by Edsel Ford.
Cars built between 1949 and 1951, would in later years prove to be very
popular amongst the Hot Rod Car Enthusiasts. They would reshape the steel
to produce cars that would set a new standard for Customized Vehicles.
Early model Mercury cars of 1949 to 1951 had a 90 degree V type, "L" head 8
cylinder engine with a displacement of 255.4 cubic inches. These engines
put out 112 horsepower at 3600 R.P.M.
Later model cars of 1955 replaced the "L" engine with the "Y" block V-8
producing between 188 and 198 horsepower dependant on the
engine type for that year.
This slide show is a part of a series of pictures of cars from different
car shows that I've attended here in Southern California U.S.A.
68 Cougar Burnout
68 Cougar
SOLD 1950 Mercury Coupe Hot Rod for sale by Corvette Mike Anaheim California 92807
1950 Mercury Custom Coupe Candy Apple Red w/White interior.
If you get a bunch of gearheads in a room together and they get to talking
about what the ultimate hot rod is, inevitably there will be three
constants on the list; the '32 Ford Hi Boy Roadster, the '32 Ford 3 window
coupe and the subject of this ad; the iconic '50 Merc coupe.
The quintessential lead sled; the Merc defined the full bodied hot rod in
the '50's. Its flowing lines were a vast canvas on which customizers could
practice what was a fairly new art form back in the late '40's, early 50's.
Chopped, channeled, frenched and decked. That's what you did if you wanted
your Merc to stand out in a crowd!
And the sled being offered here does that in spades!
Designed to emulate customs made famous by legends like Sam and George
Barris, Gene Winfield and many others, this rolling piece of art has all of
the elements mentioned above, in addition to being wrapped in stunning
Candy Apple Red paint, white tuck and roll interior with a multi-carb'd
Flathead under the hood! Held in a vast private collection consisting of
only the finest custom automobiles, the work was done by Steve's Auto
Restorations using elements of Chevrolet, Pontiac, Cadillac, Olds & Kaiser.
The hardtop body has no "B" pillar, the headlights have been "Frenched",
hood corners have been rounded and of course it wouldn't be a '50's custom
without Appleton spots!
The interior features white "Tuck and Roll", laminated plastic knobs and a
'57 Olds steering wheel, power steering, a hidden audio system and solenoid
operated doors, windows and trunk The business end features a full dress
Motorhead City 1950 Flathead engine featuring an Offenhauser intake and
heads and three Stromberg '97 carbs. House of Color supplied the Candy
Apple over Gold exterior and "Von Dutch" style pinstriping. Wides whites
with full Cadillac wheel covers completes the deal!
It's an investment grade custom that spells upside in it's fortunate new
owners future. It was good enough for James Dean! Stk #N/A
2001 Mercury Cougar V6 Start Up, Exhaust, and In Depth Tour
In this video I give a full in depth tour of the 2001 Mercury Cougar V6. I
take viewers on a close look through the interior and exterior of this car
while showing details, over viewing of features, and noting unique styling
cues to the vehicle itself. I also show the engine and the details of it,
start it up and see how it sounds under acceleration. A thorough
tour/review of this car designed to give others a greater overall
appreciation of the vehicle.
Bad ass FORD Mercury with air suspension
Ford Mercury 1951 with air suspension. CURITIBA, Brazil - 2012
(By Lucas de Oliveira)
1968 Mercury Cougar XR-7 GT "Barn fresh"
It ran when I parked it in the garage in 1989...
Mercury 1948 We go for a ride! The nicest one around?
We go for a ride in Bill Vogt's restored 1948 Mercury.
Custom Mercury Cougar
This car was built and used as a Show car.
1999 Mercury Cougar
Duratec 2.5L V6
Jl Audio
Recorder: Motorola Atrix (cell Phone) Please excuse the poor audio quality
67-68 Cougar Buying Guide: What To Look For
In this video, Don does a detailed inspection on a 1967 Mercury Cougar XR-7
to show some of the things you should look for when buying one of these
classic cars. Some of the insight here can potentially save you hundreds,
even thousands, when you go to negotiate with a seller. Also, it will help
those of you trying to sell, to more accurately advertise the strengths and
weaknesses of your car.
We've also done a similar video with a 1970 Cougar convertible, so you may
want to check that out too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fizb2vo68vA
To look up the parts mentioned in this video, visit
Subscribe to our channel to keep up with our latest uploads! And while
you're at it, like us on Facebook to keep up with miscellaneous cool Cougar
stuff. https://www.facebook.com/WestCoastClassicCougar
MUSCLE CAR HEAVEN!! - Helsinki Cruising Night 7/2012
Helsinki Cruising Night July 2012 was one of the best cruising events ever!
Amazing muscle cars, classics and new ones, awesome V8 rumble and the smell
of gasoline, just amazing. Enjoy!
This event is held once a month from April to October in Helsinki, all new
Cruising videos coming soon, SUBSCRIBE NOW!
Related Videos:
- MUSCLE CAR MAYHEM!! Helsinki Cruising Night 5/2013 - amazing V8 sounds!
- 15 MINUTES of MUSCLE CAR MANIA!! Helsinki Cruising Night 6/2013
- Muscle Car Madness!! HELSINKI CRUISING NIGHT 7/2013
Some of the highlights from this event:
2007 Matte black Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Convertible w/
663hp http://youtu.be/hCJ_KgMzlk0
2008 Ford Mustang GT
1968 Ford Mustang 'Bullitt'
Fastback GT390 http://youtu.be/rcs7GR1YzPE
600hp Monster Motorsports Inc. Camaro SS
Plymouth Prowler
1970 Dodge Challenger Convertible
Dodge Challenger SRT-8
Modified Dodge Challenger R/T
Dodge Viper GTS http://youtu.be/6709yH_OOis
Cadillac XLR-V
Chevrolet Chevelle SS
Shelby Cobra (replica??)
1968 Dodge Charger R/T
Orange Chevrolet Corvette C2
1957 Chevrolet Bel Air w/ blower
Auburn Speedster
Plus a lot of gorgeous Mustangs, Firebirds, Cadillacs, Camaros, Corvettes and
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Watch in High Definition (1080p HD).
SUBSCRIBE for more upcoming automotive videos:
Follow Jamboolio on TWITTER:
1967 Mercury cougar XR7 $21,900.00
Documented Frame-Up Restoration, beautiful factory Inverness green
metallic, green vinyl interior 302 ci engine, Holley 750 cfm 4bbl, polished
Edelbrock aluminum intake, Crane roller cam & rockers, polished aluminum
water pump, ceramic headers, aluminum breather & valve covers, Mallory
Unilite distributor, power steering, power brakes, C4 automatic
transmission with 2200 stall & B&M shift kit, bucket seats with console,
factory tach & gauges, am radio, Flowmaster dual Exhaust with H pipe & stainless tips, factory
rear end, new fuel tank, 245/60R15 BF Goodrich Radial TA rear tires,
215/65R15 fronts, 15" Cragar wheels, Documented 2 Owner car with original
owner's manuals & service records, One Bad Cougar!
DOOM's 2004 Mercury Marauder S/C Hybrid
2004 Mercury Marauder Trilogy S/C, Kooks headers, Aero Turbine Exhaust.
Copyright: Video was recorded by ctrlraven and is owned by ctrlraven.
1950 Mercury Lead Sled Test Drive Classic Muscle Car for Sale in MI Vanguard Motor Sales
http://www.ClassicCarBuyingSecrets.com Click now for an instant download
on "How to Avoid the 7 Deadliest Mistakes of Buying a Classic Car Online"!
"Lil Darlin" comes with a full size display of features for car shows,
several plaques from the James Dean Car Shows, and a book of photographs
from the build. This car is autographed by George Barris on the firewall!
350ci Chevy Engine
350 turbo Transmission
Chrome Alternator
3 Single Throat Carbs
Exhaust Manifolds
Steel Braided Hoses
Power Front Disc Brakes
Power Steering
Chrome Close-Out Panel
Fend Aluminum Oil Pan
Steering Gear is in Good Shape
Newer Starter
12 Volt System
GM A Body Front Sub Frame and Suspension
Rebuilt Rear Springs
Dual Exhaust is in Great Shape
Glasspack Mufflers
Period Correct Rear End
Front Sway Bar
Chopped, Nosed, Decked
'55 Desoto Grill
Lake Pipes
Frenched in Blue Dot Taillights
Frenched Antenna
Frenched Headlights
Spot Lights
Pin-Striping in the Door Jambs
Doors Fit and Operate Great
Door Lips and Jambs are Clean and Solid
Beautiful Chrome
Trunk Popper in Dash
Beautiful Custom Finished Trunk
Fender Skirts
Wide White Wall Firestone Tires - 205/75 Front and Rear
Full Hubcaps
Very Solid Frame
Floorboards look to be Original
Undercoating on Floorboards
Rockers are Solid
Body Mounts Look Great
Solid Heavy Duty X Frame
GM A Body Front Sub Frame and Suspension
Quarters are Solid, Original Metal
Beautiful Rolled and Pleated Interior
White Upholstery with Maroon Piping
Cadillac Steering Wheel
Tilt Column
Beautifully Painted Dash
Custom AutoMeter Gauges
Beautiful Headliner
Working Dome Light
'76 Toro Seats
Wipers Work
Electric Windows
Don't Miss Out! Call Tom 7 Days a Week, Including Holidays! 248-974-9513
Lamborghini Aventador Twin Turbo Startup, Sounds, Acceleration, vs McLaren MP4-12C
Lamborghini Huracan vs McLaren MP4-12C Spider
McLaren 650S vs MP4-12C on the Dyno
GoPro Winner for October 2014 is Brad with a 2007 Volkswagen GTI
Which car is faster?
Similar 1/4 mile timeslips to browse:
1986 Mercury Cougar : 6.800 @ 204.000
stefan peterson, Engine: 511 KB, Supercharger: 14/71 Tires: m/t
1967 Mercury Cougar : 9.110 @ 145.500
Tyler Shallenburger, Engine: 461w sbf dart block, Supercharger: n/a Turbos: n/a Tires: Hoosier c07 28 10.5
1967 Mercury Cougar standard: 9.360 @ 142.000
Tony Malone, Engine: 393 W, Tires: Mickey Thompson
1969 Mercury Cougar xr7 elimanator: 10.154 @ 130.200
morris, Engine: 557, Tires: 32-15-15
1970 Mercury Cougar : 10.418 @ 133.000
Tony Barnes, Engine: 460,
1968 Mercury Cougar Standard: 10.820 @ 123.000
Frank Giallonardo, Engine: 351C, Tires: GoodYear
1984 Mercury Cougar lx: 11.174 @ 121.590
BOB OBERG, Engine: 331 n/a, Tires: 28x10.5
1967 Mercury Cougar GT: 11.224 @ 119.340
TRAVIS TAYLOR, Engine: 392, Tires: MICKEY THOMPSON DRAG RADIALS
1970 Mercury Cougar Std: 11.395 @ 122.980
Allenman, Engine: 351W,
1996 Mercury Cougar XR7 Special Edition: 11.891 @ 113.600
Steve Dugan, Engine: Stock 4.6L 281 PI 2V Bullitt Intake, Supercharger: NA Turbos: NA Tires: Front 28 Goodyears/Rear 28
1969 Mercury Cougar : 11.910 @ 117.000
Luke Huckaba, Engine: 351w, Supercharger: n/a Turbos: n/a Tires: MT ET Streets, 28x11.5
1968 Mercury Cougar : 12.345 @ 108.540
Kenny Bush, Engine: 289 Mercury, Tires: 29.5x10-15 M/T
1997 Mercury Cougar XR-7: 12.740 @ 109.230
Mitchell Gunter, Engine: '03 4.6L, Tires: M/T ET drag rad.
1970 Mercury Cougar : 12.830 @ 104.630
Dennis Wilson, Engine: 351w, Supercharger: na Turbos: na Tires: 28.5 x 10
1999 Mercury Cougar 2.5 V6 MTX: 13.255 @ 110.320
Aaron Hayes, Engine: stock, Supercharger: n/a Turbos: n/a Tires: BFG 225/50 drag radials
1999 Mercury Cougar 3L: 13.451 @ 104.350
Aaron, Engine: 3L Duratec, Tires: Kumho ultra sport escta
1966 Mercury Cougar ss: 13.953 @ 98.930
Les Hughes, Engine: 406 ford fe, Turbos: no Tires: mt 11
1996 Mercury Cougar XR7: 13.980 @ 96.110
Trevor, Engine: stock v6, Supercharger: 1994 m90 Turbos: N/a Tires: 195/55/15
1999 Mercury Cougar : 13.990 @ 99.200
Josh Russell, Engine: 2002 Sable 3L, Tires: BFG DR's
1969 Mercury Cougar : 14.210 @ 102.000
Mark Blumberg, Engine: mild modified 351W, Tires: MT Sportsman+MT ET Drag Radials
©2014 DragTimes - Disclaimer


text: A 3 more photos Lower High St, Shirehampton, Bristol, BS11 1 Bed · 1 Bath · Flat · Garden · Unfurnished · Kitchen · Central Heating · Reception Rent this modern one bedroom, first floor flat located in the heart of shirehampton. property is close to local amenities in the village centre and ideal for commuting into bristol city centre, avonmouth and severn beach. property has been well looked after, and comprises of a good sized double... »» new! on Zoopla > C J Hole £595 per month


text:
Email Alerts
Storage products to boost business
Resellers pitching the right storage products and services can boost their bottom line and achieve long-term success as organisations seek new ways to manage an explosion of data. Feature
2e2 duets with Violin Memory
2e2 has partnered up with flash memory vendor Violin Memory to help its customers access flash memory arrays. News
Thai floods just a memory for resurgent WD
Six months after losing its hard disk drive crown to Seagate when its Thai facilities were flooded, Western Digital (WD) is again sitting pretty on top of the global hard disk drive market. News
ANS proclaims i3 FlexPod architecture massive success
Manchester-based services provider ANS Group has proclaimed its Infrastructure 3.0 (i3) proposition a rip-roaring success after powering to record profits and sales during the financial year ending 31 March. News
Big data management is big business for resellers with the right expertise
To optimise the potential benefits of big data, organisations need help to manage it effectively, writes Andrew Carr. Opinion
ISO accreditation for CompTIA and SNIA
IT skills certification provider, CompTIA, and the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) have had their CompTIA Storage+ powered by SNIA certification accredited by the ISO. News
Polish up your storage expertise
There are lucrative opportunities for partners which have a good understanding of their customers and deliver value around complicated storage solutions. Billy MacInnes reports. Feature
Selling storage to the SME sector
Comms-care's Darren Briscoe looks at some SME storage scenarios and explores how resellers can leverage this market. Opinion
HP plunges to $8.9bn loss
Hewlett-Packard has posted an enormous $8.9bn (£5.6bn) loss in the third quarter of its fiscal 2012. News
Dell taps HP's Haas as PC revenues fade fast
In a clear signal of its future intentions Dell has hired ex-HP Networking boss Marius Haas to run its enterprise unit, as its PC business struggles. News


text:
Select all
Found the same room at a different price? Tell us, and we'll offer to match it.
Find out more
Hotel Indigo Newcastle
BEST WESTERN Ryokan Hotel
Holiday Inn Express Newcastle Metro Centre
Holiday Inn Express Newcastle City Centre
BEST WESTERN New Kent Hotel
Oaktree Lodge
Home from Home Bungalow
Holiday Inn Newcastle - Gosforth Park
Holiday Inn Newcastle Jesmond
DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Newcastle International Airport
Hilton Newcastle Gateshead
Staybridge Suites Newcastle
Sandman Signature Hotel Newcastle
Innkeeper's Lodge Newcastle, Cramlington
VILLAGE URBAN RESORT Newcastle
Jurys Inn Newcastle
Jurys Inn Newcastle Gateshead Quays
Close House
Kensington House ApartHotel
Tune Hotel Newcastle
Whites Hotel
Novotel Newcastle Airport
Sleeperz Hotel Newcastle
Euro Hostel Newcastle
Cairn Hotel
The Rosebery Hotel
The Vermont Hotel
Newgate Hotel - Newcastle Upon Tyne
Jesmond Hotel
New Northumbria Hotel
Royal Station Hotel
Ramada Encore Newcastle-Gateshead
Britannia Hotel Newcastle Airport
Roomzzz Newcastle City
Carlton Hotel
Heroes Hotel
Jesmond Dene House Hotel
Newcastle Jesmond Hotel
Horton Grange Hotel
Waterside Hotel - Newcastle
Windsor Hotel
Dene Hotel
The Kenilworth
Grainger Hotel
Hedgefield House
Rowers Hotel
Osborne Hotel
Distances are provided for guidance and are calculated 'as the crow flies'. For directions and actual distances by road, please refer to the hotel directions tab for the particular hotel.
Reset filters
Best Deals - Stannington |
4 & 5 Star Hotels - Stannington |
Big Savers - Stannington |
Disabled Access - Stannington |
10 Rooms or Less - Stannington |
Budget Beds - Stannington
Tyne and Wear Regions
| Hotels in Gateshead
| Hotels in Newcastle upon Tyne
| Hotels in North Tyneside
| Hotels in South Tyneside
| Hotels in Sunderland
Alternative Searches - As searched for by LateRooms.com.au users
| Newcastle Hotels
| Gosforth Hotels
| Blaydon Hotels
| Dunston Hotels
| Kenton Hotels
| Newburn Hotels
| Lemington Hotels
| Derwent Haugh Hotels
| Swalwell Hotels
| High Heaton Hotels
| Throckley Hotels
| Winlaton Hotels
| Dinnington Hotels
| Stannington Hotels
| Newcastle-on-tyne Hotels
| Berwick Hill Hotels
| Lemington-on-Tyne Hotels
| Sydney Hotels
| Melbourne Hotels
| Brisbane Hotels
| Adelaide Hotels
| Perth Hotels
| Cairns Hotels
Contact Us |
Terms and Conditions |
Disclaimer |
About Us |
Job Opportunities |
Things we care about | Press |
User Guide
Affiliates |
Hotel Admin |
Add your hotel
Copyright © 1999 - 2014 LateRooms Ltd


text: Home > Lifestyle > EnviroHealth > News 06 November 2012 Carbon buried in the soil rises again A research team that includes a plant scientist has identified a source of carbon emissions that could play a role in understanding past and future global change. 1 Start A Health24 blog » Follow Health24 on Facebook » Test Are you envirohealth savvy? » Ask EnviroHealth Expert » Shark feeding frenzy caught on camera The recycling headache list A research team that includes a University of California, Davis, plant scientist has identified a source of carbon emissions that could play a role in understanding past and future global change. While earlier studies have found that erosion can bury carbon in the soil, acting as a carbon sink, or storage, the new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that part of that sink is only temporary. "It's all part of figuring out the global carbon cycle," said co-author Johan Six, professor of plant sciences at UC Davis. "Where are the sources, and where are the sinks? Erosion is in some ways a sink, but, as we found out, it can also become a source." The researchers estimated that roughly half of the carbon buried in soil by erosion will be re-released into the atmosphere within about 500 years, and possibly faster due to climate change. Climate change can speed the rate of decomposition, aiding the release of the buried carbon. How the research was done As a case study, the researchers used radiocarbon and optical dating to calculate the amount of carbon emissions captured in soils and released to the atmosphere during the past 6 000 years along the Dijle River in Belgium. The study's long time scope — from 4000 BC to AD 2000 — allowed the researchers to notice the gradual reintroduction of buried carbon to the atmosphere. Significant agricultural land conversion — historically the largest source of global erosion — began primarily in the past 150 years, well under the researchers' time frame of 500 years. Therefore, most carbon sequestered in the soil during the past 150 years of agricultural history has not been released yet but may become a significant carbon source in the future, with implications for soil management, the study said. "Our results showed that half of the carbon initially present in the soil and vegetation was lost to the atmosphere as a result of agricultural conversion," said study co-author Gert Verstraeten, a professor at KU Leaven, Belgium. Six noted that erosion could be minimised by no-till and low-till agricultural methods, as well as by cover cropping, which can ensure that soil is not left bare. "We need to know where and how much carbon is being released or captured in order to develop sensible and cost-effective measures to curb climate change," said lead author, Kristof Van Oost, of the Universite catholique de Louvain in Belgium. (EurekAlert, November 2012) Read more: Seas rising faster than predicted More in Lifestyle Naked protest over orcas in New York More: EnviroHealthNews SPONSORED: So many prizes! Click through and see our fantastic competitions. advertisement Get a quote Momentum - save up to 35% on healthcare advertisement Read Health24's Comments Policy Comment on this story 1 comment Add your comment Thank you, your comment has been submitted. Logout Comment 0 characters remaining Share on Facebook Logout Comment 0 characters remaining Share on Facebook Loading comments... Other news Medical Does ADHD make you cleverer? Medical Double arm transplant recipient thanks doctors News Why is doctors' handwriting so bad? Diet and nutrition The poisons and heavy metals in our food – part I Medical Steer clear of cold medicine for babies Lifestyle Women's low libido not only blamed on menopause From our sponsors Uncontrolled periodontal disease and diabetes – a collective health risk? Exam stress – a challenge for the whole family Eduloan offers affordable education finance Live healthier Allergy alert » Allergy myths Cold or allergy? Children and allergies Allergy facts vs. fiction Some of the greatest allergy myths and misconceptions can actually be damaging to your health. Vitamin wise » Vitamins for HIV What to eat for vitamin B? Cut down on vitamins All you need to know about vitamins Find out which vitamin to use for which condition. Ask our Vitamin expert.


text:
Pet Boarding
Deer Creek offers Pet Boarding services all Summer long so your Pet gets a Vacation too!Click Here to See BOARDING PRICES
Farm Fresh Eggs
HIggins Farm eggs are Organic, Cage Free and Free Range. You can pick-up your eggs in our Front Lobby for just $3.00 Per Dozen.JUST $3.00 PER DOZEN Pick Up in the Lobby
Our Services
Veterinary Services
Deer Creek Animal Hospital is a premier Veterinary Clinic in North Phoenix. We offer complete veterinary services.
Boarding Services
Deer Creek Resort offers boarding services for when you are away from home. We have a full acre grass backyard for romping and playing.
Day Care Services
During Doggie Day Care dogs participate in group activities, go outside to play multiple times a day.
Grooming Services
Deer Creek Salon & Spa guests receive the pampering they deserve by our professional groomers.
Dog Training
Deer Creek is now offering a full line of dog training classes for our clients. We will be offering some classes
Dog Rescue
Sheltering and finding homes for rescue animals is very important at Deer Creek.
Emergency Service
Pet Veterinary Center: (623) 516-8571
520 W. Union Hills Dr, 85027
Vetmed: (602) 697-4694
20610 N. Cave Creek Rd, 85024 Creek.
Our Hospital
Our premier, 10,000
square foot, facility was completed in early 2007. The hospital
was custom designed for the comfort and security of our
3025 E. Rose Garden Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Click for Directions
Take a Photo Tour of the HospitalView All
Black Friday Sale
Black Friday – 50% retail items – toys, leashes, collars ..
Grooming hair chalking for dogs
Hair chalking for dogs – pink paws, purple mohawks! ..
Photos with Santa
Photos with Santa – December 11, 4:30-7:30 - holiday photos with dogs, kids, familiescollars ..
Read MoreSubscribe
Pet Services
- Surgery
- Dental Care
- Wellness Checks
- Puppy Shots
- Spay and Neuter


text:
Trinidad Express article.
Sydney, Australia - Trinidad and Tobago's Under-16 Invitational cricket team played their way into the final of the Tri-Nation Series T20 final, which also features India and Australia, after wins against both sides.
WICB Media Release.
KOCHI, India – West Indies captain Dwayne Bravo said his side has put the Test series defeat behind and have regained confidence ahead of the first One-day International against India on Thursday at the Nehru Stadium here.
Wisden India article.
Trinidad Guardian article.
Sydney, Australia - Captain Kirstan Kallicharan's two half centuries yesterday led the T&T Invitational Under-16 into the final of the Sir Don Bradman Foundation Youth Series in Australia, after back-to-back wins.
Toronto, Canada - Guyanese and Trinidad and Tobago players dominated awards at the 33rd Annual Scarborough Cricket Association (SCA) presentation ceremony on Sunday evening at the Eastown, Banquet Hall.
West Indies Cricket Board Inc.
P.O. Box 616 W, St. John's, Antigua
Tel : 268-481-2450
Fax : 268-481-2498
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
"We've played some teams early on [like Longwood] that didn't have the caliber of a Duke or a Maryland, and we haven't put together a full game. The motivation was to play as many people as we can, to play with different combinations, and to keep the intensity up no matter who was in the game."
Related quotes
"You have to believe Duke and North Carolina and Maryland are all going to be teams in the postseason that are going to be very successful. They've proven themselves throughout the season."
"[Rockville, MD.] I am pleased to officially announce that the ABA's Maryland Nighthawks team has hired Keith Williams as head coach for the 2005-2006 campaign, ... Williams has been working in professional basketball for some of the NBA's brightest stars for years and now has the chance to coach in the professional ranks."
"But we've played in some tough places this season. We've been to the Dean Dome, Cameron Indoor Stadium, Maryland and Michigan. It's not like we don't know what it's like to play in a hostile environment."
"Maryland played it well and Ian wasn't wide open. It really didn't matter because I was going to throw it to him no matter what."


text:
Vicky Colbert, founder of Escuela Nueva - a nonprofit dedicated to improving the quality of education worldwide is the 2011 recipient of the Kravis Prize for Leadership. She spoke yesterday on the Claremont McKenna College campus about her work. What Escuela Nueva does essentially is bring best educational practices and technology to rural classrooms in impoverished areas of Latin America, and other parts of the world. She has been recognized by the Kravis Prize, and by other significant awards, because of the enormous impact of their efforts. For example, underperforming rural schools in Colombia have been transformed into top performers by Escuela Nueva.
How do they work this magic? Well, they simply teach teachers about best educational practices, such as peer-to-peer learning, team-based learning, and moving from a centuries-old, teacher-centered classroom to modern, dynamic, student-centered educational techniques.


text:
You are in: Home > Our collection > Locomotives and rolling stock > Chinese Government Railways Steam Locomotive 4-8-4 KF Class No 7
Chinese Government Railway 4-8-4 KF7 Class No. 607.
Number: DS050083
Credit: National Railway Museum
Number: 1911-0346_(0012)
Credit: National Railway Museum
Chinese Govt Rlys 4-8-4 KF7 class No 607 - 1983.
Number: NRM_CT_932768
Credit: National Railway Museum
Background: BR Warflat
Discover 300 years of history and 1,000,000 objects that changed the world in the UK's largest railway museum.
York open 10am - 5pm | What's on
Shildon open 10am - 4pm | What's on
National Railway Museum
Leeman Road
Tel: 0844 815 3139
Email: email@example.com


text: life Comments 3 The Most Amazing Pet Halloween Costumes In the World! By Vadim Newquist Oct 18, 2012 Back 16 of 16 Next More More Slideshows Preventing Holiday Weight Gain 10 Unbelievable Thanksgiving Day Parade Disasters! Awesome Gift Ideas for Your Bestie (Sorted By Their Hogwarts House, OBVIOUSLY)! Back Next more > Back Next more > MorRokkoCredit: Thanks again to MorRokko. Tags: pets, slideshows, halloween, costumes, doctor who, life, the avengers, iron man, matt smith Pixel Puzzle Challenge: Scary Movie Edition Pixel Puzzle Challenge: Scary Movie Edition Maggie Stiefvater's The Raven Boys Roped Us In! Maggie Stiefvater's The Raven Boys Roped Us In! Related Posts Life Why Wearing Glasses Is Awesome Let Me Give You Bad Advice: Love Advice 5 Movie Adaptations That DIDN'T Follow the Book...and Were Awful Geek Quiz: A Very, Merry Gary-Claus Quiz Write your own comment! Hold up there partner! Before you comment on a post there's one more step. You'll have to choose a nickname to be displayed on your comment. Give 'er a shot below! Write your own comment! OR OR Please log in first Email Password Remember me Log in Create an account | Lost password ...or log in using