Sturg1647545502

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/hospital-patient-took-used-syringes-1317971.html SPRINGFIELD — Police are investigating how a female patient allegedly stole used syringes at a hospital and injected herself with the remaining drops of medication. Officers were called to Springfield Regional Medical Center, where staff said a woman had damaged a sharps container by placing a cup inside to catch used needles. Nurses reportedly found more than 20 pieces of syringes in the patient’s room, a police report said. Staffers told officers they believed the woman may have injected what was left in the syringes into her own IV. After finding used needle heads — some which were labeled for other patients — in her room, nurses administered a blood test. The patient tested positive for medication not prescribed to her. As of Tuesday afternoon, no charges were filed against the patient. The incident is a unique instance of someone possibly seeking a drug fix, said Charles Patterson, health commissioner of the Clark County Combined Health District. “We’ve heard of people sharing needles before, but we’ve never heard of someone recycling needles trying to get any kind of drugs out of the needles after it was used,” he said. A few droplets remain in syringes after they are used. Most would have to be taken apart to use the medicine within, said Sandy Miller, nursing supervisor for the combined health district. Such use poses health risks in terms of unknown drug interactions and blood-borne pathogens, Patterson said. “Specifically, Hepatitis B, for instanc,e will stay around for quite some time,” he said. “You’ve got some fairly significant health risks that a person who would be doing this is taking.” Patterson warned people to be observant before using a sharps container and to contact building administrators, police or the health department if they see something suspicious. Hospital spokesman Dave Lamb said the syringes were taken only from one sharps container in the patient’s room. Not every room has one, which is why other patient’s syringes may have been inside. He added that the hospital is following protocols for disposing of sharps.

What an inspirational leader. Heard this on Mike and Mike this morning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUwNVTsJc_k

wat

repost.

Apparently tressel is out of the running for the Indianapolis head coach job

GPS tracking with out a warrant is OK for everyone else except for me and my friends.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/health/stem-cell-research-breakthrough/index.html TL;DR stem cells injected directly into the eyes of 2 women with degerative vision diseases that has resulted in possible gain of sight. in this thread we name people who could benefit on CR (due to the one handed pants dance).

If it was me, with your car, driving as much (or as little) as you are...i'd go with a bottle. and this is coming from a guy whos x2 street cars have had turbos.

how many miles on the motor and tranny?

If youre short on funds and have a project car in sight, the economical choice is nawz. Have fun with a XXX shot while saving for your next project. The way i look at cars is this; it could wreck, blow up, be stolen get shit on any time or any day and you automatically lose your investment. Do it right or dont do it at all.

I HATE cocaine people

Apparently I missed an email but the color white has been renamed cocaine and the color green has been changed to Benjamins

Positive rep. Welcome

Cops planted a gps on a suspected drug trafficers jeep with out a warrant. He led them to a storage house that had 220lbs of coke and somewhere in the $850,000 range of money stashed. Found guilt sentanced to life in federal pond me in the ass prison but will be released as the supreme court rulled the cops need a warrant to place GPS trackers on vehicles.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178811800873358.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police violated the Constitution when they attached a Global Positioning System tracker to a suspect's vehicle without a valid search warrant, voting unanimously in one of the first major cases to test privacy rights in the digital era. The decision offered a glimpse of how the court may address the flood of privacy cases expected in coming years over issues such as cellphones, email and online documents. But the justices split 5-4 over the reasoning, suggesting that differences remain over how to apply age-old principles prohibiting "unreasonable searches." The minority pushed for a more sweeping declaration that installing the GPS tracker not only trespassed on private property but violated the suspect's "reasonable expectation of privacy" by monitoring his movements for a month. The majority said it wasn't necessary to go that far, because the act of putting the tracker on the car invaded the suspect's property in the same way that a home search would. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that as conceived in the 18th century, the Fourth Amendment's protection of "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" would extend to private property such as an automobile. "The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted," Justice Scalia wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. Advocates for privacy said that despite the differences, the court's unanimity on the outcome sent a strong message. "This is a signal event in Fourth Amendment history," said Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general who represented the defendant, Antoine Jones. The government said Federal Bureau of Investigation agents use GPS tracking devices in thousands of investigations each year. It argued that attaching the tiny tracking device to a car's undercarriage was too trivial a violation of property rights to matter, and that no one who drove in public streets could expect his movements to go unmonitored. Police were free to employ the tactic for any reason without showing probable cause to a magistrate and getting a search warrant, the government said. The justices seemed troubled by that position at arguments in November, where the government acknowledged it would also allow attaching such trackers to the justices' own cars without obtaining a warrant. Emphasizing the Fourth Amendment's "close connection to property," Justice Scalia wrote that even a small trespass, if committed in "an attempt to find something or to obtain information," constituted a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. In a surprising departure from the majority, Justice Samuel Alito, a former prosecutor usually known for his law-and-order views, split from fellow conservatives to argue that the search violated an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." The court has used that test since 1967, when it held that warrants were required before police could wiretap a call made from a public telephone booth because "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." Limiting Fourth Amendment protections to trespassing property as understood in 1791 "is unwise" and "highly artificial," Justice Alito wrote in a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. "It is almost impossible to think of late-18th-century situations" analogous to placing a GPS tracker on a car, Justice Alito wrote, unless one imagined "a gigantic coach, a very tiny constable, or both." With such rapidly advancing technology, the Scalia approach left open "particularly vexing problems," Justice Alito wrote, particularly when police don't have to physically touch a vehicle to conduct surveillance. He mentioned automatic toll-collection systems and smartphones that continuously track their own location as examples. Justice Alito's concurring opinion suggested that the GPS case had provoked a robust debate within the court over the extent to which the 1967 case, Katz v. U.S., remained good law. Justice Scalia declined to apply the 1967 standard to this case, but emphasized that the broader approach remained in force. Justice Scalia wrote that even surveillance without physical trespass may be "an unconstitutional invasion of privacy"—but, he added, there was no need to speculate on such problems until a specific case presented them to the court. Monday's decision stems from a narcotics operation that turned up nearly 100 kilograms of cocaine and $1 million when authorities raided a house in suburban Fort Washington, Md., in 2005. District of Columbia police and FBI agents watched Mr. Jones, a nightclub owner, for months with an array of surveillance techniques, including tapping his cellphone under a warrant from a federal judge. A federal appeals court in Washington voided Mr. Jones's conviction, however, because police followed his movements for four weeks by putting a GPS tracker on his Jeep Grand Cherokee without a valid warrant. Police had a warrant for the District of Columbia, but it had expired before the GPS device was installed in Maryland. In an effort to preserve Mr. Jones's conviction, the government argued that no warrant was needed in the first place. Monday, law-enforcement officials said the decision would primarily affect major narcotics investigations, like that which snared Mr. Jones. Patricia Lykos, the district attorney in Houston, said police conducting drug investigations often don't have time to obtain a warrant before attaching a tracking device. "When you need a warrant, it's usually like 3 o'clock in the morning," she said. "You can imagine the danger that law enforcement is in when they try to plant one of these devices in the first place." But Vernon Herron, a former Maryland state police commander, said investigators rarely have trouble obtaining warrants. "Courts have been very liberal with allowing the use of these devices," said Mr. Herron, now a policy analyst with the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. Justice Sotomayor, while joining the Scalia opinion, wrote separately to set out various privacy issues that emerging technology was presenting, citing the fact that so many routine actions now are tracked by private websites. Court precedents generally provide no protection against third parties, such as telephone companies, voluntarily turning over information they collect about an individual to the government. In the digital age, however, "I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every website they had visited in the last week, or month, or year," she wrote.

this.

Michael Jordan's legacy lives on...his terrible sense of style http://wtfismikewearing.tumblr.com/

Shitty to hear. Ill keep an eye out.

Locken it upen.

BAMP

Might as well triple in this debacle of a post

Show me your rape face

Let me see your rape face

http://www.missilebases.com/nike-ohio a fixer uper In Ohio