January 14th, vic derma della sanchez said us a 33 year old mother from mexico city, stepped into the rio grande, holding the hands of her 2 children. You are lie, ruby h 10, and jonathan augustine, very honest, the sunshine 8. We dont know how they got into trouble in the strong current, or if they even knew how to swim, group of bait, mexicos border rescue service, saw them struggling and called the us border patrol. Agents went to the park gate a couple of miles from the boat ramp. Soldiers of the Texas Military department refused to let them through. Mexican authorities tried to rescue the mom and her children. They were able to save 2 others, but the 3 drowned and group of beta could only return to mexico with their bodies. Later, the Texas Military Department Said that its soldiers standing behind a chain link fence had shown high powered lights on the water and use their night vision goggles, but somehow had seen nothing. The white house called the event tragic and used it as ev
The woman was rescued by a retired paramedic who was swimming there. Jackie ward on the what the city is going to do with this recurring problem. Reporter this is the fourth incident involving a sea lion in a matter of months. The first time someone was gummed and now this is the third time someone has been bitten. Just before 7 a. M. , irene a wellknown swimmer at the south End Rowing Club was bitten by a sea lion. Its like meat hanging out on the side of her leg and stuff here and, um, but it was a pretty good bite. Reporter the carpenter is working on a nearby dock and saw irene getting pulled to shore. It was dark at that time in the morning. It got her and it was like she was in shock. Reporter alice was swimming nearby and heard irene call for help. She was one of the first swimmers to reach her and began guiding her to shore, about a quarter mile away. I said, do you want me to pull you in . She said no, no. I can swim by myself. I just cant kick. It looked like the sea lion had
Three reasons. The privacy expectations when he locks his personal property in the cars locked trunk with the permission of the renter is contrary to this courts reasonable expectation of privacy test which looks to privacy expectations and not Contract Terms and not Property Rights and while the contract violation alleged here does not negate Fourth Amendment rights, its notable that mr. Byrds presence in the car and the government does not dispute this was not improper. His storing of his personal items in the trunk was not even a contract violation. Could he have been could he have been the renter given his criminal record . Perhaps not, your honor, but he was given permission by the renter to store his items in the locked trunk and the government does not argue that this was impermissible. Suppose hed been just a passenger . And the renter was there. Likewise, even if he was the passenger, if the person who has rented the car gives him permission to lock his own personal property i
Supreme court oral argument in byrd v. United states. The case hinges on the drivers right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court is deciding if that extends to a rental car that the driver did not rent and is not authorized to operate under the rental agreement. The oral argument lasts about an hour. Youll hear argument this morning in 1631 byrd versus united states. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court, in this case, the government seems to transform a violation of a car rental agreement into a rule where unlisted drivers from no ability to even invoke the Fourth Amendment and the proposed rule should be objected for three reasons and ignoring the privacy expectations when he locks his personal property in the cars locked trunk with the permission of the renter is contrary to this courts reasonable expectation of privacy test which looks to privacy expectations and not Contract Terms and not Property Rights and while the contract violation alleged here does not negat
Where unlisted drivers have no ability to even invoke the Fourth Amendment and the proposed rule should be objected for three reasons. First, ignoring the privacy expectations when he locks his personal property in the cars locked trunk with the permission of the renter is contrary to this courts reasonable expectation of privacy test which looks to privacy expectations and not contract terms and not Property Rights and while the contract violation alleged here does not negate Fourth Amendment rights, its notable that mr. Byrds presence in the car and the government does not dispute this was not improper. His storing of his personal items in the trunk was not even a contract violation. Could he have been could he have been the renter given his criminal record . Perhaps not, your honor, but he was given permission by the renter to store his items in the locked trunk and the government does not argue that this was impermissible. Suppose hed been just a passenger . And the renter was ther