Unlocking the “Virtual Cage” of Wildlife Surveillance

The electronic surveillance of wildlife has grown more extensive than ever. For instance, thousands of wolves wear collars transmitting signals to wildlife biologists. Some collars inject wolves with tranquilizers that allow for their immediate capture if they stray outside of the boundaries set by anthropocentric management policies. Hunters have intercepted the signals from surveillance collars and have used this information to track and slaughter the animals. While the ostensible reason for the surveillance programs is to facilitate the peaceful coexistence of humanity and wildlife, the reality is less benign—an outdoor version of Bentham’s Panopticon. This Article reconceptualizes the enterprise of wildlife surveillance. Without suggesting that animals have standing to assert constitutional rights, the Article posits a public interest in protecting the privacy of wildlife. The very notion of wildness implies privacy. The law already protects the bodily integrity of animals to some degree, and a protected zone of privacy is penumbral to this core protection, much the same way that human privacy emanates from narrower guarantees against government intrusion. Policy implications follow that are akin to the rules under the Fourth Amendment limiting the government’s encroachment on human privacy. Just as the police cannot install a wiretap without demonstrating a particularized investigative need for which all less intrusive methods would be insufficient, so too should surveillance of wildlife necessitate a specific showing of urgency. A detached, neutral authority should review all applications for electronic monitoring of wildlife. Violati ons of the rules should result in substantial sanctions. The Article concludes by considering—and refuting—foreseeable objections to heightened requirements for the surveillance of wildlife

An Ethical Duty to Charge Batterers Appropriately

Access to a gun increases the likelihood that a batterer will kill his victim. Studies indicate that the risk of fatality increases five‐fold when a firearm is available during an incident of domestic abuse. This risk led Congress to pass the Lautenberg Amendment,18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which criminalizes the possession of a firearm by any person convicted of domestic violence. When the Supreme Court recently accepted certiorari in a case involving the Lautenberg Amendment, many observers feared that a restrictive interpretation would jeopardize the efficacy of the gun ban for domestic abusers. The Court’s ruling on March 26, 2014, did not seem to weaken the Lautenberg Amendment. The reality, however, is that the Lautenberg Amendment was egregiously ineffective even before the Court’s ruling, and the “victory” in the recent case masks an enduring problem in the enforcement of the gun ban. Specifically, the charging practices of local prosecutors have minimized the opportunities to apply the federal firearms disability for convicted abusers. When local prosecutors undercharge domestic violence – by sidestepping charges that would clearly signal the defendant’s disability, or by consenting to charges that would likely result in expunction – they thwart the intent of Congress to disarm convicted batterers. Each year federal prosecutors only charge approximately fifty among hundreds of thousands of convicted domestic abusers who possess guns. This article proposes an ethical rule that would obligate all prosecutors to charge domestic violence offenses appropriately. In jurisdictions adopting the rule, the federal gun ban and other ancillary consequences intended by federal and state legislators would be more likely to attend a conviction for domestic violence. The article concludes by addressing foreseeable objections to the proposed rule

Analysis of Max-Flow values for setting FACTS devices

With all the work finding effective placements for FACTS devices in power grids, there is some question as to how many of the cascading outage scenarios can actually be solved. We discuss fourteen outage scenarios on the IEEE 118 bus system. We determine whether each scenario can be solved using the Max-Flow algorithm. If it can be solved, we determine what placement and setting will solve the scenario. We also discuss the use of the max-flow algorithm both in determining the solvability of each scenario and in finding FACTS settings that will solve a scenario

Davis and Hammon: A Step Forward, or a Step Back?

Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and lower court judges hoped that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the consolidated cases of Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (hereafter simply Davis) would provide a primer on testimonial hearsay. In retrospect, these hopes were somewhat unrealistic. The Davis ruling could not possibly clear up all the confusion that followed Crawford v. Washington, the landmark 2004 case in which the Court strengthened the right of the accused to confront declarants of testimonial hearsay. In Davis, the Court focused on the facts under review and developed a taxonomy that will be useful in similar cases, but the Court did not attempt to explain all the implications of Crawford. In fact, the Davis ruling raised nearly as many questions as it answered. This Essay will begin by noting some shortcomings of the Davis opinion. I will then highlight what I regard as salutary aspects of this ruling. The next section will list some of the questions that remain unanswered in the wake of Davis. I will conclude by suggesting that the Davis ruling is a step forward—albeit a modest one—for confrontation jurisprudence

On Dworkin and Borkin

This Essay will use Dworkin\u27s and Davis\u27s scholarship as a jumping-off point for a discussion of the Supreme Court nomination process. I argue that while Dworkin\u27s and Davis\u27s books, when read together, expose a significant problem with the current nomination process, a possible solution to this predicament may lie in a change to the judicial code of ethics and the procedural rules for confirmation of judges. My analysis will proceed in four steps. Part I will address Dworkin\u27s arguments. Part II will evaluate the analysis and evidence in Davis\u27s book. Part III will consider an additional variable to which neither Dworkin nor Davis paid significant attention: the ethical rules for judges. Finally, Part IV will offer proposals for reforms that would permit forthright discussion of nominees\u27 views during confirmation hearings, but would not unduly hinder the nomination process

CT-Guided Lung Biopsy in the Detection of Lung Cancer

CT-Guided lung Biopsy in the Detection of Lung Cancer Student Researcher: Brooke Lininger Faculty Advisor: Dr. Elaine Halesey Ed., R.T. (R)(QM)(ARRT) Abstract This project explains computed tomography(CT)-guided lung biopsies in the detection of lung cancer. The project discusses CT, CT-guided lung biopsies, statistics, steps of the procedure, indications, contraindications, complications, pulmonary nodules, fine vs. core needle, as well as future advancements. Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer in the world. There are many factors that contribute to lung cancer such as smoking or being exposed to smoke. There are also three different types of lung cancer. CT-guided lung biopsies help to diagnose patients who are suspected of having a nodule or mass in their lung. CT-guided lung biopsies are minimally invasive and have high success rates. Generally, the patient will be discharged within a few hours post biopsy. As technology advances, CT-guided lung biopsies are being taken over by robotic bronchoscopies. Robotic bronchoscopies use CT imaging to enhance visualization of lung anatomy, resulting in an accurate resource to diagnose pulmonary nodules. Keywords: Computed tomography, CT-guided lung biopsy, lung cancer, pulmonary nodule, robotic bronchoscopyhttps://digitalcommons.misericordia.edu/research_posters2023/1003/thumbnail.jp