#days our search has failed us: 828

[douxreviews]

Manifest - ‘Upgrade’ Review

"Faith is compromised by pessimism, Alice.  Let's be optimistic.  Put the gun down."

In the first 90 seconds or so of this episode, both Zeke and Cal have the same calling, a vivid vision of a very unfriendly black wolf.  It's a metaphor, but a metaphor for what? or who?

While Ben and Michaela and Zeke are discussing the wolf metaphor, Saanvi gets a visit at her office from a lady named Alice who bears no small resemblance to Kathy Bates.  Alice's husband Jacob has cancer, they've been told it's not treatable, and she's desperate and obviously distraught.  Even though Saanvi is a researcher and doesn't normally treat adults, she takes pity on Alice and agrees to go see Jacob.

Jacob's cancer is too far gone, but Alice is a Believer and is convinced that Saanvi has mystical Flight 828 powers that allow her to cure the incurable.  Alice also has misinterpreted Stephen King's Misery as a how-to book, and when Saanvi tries to leave Alice whacks her across the face and then pulls a gun on her.  (It also has apparently not occurred to her that beating up or shooting one of the 828 passengers might be the Believer equivalent of sacrilege.)   Jacob, to his credit, tries to talk his wife into releasing Saanvi, but Alice is too emotionally overclocked to listen to reason.

When he hears that workaholic Saanvi can't be found in the hospital and is missing appointments, Ben's spider senses kick in.  He manages to identify Alice as Saanvi's last visitor, and tie her in to The Church of the Returned.  The Church is a storefront congregation of Believers presided over by fellow 828 passenger Adrian, last seen a few episodes ago, who has started a new career as an object of worship.  Based on his conversations with Ben, it's pretty obvious to us in the audience that Adrian is deliberately running a scam.

With a little help from the search tools in the NYPD database, Ben and Michaela locate Alice's apartment.  Ben rather cleverly talks his way in and, by pretending to be there to help Saanvi perform an 828 miracle, distracts Alice enough that Michaela can disarm her and end the standoff.

On the romantic triangle front, Lourdes notices a certain lack of enthusiasm on Jared's part (IYKWIMAITTYD) and deduces that he had a dalliance with Michaela.  She goes to the police station to confront her now-former friend, and it goes about as badly as you'd expect.

While all this is going on, Zeke tries to make sense of the wolf by talking to Cal.  Cal is in a bit of a funk because he is worried that the callings come true because of his drawings.  Zeke and Grace help set him straight by, among other things, having him draw a picture of a pile of money on the family dining table.  After the cash fails to materialize, Cal draws a picture of the wolf jumping at Michaela.

As the episode ends, Michaela is called to the river.  Four days earlier, while our protagonists were up in the Catskills looking for Cal, there was an armored car robbery, followed by a high-speed chase, followed by the getaway vehicle plunging into the East River.  The divers have finally located the van in question, and a crane fishes it out of the river.  When Michaela opens the driver's door, expecting to find a corpse, the driver lunges at her.

"828" Watch

The arc number is all over the Church of the Returned, of course.  Lourdes and Jared's house number is 3528, which if you add the first two digits (3+5) is an "828" sighting.

Also on the manifest...

This week's gold star for acting goes to Parveen Kaur for a short scene near the end of the episode where Saanvi's post-Alice PTSD hits her like a ton of bricks.

The black wolf is obviously a CGI visual effect, just not-real enough to take up residence in the Uncanny Valley. Where's this Uncanny Valley, you might ask?  TV Tropes explains:

In 1970 Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori proposed in "The Uncanny Valley" that the more human a robot acted or looked, the more endearing it would be to a human being. . . . However, at some point, the likeness seems too strong and yet somehow, fundamentally different — and it just comes across as a very strange human being. At this point, the acceptance drops suddenly, changing to a powerful negative reaction.

That's why zombies are more frightening than Daleks.  It's also why the human characters in the Incredibles and Toy Story films are stylized and cartoony even though the settings and other objects on screen are rendered realistically: stylizing the CGI people keeps them from falling into the Uncanny Valley and alienating the audience.

Might the Wolf of Uncanny Valley have been a deliberate choice on the part of the VFX crew, and not a special effects fail?  If they'd simply rented a trained wolf and had it look menacing and growl in front of the camera, it would have looked like . . . a trained wolf growling.  Your mileage may vary, of course, but for me the Uncanny Valley effect makes the CGI wolf more unsettling than a live wolf would be.

(It also occurs to me that "The Wolf of Uncanny Valley" would be a good name for a heavy metal song or a Twilight-wanabee young adult book series.)

There were some throwaway references to the armored car robbery in the last two episodes--a background radio news broadcast in "Vanishing Point," for example--which established it in-universe without being too obvious as foreshadowing.

We need to have a talk about your recent behavior, Jared.  Asking your ex-fiancee/crush to stay the night just a few hours after your wife leaves you because you cheated on her with that very same ex-fiancee/crush?  Not to put too fine a point on it, that's so tacky that it needs a "Wet Paint" sign.

If Adrian, the fraudulent pastor of the Church of the Returned, and Cody Weber, the wannabe demagogue behind SprayPaint828ersHouses.com 828DemandtheTruth.com introduced in the previous episode, were to come into physical contact with each other, would the result be mutual annihilation like with matter and antimatter?  That would be a wonderfully convenient solution to both problems.

Quotes

Ben: "Cal had a calling last night, too.  We found him on the floor .  He said 'It's coming.'" Michaela: "What's coming, a wolf?" Zeke: "I know I've been gone a while. We get a lot of those in Queens?"

Ben: "Adrian is a false prophet, a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Matthew 7:15." Michaela: "Look at the atheist remembering Bible verses." (A beat.)  "You looked it up, didn't you?"

Conclusion

While traditional faith communities (and the other "little platoons" that hold societies together) have declined in influence in recent years, the human need to find meaning in life hasn't gone anywhere.  As both G.K. Chesterton and John Cougar Mellencamp observed, if you don't believe in something, you'll believe anything.  If something like Flight 828 happened in real life, it's all but inevitable that some sort of "movement" would form around the event or the participants, and it would probably take about 45 seconds after that before some charlatan starts exploiting the phenomenon for personal profit.  All that being said, I can't shake the feeling that the Believers, and the Church of Lining Adrian's Pockets, are a little too one-dimensional and should have been fleshed out better.  Aside from that complaint, it was a good episode with a lot of good character moments.

Three out of four submerged getaway vehicles.

Cookie the Dog, who is Baby M's immediate supervisor, is a descendant of wolves.

#Manifest #Ben Stone #Michaela Stone #Manifest Reviews #Doux Reviews #TV Reviews

[hunternz801]

Serato Sample Reddit

Jun 21, 2006 Canon MF4360-4390 - Driver Download. Vendor: Canon. Product: Canon MF4360-4390. Hardware Class: System. Search For More Drivers.: Go! Windows 10 32-Bit. Canon mf4360-mf4390 driver 10.9.0 download. Canon imageCLASS MF4300 Series LIMITED WARRANTY. The limited warranty set forth below is given by Canon U.S.A. Inc., (“Canon USA”) with respect to the Canon imageCLASS MF4300 Series packaged with this Limited Warranty (the “Product”) and which is purchased and used in the United States, subject to the conditions below. To obtain the shipping address of Canon U.S.A, Inc. Or Canon Canada, Inc., please call the Canon U.S.A., Inc. Help Desk at 1-800-828-4040 or Canon Canada Technical Support at 1-800-OK-CANON. Shipping charges, if any, must be prepaid. If your Toner or Drum is covered by this limited warranty, a new Toner or Drum will be shipped to you without.

Reddit Serato Sample Crack

Serato Sample Free Reddit

Serato Sample (Plugin) Download. Serato Sample is a high-quality production plugin that makes sampling fast, simple and fun. Key features include the ability to quickly find, chop, key-shift and time-stretch samples, all with studio-grade sound using the power of Pitch ‘n Time. At its core, Serato Sample is a beatmaking tool designed to get.

Serato Sample Coupon Code. 50% off (Just Now) Serato Sample Voucher Code Free. 50% off (7 days ago) Serato Coupon 2021. Go to store.serato.com. Total 21 active store.serato.com Promotion Codes & Deals are listed and the latest one is updated on May 23, 2021; 5 coupons and 16 deals which offer up to 50% Off, Free Sample and extra discount, make sure to use one of them when you're shopping for.

FAQ for Serato

This is a community focused on all things Serato including; Serato DJ Pro/Lite, Serato Studio, Pitch ‘n Time, Serato Scratch Live, Serato Remote, Serato Sample. Note: This sub is run the serato community not Serato the company. Get royalty free sound and sample packs from Serato. Sourced from a diverse list of artists, from renowned producers and boutique sound designers, our free sound packs are updated monthly so you’re never short on inspiration.

Does Serato have a student discount?

Yes. Serato has always wanted to give a hand to the currently enrolled college and high school students, and Serato student discounts are the benefits especially created for them. You only need to provide a enrollment certificate to get Serato Coupon Code for the extra discount.

Reddit Serato Sample Crack

Why is my Serato promo code not working?

If Serato's promotional code has already been used, and there may be timeout, these will cause the use of the Serato promotional code to fail. Another situation is that when you checkout on store.serato.com, there are multiple products together, which may also cause the promotional code of Serato not to be used normally, which requires you to settle separately.

Can I combine Serato's Coupon Code?

No. Serato only supports a single order to enjoy a discount at want time. That's to say, you can choose to use a single Serato Promo Code to enjoy the extra discount for your order. For more hidden benefits, you can browse the specific page of Serato.

Friv 2012 web page lets you discover a wonderful list Of Friv2012 games. Enter to start playing the newest Friv games & enjoy your time. Friv2013, friv 2021, friv30, friv45, friv games, kizi4school, friv17, friv18, friv400, friv700, frin 2, friv26. 2012 friv games list. The following list of games is provided for information purposes only / to assist in locating and identifying a game or games. To actually play the games please visit our homepage at www.friv.com - happy gaming! Last Played Games. All games that you played on friv2012.com are listed here based on recent plays. Check this page if you want to play again a game that you played before Last Played Games - Friv 2012. Friv2021, friv2021, friv2022, friv15, friv25, friv99, friv19, friv32, friv800, friv900. Friv 2012 is the perfect place to play the very best free games. We have a large selection of games, free games, online games, juegos, jogos, jeux, oyunlar, gry, igre, hry, giochi, spiele, jocuri, spelen, spullen, lege and more. Friv 2012 and Friv 13 will have all the games are for you. Links Exchange:jogos de friv 337.

Serato Sample 1.3

What’s New

Beatgrids - Ensure your samples sync perfectly to your project with Beatgrids. This will also improve features like Find Samples and Slicer, which use Beatgrids to determine correct timing throughout the sample.

Glide Knob - Use the Glide Knob to get a ‘bending’ effect between pads when Keyboard Mode is activated.

Serato DJ Cue Point Autoset Mode - Cue Points from Serato DJ will now carry over to Serato Sample - perfect for turning live flips into DJ edits.

General improvements - Including more parameters for host Automation, like levels or velocity, an improved interface, and improved overlapping Cue Point display.

macOS 11 Big Sur support - Serato Sample now supports macOS 11 Big Sur. Before updating your operating system, please check your host DAW is supported.

Serato Sample Free Reddit

Read the full Serato Sample 1.3 release notes.

[recentnews18-blog]

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/boyle-column-yep-ive-been-a-bit-stupid-while-hiking/

Boyle column: Yep, I've been a bit stupid while hiking

Purchase Knob, on the left, has a trail to it, but it’s not maintained and badly overgrown, which columnist John Boyle found out the hard way.(Photo: John Boyle/[email protected])

When Karen Chávez gives you grief about your hiking behavior, you know you need to shape up.

Chávez is our outdoors writer and an experienced hiker. She’s also had the unpleasant task of writing about lost hikers, including Mitzie Sue “Susan” Clements, the Ohio woman who died in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park after going hiking with her daughter and getting separated Sept. 25.

Eight days later, Clements’ body was found 2 miles west of the Clingmans Dome parking area and three-quarters of a mile south of the Appalachian Trail. The cause of death was unknown late last week.

SEE ALSO: Staying safe in the outdoors: Hiking death in Great Smokies a reminder of forest dangers

I related to Karen how my wife, Grace, and I had gone hiking out in Haywood County last weekend, venturing up to Purchase Knob. Now, it’s about impossible to get in trouble going up to the big house on the property, which is now an education center but formerly a private residence and hilltop land the owners donated to the park.

RELATED: Great Smokies hiker found dead this week is 11th death in park this year

The 2-mile “trail” is their driveway. Seriously, it’s a gravel driveway, which is not exactly real hiking.

Where we got in trouble was in trying to some “real hiking” by making our way to Purchase Knob. A map at the education center showed the knob but stated, “Knob view grown in, trails unmaintained.”

This map at the Education Center near Purchase Knob shows a trail that leads to the knob, but it also notes that the trail is unmaintained and grown in. (Photo: John Boyle/[email protected])

We’ve done a fair amount of hiking in the mountains — not crazy long stuff, but a lot of healthy, 5-mile day hikes — so we thought, “How bad could it be?”

In the weeds, literally

The first part was not bad at all, as it was grass. That quickly gave way to a clearly visible trail but one strewn with rocks, sticks and even downed trees.

Then, about 15-20 minutes in, we hit a patch of shoulder high weeds, including a lot of delightful stinging nettle plants. If you haven’t had that pleasure while wearing shorts, it’s a real joy — and just what it sounds like: a plant that delivers a painful, irritating sting to bare skin.

We thrashed through a good 40-foot-long patch, and while I could still identify the trail ahead, Grace had lost her enthusiasm, not to mention her confidence in my outdoorsiness. Hey, she’s not wrong. I drink beer well outdoors, but Daniel Boone I am not.

Also, it was after 5 p.m. at this point, nobody else was on this trail, we had one bottle of water left between us, nothing to start a fire with and we were wearing light clothes.

In short, a cold beer in Waynesville was calling. So, we wisely aborted the mission and retraced our steps.

“Had you told anybody where you were going?” Chávez asked me first when I related this tale.

“Uh, no.”

A look of scorn mixed with sadness crossed her face.

“John Boyle, that was not smart.”

Indeed, it was not. We should’ve texted our kids or noted on Facebook where we were going and when we should finish up.

SEE ALSO: Beautiful – and dangerous: Can waterfall deaths be stopped?

Chávez also chided me for us barreling through rocky, weed-covered terrain where a broken ankle or snake bite could’ve posed a major problem, especially on an unused trail. My wife and I are both 54 and in reasonable shape, but we’re not hard-core hikers.

I also had no decent map of the area, just a cellphone picture of the map at the education center.

Another hard look from Chávez. 

We did have cellphones, but I don’t know if a signal is possible out there.

How to stay safe

In exchange for my lack of judgment, I assured Karen I would once again publish her safety tips for hikers, which we’ve had to run way too many times. I know it’s easy to think, “Oh, I’ll never need these. I know what I’m doing,” or, “I’m certainly not as dumb as John Boyle,” but trust me — they’re worth taking to heart.

They are: 

Don’t hike alone. You are safest with a group.

Leave your hiking plans with someone at home and check in frequently. Establish a time you will check in upon completion of your trip, as well as a procedure to follow if you fail to check in.

Be wary of strangers. Be friendly, but cautious. Don’t tell strangers about your plans. Avoid people who act suspiciously, seem hostile or are intoxicated.

Bring a map and compass and know how to use them (a decent topographical map is really helpful). The Great Smokies website also notes, “Do not rely on technology to save you. Cellphones do not work most places in the back country and GPS is sometimes unreliable.”

Carry a cellphone and a flashlight, even on a day hike, and carry a small first aid kit.

Bring extra food and water. The park recommends a minimum of 2 quarts per person per day, but better is 3-4 quarts per person. 

Bring extra layers of synthetic clothing. Avoid cotton, which doesn’t dry quickly and can lead to hypothermia when it’s wet.

Check the weather forecast and be prepared for quickly changing conditions.

Wear shoes or boots that provide good ankle support.

Generally, we’re fairly cautious hikers, and Grace is the queen of preparedness. On a positive note, I had brought along a small backpack, which included a first aid kit and a flashlight, and we were both wearing sturdy hiking books with good traction and ankle support.

But still, it’s smart to double up on the caution, and bring a decent flashlight (your cellphone will die sooner than you think), and a way to start a fire (some dryer lint, matches and a lighter will help). I’d also suggest bringing more water than you think you’ll drink, or some water purification tablets (available at hiking and outdoor supply stores, or online). We have also bought some of those foil Mylar rescue blankets, which come in a small packet and are really light.

We’ve gotten turned around before, or turned the wrong way on a trail where it seems impossible to get lost. Sooner than you think, everything starts looking the same, and then you realize you’re really not ready for a night in the woods.

Don’t judge

That’s why I really try not to judge people when these lost hikers stories arise, and they arise frequently.

In her excellent story on the Clements tragedy, Chávez noted that rescuers conduct��about 100 search and rescue operations each year in the Smokies, the most visited park in the National Park Service, with 11.3 million visitors in 2017. Most rescues wrap up in a day.

Some end in tragedy.

The park notes that these factors often result in emergencies:

Failure to plan and prepare.

Inadequate footwear, clothing, or equipment.

Lack of skill or fitness level for type of terrain or outing.

Impaired or poor judgment, sometimes induced by fatigue, exhaustion, or hypothermia.

Failure to let family and/or friends know of your specific plans or route and date of return.

Failure to keep your hiking party together.

Significant hazards that you may have to contend with include stream and river crossings, precipitous cliffs and ledges, unstable sedimentary rock, dangerous wildlife, and ever-changing weather, including snowstorms and lightning.

Bring a map — and check it

I happen to sit next to reporter Mark Barrett, who’s what I’d consider an expert hiker, the kind who goes on multiday backpacking trips. He stressed all of the tips above, but also offered some really good common sense advice.

“One thing that’s really important is to check your map every so often,” Barrett said. “People don’t realize they’re lost until they’re lost.”

He said he also always brings extra clothing, even if he doesn’t think he’ll need it, a good topographical map, a first aid kit, a knife, food, and a flashlight with extra batteries.

In our case, Grace and I were lucky. Honestly, I didn’t think it ever got that hairy, and we were at least wise enough to realize it was time to throw in the towel. Grace, the voice of reason in our marriage for over two decades, begs to differ with my assessment.

In short, that potential view from the knob was not worth a bad fall or getting lost, or honestly, more encounters with the stinging nettle plants. We weren’t terribly smart, but we wised up at the right time.

I hope you’ll do the same.

This is the opinion of John Boyle. Contact him at 828-232-5847 or [email protected]

          Read or Share this story: https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2018/10/06/boyle-column-ive-been-stupid-while-hiking-because-its-easy-do/1525489002/

Source: https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2018/10/06/boyle-column-ive-been-stupid-while-hiking-because-its-easy-do/1525489002/

[benrleeusa]

[Orin Kerr] Peffer v. Stephens, on Probable Cause and Home Computer Searches

On Thursday, the Sixth Circuit decided a Fourth Amendment case that is drawing a lot of criticism online. The case, Peffer v. Stephens, is authored by a new and somewhat controversial Trump appointee, John K. Bush. A few people have asked me to take a look at the case, wondering if it's as crazy and extreme as some (okay, Slate's Mark Stern) say.

My tentative take: I think the court reached out to answer a big question it didn't have to answer. I'm skeptical that the court was right to paint with such a broad brush. With that said, I don't think the decision is as far-reaching or harmful as others seem to think, in part because I suspect future courts will limit it to its facts.

I. The Facts

This case is a civil suit challenging whether there was probable cause to issue a search warrant. The police suspected that evidence of impersonating an officer and witness intimidation would be found in Peffer's house, and they obtained a warrant to search Peffer's house for that evidence. Specifically, the police suspected that Peffer had authored a letter and a flier that was evidence of the suspected crimes, and they obtained a warrant to search for and seize records relating to the crimes including in electronic form. The warrant then says that in the course of searching for those items, the government may seize and then search any computers that might store the records in electronic form.

The officers executed the warrant and took away a bunch of computers. In the end, though, prosecutors declined to prosecute Peffer. Peffer and his wife filed a civil suit, claiming (among other things not relevant here) that the warrant lacked probable cause. In particular, the Peffers mainly argued that the affidavit did not establish probable cause that evidence of the crime would be in the house for two reasons. First, the affidavit did not provide reason to beileve that the evidence described was evidence of a crime based on then-existing state law. And second, the affidavit did not make the case that the evidence described would be found in the home.

II. The Sixth Circuit's Opinion

Judge Bush's opinion treats those two arguments separately. First, the opinion rules that it was not clearly established that that the letters were not evidence of a crime. As a result, the officer "would be protected by qualified immunity from liability for executing an otherwise valid search warrant seeking evidence that Mr. Peffer violated those criminal statutes."

Next, the opinion rules that there was probable cause to believe that the evidence described would be in the house. Much (but not all) of the argument, Judge Bush says, was based on the claim "that no assertion was made that Mr. Peffer owned either a computer or a printer or, if he did, that he kept those items at the . . . residence" that was searched. The affidavit argued that the letters and fliers were computer-generated, and likely written by Peffer, and therefore that there was probable cause to find evidence about them in the Peffer house. According to the Peffers, though, there was no reason to think that Mr. Peffer had a computer at home that stored the evidence.

Judge Bush rejected the Peffers' argument. This is the passage that has generated a lot of controversy, so I will present it in full with the footnoted material in brackets:

It appears to be a question of first impression in this circuit whether the nature of a computer is such that its use in a crime is alone sufficient to justify an inference that, because of "the nature of the things to be seized," ibid., evidence of the crime is likely to be found in the alleged criminal's residence. But this question is not a difficult one to answer based on basic principles.

As a general rule, it is reasonable, ceteris paribus, to assume that a person keeps his possessions where he resides. [FN9: See, e.g., United States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940, 946 (7th Cir. 2010) ("When probable cause exists to believe an individual has committed a crime involving physical evidence, and when there is no articulable, non-speculative reason to believe that evidence of that crime was not or could not have been hidden in that individual's home, a magistrate will generally be justified in finding probable cause to search that individual's home.")].This presumption is of course rebuttable and cannot always be relied upon by a magistrate in finding a nexus between the object used in a crime and the alleged criminal's residence, because the "totality of circumstances presented" in the affidavit may suggest that the object is more likely to be found elsewhere or nowhere at all. Brown, 828 F.3d at 382. The affidavit may, for example, include evidence suggesting that the object was not owned by the alleged criminal; that it was discarded, sold, or was otherwise disposed of; that the alleged criminal, while retaining possession of the object, stores it elsewhere than his residence; or that the object no longer exists.

If an affidavit presents probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by means of an object, however, a magistrate may presume that there is a nexus between that object and the suspect's current residence, unless the affidavit contains facts that may rebut that presumption. [FN10: As with all findings of probable cause, this presumption is subject to a staleness analysis. The Peffers did not argue that any probable cause established in the affidavit had gone stale.]

And although we have not articulated this presumption in precisely this manner, it underlies our previous decisions in cases analyzing the connection between the objects used in a crime and the alleged criminal's residence. Our jurisprudence in this area has not always been as clear as one might hope, but an analysis of several of our nexus-jurisprudence tributaries shows that it is not as muddled as one might fear.

When it comes to guns, because we "have acknowledged that individuals who own guns keep them at their homes," United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 473, 480 (6th Cir. 1999), a suspect's use of a gun in the commission of a crime is sufficient to find a nexus between the gun that was used and the suspect's residence. For example, in United States v. Vanderweele, an informant told an ATF agent that he had seen Vanderweele in possession of a silencer at a clubhouse. 545 Fed.Appx. 465, 467 (6th Cir. 2013). The agent sought a search warrant for Vanderweele's residence based on nothing more than the informant's statement that Vanderweele had been in possession of a silencer and his awareness, "based on his training and experience, 'that firearms, ammunition, and related items are commonly stored within the owner or possessor's dwelling.' " Id. at 469. We held that based on these alleged facts, "[t]he magistrate judge had reason to believe that the silencer would be found at Vanderweele's house," and we upheld the warrant. Ibid.

This is consistent with our holdings in similar cases. [FN 11: It is also consistent with the approach taken by many, but not all, of our sister circuits. United States v. Anderson, 851 F.2d 727, 729 (4th Cir. 1988) ("It was reasonable for the magistrate to believe that the defendant's gun and the silencer would be found in his residence ... even though the affidavit contained no facts that the weapons were located in defendant's trailer."); United States v. Steeves, 525 F.2d 33, 38 (8th Cir. 1975) (upholding a warrant on the basis that "people who own pistols generally keep them at home or on their persons"); United States v. Rahn, 511 F.2d 290, 293–94 (10th Cir. 1975) (upholding a warrant because "it is reasonable to assume that [defendant's] house was where he kept things and it is pretty normal ... for individuals to keep weapons in their homes"); Bastida v. Henderson, 487 F.2d 860, 863 (5th Cir. 1973) (upholding a warrant because a "reliable informant stated that on the day after the robbery [Defendants] were still armed with automatic pistols" and "[a] very likely place to find them thereafter would either be on the persons of the assailants or about the premises where they lived"). But see United States v. Charest, 602 F.2d 1015, 1017 (1st Cir. 1979) (invalidating a warrant because there was "nothing in the affidavit from which a factual finding could be made that the gun used in the shooting was probably located at defendant's premises" and "[c]ommon sense tells us that it is unlikely that a murderer would hide in his own home a gun used to shoot someone").] See, e.g., United States v. Goodwin, 552 Fed.Appx. 541, 546 (6th Cir. 2014)(upholding a warrant to search illegal-gun purchaser's residence where an affidavit established that the gun sought was valuable and that "owners usually keep machine guns in their homes"); United States v. Cobb, 397 Fed.Appx. 128, 133 (6th Cir. 2010) (upholding a warrant to search bank robber's residence for the clothing and gun he had used during a robbery because the "reasonable inference is that this clothing and gun likely would have been in [defendant's] possession six weeks following the final robbery"). [FN12: This area of our jurisprudence is admittedly murky. In United States v. Bethal, the panel declined to find a nexus between the gun the defendant used in a shooting and his residence, despite the affidavit's asserting that the defendant had been "identified as one of the drive-by shooters." 245 Fed.Appx. 460, 469 (6th Cir. 2007). Over a dissent, the panel reasoned that because "persons accused of murders often dispose of the guns utilized in the crime soon afterward" and "the affidavit ... provided no indication that at the time of the search, [Defendant] was still participating in gang-related shootings, or was seen carrying a gun," the affidavit failed "to establish any relationship between [Defendant]'s residence and the fair probability that weapons and drugs would be found there." Id. at 468–69. We question Bethal's emphasis on ongoing criminal conduct and are not bound by this unreported decision. See United States v. Ennenga, 263 F.3d 499, 504 (6th Cir. 2001) ("We need not concern ourselves with any perceived inconsistency, however, because [inconsistent case] is an unpublished case and therefore not a controlling precedent.").]

It is clear that the use of a gun in the commission of a crime is sufficient to establish a nexus between the suspected criminal's gun and his residence. Computers are dissimilar to guns in many ways, including the nature of the crimes in which they are used and the relative ease with which guns can be transported and discarded. Computers are similar to guns, however, in that they are both personal possessions often kept in their owner's residence and therefore subject to the presumption that a nexus exists between an object used in a crime and the suspect's current residence. This is borne out by our cases involving the consumption of child pornography via computer.

Although we have never been asked to pass judgment on a magistrate's finding of a nexus between the computer used to consume child pornography and the alleged consumer's residence based on nothing more than the use of the computer, we have placed our imprimatur on a number of search warrants issued based on affidavits with scant evidence supporting a nexus beyond the use of a computer. See, e.g., United States v. Elbe, 774 F.3d 885, 890 (6th Cir. 2014) (finding that affidavit established nexus because the suspect's residence had high-speed internet and the suspect had been observed using a laptop on his front porch); United States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758, 766 (6th Cir. 2009) (finding that affidavit established nexus because the IP address used to distribute prohibited material was accessed by a residential modem located in the general vicinity of suspect's residence and that suspect had participated in an online chat regarding prohibited material between the hours of 6:30 and 8:30 a.m., when suspect would be at home); United States v. Terry, 522 F.3d 645, 648 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding nexus because affidavit established that the suspect had a computer at his residence and had sent an email containing prohibited material at approximately 2:30 a.m.).

Just as guns, and other possessions, are generally kept in the home, so too are computers, and so we readily find a nexus between computers used in the consumption of child pornography and the suspected consumer's residence.

The principle that we are now articulating also explains why we are more reticent to find a nexus between drugs and their distributor's residences. In Brown, the defendant was apprehended leaving the location of a sale of more than 500 grams of heroin, and was found to be in possession of $4,813 in currency. 828 F.3d at 378–80. Responding to the Government's argument that "the magistrate judge was entitled to infer that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at Brown's residence because he was a known drug dealer," we pointed out that "we have never held ... that a suspect's status as a drug dealer, standing alone, gives rise to a fair probability that drugs will be found in his home." Brown, 828 F.3d at 383. Recognizing that "[i]n the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live," we nevertheless held that "if the affidavit fails to include facts that directly connect the residence with the suspected drug dealing activity, or the evidence of this connection is unreliable, it cannot be inferred that drugs will be found in the defendant's home—even if the defendant is a known drug dealer." Id. at 383–84.

This is because, unlike guns and computers that are used in the commission of a crime, when drugs are used in the commission of a distribution offense, the distributed drugs are no longer in the possession of the suspected distributor. The affidavit therefore must establish some other reason to believe that drugs or other evidence of crime would be found in the suspect's residence if searched. See, e.g., United States v. Raglin, 663 Fed.Appx. 409, 411–12 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding nexus because affidavit established that a suspect drove to the defendant's house directly after trafficking drugs, at which point $38,000 appeared in a purse on the roof and the defendant's girlfriend told officers that guns were in the house); United States v. Kenny, 505 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause because affidavit established that an informant identified the defendant as the "cook" of a large ongoing trafficking operation that was taking place on his property, which was corroborated by independent evidence); United States v. Newton, 389 F.3d 631, 636 (6th Cir. 2004) (explaining that affidavit established that defendant was engaged in a "continual and ongoing" drug distribution scheme), rev'd on other grounds, 546 U.S. 803, 126 S.Ct. 280, 163 L.Ed.2d 35 (2005); United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 974 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding that affidavit established that defendant was seen distributing narcotics directly outside of his domicile). Unlike drugs, guns and computers are objects that generally remain in the suspect's possession after commission of the crime, and therefore it is reasonable to believe those possessions to be stored at the suspect's residence, absent evidence to the contrary.

Here, the affidavit included allegations that Mr. Peffer had used a computer in the commission of his crime, that evidence of the crime would likely be found on that computer, and that Mr. Peffer resided at the Bierri Road residence, thereby establishing a presumption that evidence of the crime would be found at the Bierri Road residence. That the affidavit did not allege that Mr. Peffer owned a computer or that he kept one at the Bierri Road residence is immaterial, because the averment that he used one in the commission of a crime is sufficient to create the presumption that it would be found at his residence. See e.g., Vanderweele, 545 Fed.Appx. at 469. The affidavit did not suggest any reason to believe that Mr. Peffer had used a computer that did not belong to him, that he had thrown out or otherwise disposed of the computer, or that he kept the computer elsewhere. Indeed, the affidavit did not suggest any reason to believe that the computer used in the commission of the crime would not be found at the Bierri Road residence, and therefore the only reasonable conclusion that a jury could draw is that a nexus existed between the evidence sought and the Bierri Road residence.

Because Sergeant Stephens executed a valid warrant supported by probable cause as to a connection between the mailings and the Bierri Road residence, when he searched that house, there was no Fourth Amendment violation on this ground.

III. My Analysis

Here are some tentative thoughts.

First, I'm not sure it works to treat the Peffers' two probable cause arguments separately. The Peffers claimed that the warrant was defective because the conduct wasn't evidence of a crime and because that evidence wasn't going to be in the home. Judge Bush treats those as two separate claims. He first disposes of the scope-of-crime claim on qualified immunity grounds, and he then takes on the claim that the evidence wasn't sufficiently likely to be there. But I'm not sure they can be separated. Probable cause has to be assessed all at once, I would think. The question is, overall, whether evidence of crime is likely to be in the place to be searched. If it's not clear that the conduct alleged is a crime, then I would think that discounts the odds that there are evidence of crime in the place to be searched. Off the top of my head I can't think of cases where that issue has come up. But that's my instinct, at least.

Of course, the bigger controversy over the Peffer case is about the court's apparent conclusion that "the nature of a computer is such that its use in a crime is alone sufficient to justify an inference that, because of the nature of the things to be seized, evidence of the crime is likely to be found in the alleged criminal's residence." What about that?

Here are three thoughts about that in particular. First, skimming over the briefs, I am somewhat perplexed as to why the court tried to paint with such a broad brush. Here's the opening Peffer brief; here's the officer's brief; and here's the reply. I only skimmed them, so maybe I'm missing something. If so, I apologize. But based on my quick read, I don't see how they asked the court to take a position on whether computer-generated evidence is likely to be at a suspect's home. So one way this passage is odd is that it's not clear the parties really briefed it and the court had to reach it.

Second, I'm skeptical that it works to paint with such a broad brush as the court did. The category of "computers" and "computer-stored evidence" seems just too broad. In a world of global computer networks and the cloud, with many (most?) people having different electronic devices in different places used in different ways, it's hard to generalize about where computer-stored evidence is likely to be.

In this case, for example, the court was dealing with letters and fliers that presumably were generated with some kind of word processing software. I think it's probably the case these days that if someone is creating fake letters and fliers as part of criminal activity, and they're just regular computer users with no obvious sophistication, they're probably just doing it on a home computer. The home computer probably generated copies of the documents, either as automatic backups or maybe as a version saved by the user, that are there in some form on the machines. Probably.

But I think the point is about the specific kind of document, perhaps generated by someone with no computer sophistication. It's not about the fact that it was generated on a computer generally. If you change the nature of the document -- make it, say, a threatening text message that is more likely to be on a phone the suspect carries around than on a computer always at home -- then the odds change about where it could be stored. If you change what we know about the user -- say, make him very technically sophisticated -- the odds change again.

Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if future courts tend to limit Peffer to its facts. The likelihood that using a computer to commit a crime means that evidence of the crime will be found in a computer inside the person's home at some future point just seems too fact-dependent to justify a broad generalization of the answer. The nature of the probable cause determination calls for a more fact-specific holding, it seems to me.

Third, I think there's some interesting tension between Judge Bush's ruling and Judge Srinivasan's ruling for the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Griffith opened:

Most of us nowadays carry a cell phone. And our phones frequently contain information chronicling our daily lives—where we go, whom we see, what we say to our friends, and the like. When a person is suspected of a crime, his phone thus can serve as a fruitful source of evidence, especially if he committed the offense in concert with others with whom he might communicate about it. Does this mean that, whenever officers have reason to suspect a person of involvement in a crime, they have probable cause to search his home for cell phones because he might own one and it might contain relevant evidence? That, in essence, is the central issue raised by this case.

Judge Srinivasan's opinion isn't in direct contrast with Judge Bush's, but it is skeptical about presuming that a computer is in a home. Srinivasan's opinion demands more evidence, both that a person has a device and that the device still is likely to have evidence on it. It's an interesting contrast with Judge Bush's opinion. I wouldn't be surpised if future lower court cases on this issue grapple with both precedents.

[homevestorsfranchise1]

Insider Interview: Laura Petree

I am thrilled to welcome Laura Petree to the blog! Laura moved to Bluffton, SC in December of 2011, knowing no one.  Faith landed her in this beautiful place and she met her husband and business partner Don in May of 2012.  Laura and Don are very much alike in their drive and ambition, but they each have a unique skill set.  Laura has a sales and small business management  background, while Don has a hands on, problem solving background.

Laura stands in the newly remodeled kitchen of a rehab.

Laura and Don started talking about building a rental portfolio and this would be a great fit for their collective strengths. The pair stumbled around the real estate market with no success until they received an opportune phone call from Homevestors®.

Now, almost 2 years later, this dynamic duo has bought and sold 18 houses – and they are just getting started. Read on for insight into their business process and how they have found success with real estate investing. Laura, thank you for taking the time to join us for an Insider Interview!

When and how did you find HomeVestors®?

Actually, Homevestors® found me. Terry Dermerast found my resume on Career Builders and called to tell me about Homevestors in October of 2014.  My husband, Don, and I were a bit skeptical, so we really did our research. Luckily, HomeVestors® was very helpful and transparent in our search to understand the opportunity. We called several current and retired franchises for firsthand information about the company.  

The consistency of the answers and the real life experience of franchisees assured us that we were being told the truth about HVA. We bought our HomeVestors® business in March of 2015. Shortly after, in April of 2015, we traveled to Dallas for our training. We bought and sold our first house in June of 2015. The support and help we had from our Development Agents was a life saver.

What element of HomeVestors® “sold you” on becoming a franchisee?

As novice real estate investors, the fail proof system that HomeVestors® uses and teaches gave us the confidence we needed. We knew that by working hard and sticking to the HVA system, we could do this.

Which real estate investing strategy (wholesale, rehab, rental) do you enjoy the most?

Before shot of the renovated kitchen above!

With my husband’s building and fixing skills and my experience in many aspects of home improvement, we love to rehab houses. We take great pride in turning ugly houses into beautiful homes on a tight budget. Our understanding of which improvements yield the greatest ROI and which don’t is a great help.  HomeVestors® teaches us to be balanced on our strategy. To achieve this balance, we complete a few rehabs a year, several wholesales for cash flow, and a few rentals for long term income. It is working very well for us.

How does it help you reach your business goals?

Our love of rehabbing would get us into great trouble without the counseling of our Development Agents to build our buyers list and WHOLESALE, WHOLESALE, WHOLESALE in order to maintain a steady cash flow. The HomeVestors® system really does work!

What is the greatest challenge you have faced as a franchisee and how did you overcome it?

My impatience is my greatest challenge.  I want to know everything yesterday. The national conventions and regional training events are vital to keeping us on track.  Talking in person to a variety of people at various stages in their business several times a years keeps the “head trash” and negative thinking to a minimum.

Can you explain your experience with the coaching and mentoring you receive from HomeVestors®?

Yes, this has been extremely helpful. There are a variety of ways to get the answers to your questions. We have an online KNOWLEDGE BASE that is searchable. We can find in depth answers to most any question 24/7.  Our Development Agents are available by phone or by text 7 days a week.  Their willingness to help and their constant positive, real life insight is amazingly valuable.

There are also several Facebook pages that we can use to pose our questions to the other franchises across the nation…for example we recently asked, “what is the best way to handle a buckled concrete driveway?”  The company website is also full of every bit of information you can imagine.

What is your favorite thing about the Savannah and Hilton Head real estate markets?

Savannah is FULL of ugly houses.  It is a great pleasure to know we are cleaning up neighborhoods one house at a time.  It is always amazing to see how when you clean up the one ugly house on a street, the neighbors jump into action to clean up their curb appeal too.

How does your local real estate market influence your business strategy?

As a woman doing all the buy calls, I am very aware of staying in the “bulls eye” neighborhoods.  There are several parts of Savannah where it is just not safe for me to go to for buy calls. The HomeVestors® strategy of staying in the right places with the greatest ROI has keep us on target and much more profitable.

If you could give one piece of advice to a novice real estate investor, what would it be?

FOLLOW THE SYSTEM and follow the advice from your advisors. It works when you work it.

Hungry for more? Browse my other Insider Interviews for even more inspiration, real life examples, and advice.

Want to speak to me directly? Call me today at 828-989-3785 to discuss your HomeVestors® real estate investment franchise opportunities. You can also follow along for my favorite real estate investment resources and insider tips:

FaceBook – https://www.facebook.com/RealEstateFranchiseCoach

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/in/RealEstateFranchiseCoach

Google+ – https://plus.google.com/+RobCaldwellRealEstateFranchiseCoach

Twitter – @JoinHomeVestors

[allinonedental]

In the Future, Caries May Be Not Always Be Treated with Fillings if Prevention Fails

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="387"] wikimedia.org[/caption]

While many of us may run to the dentist as soon as something painful, the truth is, we should be more eager to go when things are alright. Preventive dentistry services are really where patients focus should be--while restorative procedures are a blessing for dental caries, nothing can restore the functionality of your enamel.

Besides going to the dentist, what else can you do to prevent decay from taking hold? An article released in December has some good ideas:

Which Treatments are Most Effective for Caries Prevention?

The most widespread diseases in "civilized populations," with a prevalence of 40% in 7-year-old boys and 85% in 17-year-old boys, the study authors noted. However, some evidence has shown that dental caries incidence in 5- to 17-year-olds has decreased around 36% in recent decades, with half of children caries-free.

With that in mind, the researchers from Italy conducted a comprehensive literature search in four databases for systematic reviews of treatments for preventing caries conducted by "renowned" scientific institutions and published from 2002 through 2015.

They found 30 eligible systematic reviews that met all of the study's requirements, 20 of which were conducted by the Cochrane Oral Health Group. Four researchers independently reviewed the articles that were identified.

The researchers summarized the results of the reviews, dividing them into three categories by treatment:

Fluoride gel, toothpaste, and mouthrinses

Pit-and-fissure sealants

Fluoridated supplements, water, and milk

Overall, they found that topical application of fluoride gel and fluoride supplements appear to be convenient and inexpensive methods of reducing caries. Also, pit-and-fissure sealants and fluoride varnishes appear to effectively reduce caries risk, they concluded. Read full article here . . .

Fluoride gels and supplements are not only convenient, but much more affordable than major restorations. For more information about fluoride and other preventative care, be sure to look at: allin1dental.com/preventive-dentistry/

You may be wondering, what if these preventative methods fail, what are your options? Thankfully there are quite a few different fillings materials (silver amalgam, porcelain, gold, composite) which can be used depending on your budget, aesthetic needs, insurance coverage, etc. And perhaps one day, patients may be lucky enough to repair their teeth through other means after decay. Take a look:

Study Offers New Treatment for Larger Caries

January 9, 2017 -- Soon you might be treating your patient's caries with a collagen sponge filled with a drug -- first tested to treat Alzheimer's patients -- that stimulates the natural ability of teeth to restore dentine.

A study published January 9 in Scientific Reports by researchers in the U.K. documented a new method of stimulating the renewal of living stem cells in tooth pulp. While still needing human clinical trials, this approach may allow large cavities to be repaired without the use of cement or fillings.

"The simplicity of our approach makes it ideal as a clinical dental product for the natural treatment of large cavities, by providing both pulp protection and restoring dentine," stated lead study author Paul Sharpe, PhD, in a press release. "In addition, using a drug that has already been tested in clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease provides a real opportunity to get this dental treatment quickly into clinics."

Sharpe is the head of the craniofacial development and stem cell biology division at the King's College London Dental Institute . . .

After removing caries decay, a tooth's soft inner pulp is exposed, and a natural dentine repair process begins. This process uses a form of stem cells in the patient's mouth that becomes new cells. These cells release a form of reparative dentine, according to the study authors. Read the full here . . .

There isn't any news about this kind of approach being given to the general public, but because Paul Sharpe (the study author) says that it's been used in clinical trials, this treatment is definitely a possibility in the future. This kind of treatment would be amazing for patients who try their hardest at preventative methods but still get caries despite their best efforts.

Image Credit

In the Future, Caries May Be Not Always Be Treated with Fillings if Prevention Fails is courtesy of: http://allin1dental.com

All In One Dental Innovations 7046 Dublin Blvd Dublin, CA 94568 [phone] [email protected] Google My Business Listing Google Map Directions to our office Yelp Page Facebook Twitter

#dentistry #dental #dublin ca #dental implants #california #cosmetic dentistry