Comments on: The legal battle over the 2003 steroids list continues to drag on

By: jamaican blue mountain

jamaican blue mountain — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:30:56 +0000

Keep up the wonderful writing. I liked reading your blog. Thanks

By: Joe Lobbing

Joe Lobbing — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:12:41 +0000

A good background check service is almost impossible to find.

By: Robrob

Robrob — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:19:42 +0000

I would think that it all depends upon how the information is stored. If it was all in one file, and the identities of the players were all obscured in that file, then wouldn’t the government *have* to take the whole file in order to get the records of the ten players for whom they had a warrant?
And if they *had* to take the whole file, and also *had* to decode every player’s record in that file in order to get the ten records in which they were interested, wouldn’t it be somewhat illogical for them to throw away the evidence for the other players? (This is not a rhetorical question. Really, what is the legal ruling on this type of seizure?)

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:33:15 +0000

Gimmie is right on the procedure, though it’s worth noting that the 9th hasn’t done a full en banch for nearly 30 years, so it may be more cumbersome than usual. It’s a huge court.
Yes, the facts were a bit different than I described rather flippantly in the post. I should have stayed away from the medical analogy because that raises other concerns. Essentially, though, it’s a situation in which the warrant says “we want info for these 10 guys” and the raid takes the info of 100 more guys because it just so happens to be in the same general area. It doesn’t pass the smell test for me, didn’t pass the smell test for the trial court or the first en banc panel of the 9th.

By: GimmeSomeSteel

GimmeSomeSteel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:09:26 +0000

I’m not a lawyer, although I have played one on stage (sorry). I’ve also played many human roles.
To answer your question about the full 27-member seating–Yes, a majority rules when a court sits “en banc”. This is what happens when a case is ruled on by SCOTUS. Whether their ruling is 5-4, 7-2, or 9-0 is irrelevant, and so it would be by the full appeals court.

By: Church of the Perpetually Outraged

Church of the Perpetually Outraged — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:58:30 +0000

From a legal perspective it blows my mind that the court is so uncomfortable with its ruling — a ruling that says that the government can’t waltz into your doctor’s office with a search warrant for a specific patient’s records and walk out with the medical records of you and and your kids and your aunt Tilly and everyone. This seems pretty basic to me, but to the extent I’m wrong and it’s not basic, it’s something that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to rule on anyway, so why not get it to them sooner rather than later?

Couple of questions, and forgive me as I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on TV (or not).
If it goes to the full 27 member panel, I assume either side can still appeal to SCOTUS? If so, as you mention, why drag this on a few more years? Also, with the full 27 member seating, is it still a simple majority for the decision?
As for the analogy to the doctor’s office, wasn’t this a slightly different situation? Wasn’t all the info kept on one spreadsheet as opposed to different files, that hopefully, your doctor would use? Or do (did) the courts not make that fine a comparison?