It was business as usual for Adam Winarske back on June 29, 2011. He was meeting a man named Fergel to sell him a handgun at the parking lot of a shopping mall. Little did he know that Fergel was a police informant; a reliable one at that.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a new informant can be a reliable enough source for police to believe there is probable cause of a criminal activity occurring.

Halloween and other holiday sex-offender restriction laws are a growing trend amongst that states, but at least in Missouri, the law will have a limited reach. After the Missouri State Supreme Court weighed in on the matter, anyone convicted before the law was passed in 2008 cannot be prosecuted for violating the law’s restrictions, which include not celebrating Halloween, turning out the lights for that evening, and posting a “No Candy” sign at the registered sex offender’s residence.

The plaintiffs-appellees in this Eighth Circuit case are not the defendants in the Missouri case, but they did have the same objective: to strike down the law. They sought an injunction to prevent enforcement immediately after the law was passed, and it was granted — days before Halloween. Unfortunately for them, the Eighth Circuit stayed the injunction, and Halloween proceeded, with sex offender restrictions in place.

Officer Anton Mark was involved in a de minimis incident with Plaintiff Miles LaCross in 2006. Officer Mark suspected that LaCross, who appeared to be a minor, and who had a female companion, may have been consuming alcohol. The parties discussed the matter, and at some point, LaCross ended up in the back of the squad car.

That’s the civilized version. What really happened was probably a bit more … confrontational. LaCross was zapped with a Taser while handcuffed in the back of a the squad car. LaCross says that it was unprovoked. Officer Mark says that LaCross kicked at the car’s windows, spat, and attempted to bite him.

The court also noted, in a footnote, that while the Taser was used three times. “LaCross challenges only the Taser application that occurred while he was handcuffed and seated in the squad car.”

Man sells heroin to a drug addict. He goes a wee bit overboard and mixes the Big H with a few other opiates. He dies, the path leads back to "Lil C", the alias of Marcus Burrage. The feds charge Burrage with distributing a controlled substance and distributing a controlled substance leading to death.

The problem here is obvious, isn't it? When a man takes a cocktail of drugs, how can you blame one drug more than the others? The experts sure couldn't. They couldn't differentiate between the amounts of the various opiates, nor could anyone definitively state that the heroin was either a "but for" or "proximate" cause of the man's death. The best they could say was that it was likely a "contributing cause."

Fifty years after Gideon v. Wainwright, a woman who dedicated her career to the federal public defender's office, and likely passed on many more lucrative paths, has just been unanimously confirmed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the Gazette, she is just the second woman and first public defender to serve in the history of the 122-year-old court.

Equally remarkable was the speed with which her nomination was confirmed. While many of President Barack Obama's nominees have stalled in Congress over the last year or two, her appointment was the quickest of Obama's 45 nominees. This was largely due to the bipartisan support of both Iowa Senators Tom Harkin (D) and Chuck Grassley (R).

In 1997, Michael and Cindy Seibel fostered, and then adopted three children, females S.S. and P.S. and a male M.S. The children entered the system after their biological father was convicted of sexually abusing their three older siblings. Though abuse of S.S. and P.S. was also suspected, and noted on the children's South Dakota Medicaid applications, Cindy maintained that they were not sexually abused and they were never provided counseling related to any such abuse.

Sexual abuse reared its ugly head again in 2008, when P.S. and S.S. both disclosed that they had been physically and sexually abused by their adopted father, the defendant Michael Seibel.

Even as an experienced attorney (hah - I blog), once in a while, I run across a case synopsis and think - can they do that? This was one of those times.

Douglas Suing isn't suing. He's actually appealing, though many would say that a man convicted of manufacturing and possessing child porn isn't exactly appealing. (Sorry. I'll stop.)

Thomson Reuters is a massive, massive company. Among its many, many products are FindLaw.com (that's us!) and West Publishing, whose blue screens of research filled your sleep-deprived nights in law school.

One of West's available products is a driver's license information database. West obtains the information in bulk, from DMVs and third parties, and sells it to end-users for "proper purposes".

Marcy A. Johnson isn't too happy about that practice. She alleged, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated people in the class, that the act of bulk aggregation of DMV data and the sale of such data violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).

Jeffrey Knutson excelled as the General Manager of a Home Service food delivery depot. Home Service provides frozen foods to customers' homes or workplaces. He continued being great at his job, even though he suffered a penetrating eye injury in March 2008. Nine months later, he lost his Medical Examiner's Certificate (MEC) and by extension, his Department of Transportation (DOT) qualification.

Home Service gave him 30 days to either obtain a MEC or to find a non-DOT-qualified position at the company. After 30 days, he was fired. He claims that this termination was contrary to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The lower court granted summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed - and it wasn't even close.

The right to confront adverse witnesses? "I don't think that applies here, Your Honor."

Ricky Lee Johnson was on supervised release after serving a 15-month sentence for conspiracy to possess stolen mail. Unfortunately for him, he was later arrested for second-degree forgery and theft of property. He also failed a drug test and skipped out on rehab.

It should've been a simple revocation hearing, but alas, the government's attorney failed to subpoena any witnesses or produce evidence, other than a police report. Instead, with the court's permission, the probation officer read the police report. The defense attorney objected: