Libraries are bridges to information and knowledge.

by

David Badertscher*

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the White House is considering whether federal web sites should be permitted to use cookies and other web tracking technologies and is asking for input from the public.

According to Michael Fitzpatrick, an associate administrator with the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “the goal of this review is to develop a new policy that allows the Federal government to continue to protect privacy of people who visit Federa(s)l websites while, at the same time, making these websites more user-friendly, providing better customer service, and allowing for more enhanced analytics”.To read this entire discussion about cookies policy for Federal websites go to the posting by Mr. Fitzpatrick and Vivek Kundra of the Office of Science & Technology Policy Blog To share your comments on the approach outlined in their posting, you can post a comment on the OSTP blog, submit comments directly in response to the Federal Register notice mentioned in the posting, or email them to: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments submitted by August 10, 2009 in one of these three ways, will be taken into consideration. Responding to this posting directly from the OSTP blog requires registration and other authentication routines before posting.

Continue reading

by

Source: Quinlan Law Enforcement E-News Alert, July 16, 2009.

Warrant to seize computer records

In a case involving a narcotics arrest, the court held that a warrant allowing for the seizure of “computerized records” authorized the investigators serving the warrant to seize the defendant’s computers. The defendant argued that because the warrant did not specifically list “computers” as an item to be seized, the seizure of the computers was outside the scope of the warrant. The court reasoned that anyone with a minimum of computer knowledge would understand that seizing “computer records” would necessitate seizing the actual computers those records were contained within. The court did, however, note that seized computers should not be kept by the government indefinitely after the seizure.

Continue reading

by

In response to criticism it received for submitting and all-male list with only one black of seven candidates to New York Governor David A. Paterson last December to fill a New York Court of Appeals opening created by the retirement of then Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, the New York Commission on Judicial Nominations has released for public comment a number of proposed rule changes, Proposed Revisions to the Rules of the Commission on Judicial Nominations: Title 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 7100. The proposed revisions announced in a Press Release by the Commission on July 20; a 45 day comment period on the rules is expected to begin next week.:

Press Release Announce Proposed Rule Revisions

Download fileles of the New York Commission on Judical Nominations

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

July 20-24. 2009.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 22, 2009 US v. Allen, No. 08-1451
Conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying defendant’s motion to suppress as defendant failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the plain view analysis or the existence of probable cause; 2) the court did not abuse of discretion by finding without an evidentiary hearing that his statements to the police were voluntary, as there was an affidavit and a signed Miranda acknowledgment, and defendant’s assertions were unsupported by any references to specific statements he sought to suppress; and 3) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for reconsideration as defendant’s affidavit in support of his motion did not respond to the government’s plain view assertions or specify the alleged Miranda violations. Read more…

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 23, 2009 US v. Rodriguez-Barrios, No. 07-1854
Conviction for committing a carjacking resulting in death is affirmed where: 1) the court properly denied defendant’s motion for acquittal as the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant had the intent to kill or seriously harm the victim when he took control of her car; 2) the court did not err in excluding tape recordings of the victim as the recordings did not contradict the victim’s hearsay allegations of abuse; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to present expert witness testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification; 4) the court did not abuse its discretion denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial as the brief mention of the possibility of a polygraph examination did not warrant a mistrial; and 5) the court erroneously admitted certain statements made by the victim’s friend and mother, but the error was harmless. Read more..! .

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 23, 2009 US v. Wallace, No. 07-1884 Sentence for armed robbery and other crimes is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly applied the mandate rule and refused to consider defendant’s objection to sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on his perjury as defendant failed to challenge the enhancement in his first appeal and it became the law of the case; 2) the court properly applied the mandate rule to defendant’s objection to the stolen weapons enhancement; 3) defendant’s claim that his use of a dangerous weapon during the robbery was an improper basis for an upward departure and his claim that court’s decision to depart upwardly based on defendant’s disruption of government functions are both barred by the law of the case doctrine; 4) the court did not err in imposing a two-level increase for extreme psychological injury; 5) the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward departure to his sentencing level based on his criminal history; and 6) defendant’s sentence was reaso! nable Continue reading

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

July 20-24. 2009.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 21, 2009 Oscar Renda Contracting Inc. v. Lubbock, No. 08-10481 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendant city violated the First Amendment by denying plaintiff a construction contract, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where not all construction contract disputes involving government entities or agents are matters of public concern.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 21, 2009 US v. Whaley, No. 08-10951 Defendant’s conviction for failure to register in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is affirmed where SORNA does not exceed Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause because it forbids sex offenders from using the channels of interstate commerce to evade their registration requirements.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 22, 2009 Waeschle v. Dragovic, No. 08-2228 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against a county Medical Examiner for depriving plaintiff of her right to dispose of her deceased mother’s brain (removed in an autopsy and later incinerated as medical waste), denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where plaintiff had no clearly established property right in the brain because it was removed and retained for study in furtherance of a lawful criminal investigation Continue reading

by

As announced yesterday July 23, 2009, U.S. federal agents swept accross New Jersey and New York, charging 44 people (including mayors, rabbis and one alleged trafficker in human kidneys) of being involved in public corruption and international money laundering practices..

The following are links to some documents related to that two track investigation. For additional news and related information go to the U.S. Department of Justice website at: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/index.html

Statement: Two Track Investigation of Political Corruption and International Money Laundering

Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

July 24, 2009
1. People v. Bright, 1010, 5732/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5607; 881 N.Y.S.2d 291; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5436, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), …

2. People v. Thomas, 985, 5090/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5636; 881 N.Y.S.2d 291; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5417, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County, (Carol Berkman, J.), …

3. People v. Coronel, 975, 9516/98, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5629; 881 N.Y.S.2d 293; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5414, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, …

4. People v. Deoleo, 979, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5632; 881 N.Y.S.2d 292; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5468, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Ward, J.), …
Continue reading

by

David Badertscher*

For almost forty years I have been in charge of law libraries. During that time I have acquired great appreciation and respect for the value and work of library catalogers. This posting is a small token of that respect and gratitude.

Have you ever wondered how all the information in library online catalogs, or OPACS is collected and organized in a way that makes it accessible and useful to us when we need it? As it turns out, the process of collecting–and especially organizing–this information and making it accessible to us is quite rigorous, involving complex, exacting standards and rules.

To perhaps oversimplify, cataloguing involves listing, analyzing, describing, classifying, identifying points of access such as subject headings or titles (access points) to the information being cataloged, and making any necessary preparation for user access from both within a library or through remote access from various locations, of knowledge based structured content (bibliographic content) associated with a library or group of libraries, all under the direction of specially trained professional catalogers. To ensure consistency and overall coordination of these processes both within and among libraries, it has been essential to establish well coordinated and agreed upon standards and conventions which catalogers working from diverse locations and organizations can rely upon to provide maximum benefit to us the end users.

For cataloging standards to remain relevant, they must take into account various factors including the preservation of the integrity and accessibility of the collection being cataloged, the mission of the organization housing or hosting the collection, needs and concerns of end users, and changes in information needs and cultural values over time. Depending on circumstances, such changes may necessitate either comparatively minor revisions or major revisions in order for these standards to remain relevant as the basis for effective cataloging. Judging from what I have read while preparing this posting it appears that catalogers have always been and continue to be very diligent and effective in this regard.

For many years the rules of cataloging have been primarily governed by a group of standards and rules called Anglo American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) and later AACR2 which is still being used as this is being written. Both AACR and AACR2 were designed to accommodate either hard copy (print or card catalogs) or earlier versions of computer-based or online catalogs. By the beginning of the 21st century it was widely recognized that either a major revision in AACR2 or a new standard that goes beyond existing cataloging codes was needed to provide adequate guidelines for cataloging digital resources, responding to the challenges of the world wide web, and to provide a greater emphasis on helping an increasingly diverse group of users to find, identify, select and obtain the information they need. After much discussion, consultation, and deliberation it was decided to go with a new standard called Resource Description and Access or RDA, which is scheduled to replace AACR2 later this year, 2009.

Why is this being discussed on a public blawg? Because we need to realize that although much of their work is behind the scenes and invisible to most of us, catalogers continue to play an important, critical role in enabling us to find the information essential to our going about our daily lives both at work and at home. Although search services are often useful, even vital, they are no substitute online catalogs when searching for bibliographic materials housed in libraries, groups of libraries or similar organizations. Cataloging standards can also form the basis for other forms of web searching. A prominent information consultant told me some years ago that he liked to hire catalogers for applications development in database and web searching because he found their training and expertise to be so helpful and effective.

To summarize, from all appearances cataloguers and cataloging continue to be highly relevant to our increasingly interactive and interconnected society with its growing information needs. But they need our recognition and appreciation for their many contributions. I hope this posting helps in that regard . Since this is a general discussion, I have left out many details of possible interest. To help fill in the blanks I have asked Joni Lynn Cassidy, President of Cassidy Cataloging Services to write her own article for this blawg. I am happy to report that she has accepted and we can all look forward to her forthcoming article.
_______________________________ *David Badertscher is the Principal Law Librarian at the New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library, First Judicial District in New York, NY. Although not strictly a cataloger, he is interested in technical services issues and is a member of the AALL TS-SIS.

For those who are interested in pursuing this topic further, you can click on the link below to see some of the sources consulted in preparation for this posting.:
Continue reading

Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design