Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.



For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.







Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!






E-mail us here.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 18, 2006 2:39 PM. The previous post in this blog was Happy Father's Day. The next post in this blog is Foxworth firing: What's the real reason?. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Archives

Links

Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
TaxVox
Tax.com
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Conglomerate
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
myCorporateResource.com
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Utterly Boring.com
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
HinesSight
Onfocus
Jalpuna
Beerdrinker.org
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
Sansego
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
Mireio
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
{AE}
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Althouse
GirlHacker
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Frytopia
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
StumptownBlogger
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and Drink.com
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion
LoveSalem

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Misterblue
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
Twisty
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
Pinktalk
Mellow-Drama
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Rosenblog
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Blort
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Maukie
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
KGW-TV
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
KOIN
Willamette Week
KATU
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB
Topix.net - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
KPTV
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

Music-Related
The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Seal
Sting
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Sunday, June 18, 2006

From Tony Scalia's PDA

Comments (41)

Granted, this suggests the possibility of a massive change in our legal system... but I've never particularly understood the logic of the exclusionary rule in the first place (at least, as far as I understand it...)

Why exclude evidence of violations of the law, just because that evidence was collected via improper procedure?

Seems to me that if the cops follow improper procedure in gathering evidence, the logical remedy is to go after the cops for that violation, not to give the original wrongdoer a "free pass". And that seems to be what Scalia is suggesting, from what I can tell.

Of course, you'd have to do much more than just slap the cops on the wrist when they get it wrong... The penalties for conducting an illegal search/seizure should be severe enough to act as a real deterrent against the practice.

Yeah, right. Everybody, including Justice Scalia, knows that that will never happen.

It's all just part of the fun in the George Bush Police State. And it's going to get worse -- much worse.

It's all just part of the fun in the George Bush Police State. And it's going to get worse -- much worse.

When I read this from the author of this Blog, not on BlueOregon, it gives me the willies in a big way.

Oh come on Jack! Living in Scalia's America will be easy. Just don't utter any of the secret magic words on your phone or type them online or talk to anyone who's uttered or typed them and you'll be fine. Tony, his buddy seated to his right, and the new guy all the way down at the end of the bench were just making sure we all understood the new rules.

I haven't for one second sight of the fact that the program that really does listen in on citzens' phone conversations, not just those of terrorists like the NSA under Bush, but just plain citizens --Echelon-- was foisted upon us by Clinton.

Yes, let's not blame it on Bush. Things are much better with him running the show. Higher standard of living, better international relations, booming middle class, cleaner environment, healthy economy, better security -- we're all working together and moving forward. No wonder, he's such a brilliant guy...

So... because G.W. Bush is an incompetent president, drug dealers should be given a free pass when the cops don't give them enough time to hide their stash before serving a warrant?

Again... apart from the established precedent... i.e., "that's how we've always done things"... what exactly is the rationale for the exclusionary rule? Help me to understand why wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement should negate wrongdoing on the part of criminals... that just plain doesn't make any sense to me.

I didn't bring the President into this -- somebody else brought up Clinton, and I was responding to it.

As for the reasons for the exclusionary rule: For one thing, because it's been the law of the land for the last 45 years, and it's worked quite well. Second, because there's no other meaningful deterrent to the cops violating your rights. You think you'll ever get a nickel by suing a police officer for breaking the rules of search and seizure? Dream on. Civil rights without meaningful remedies are worse than no rights at all.

And third, because the rule is set up to protect innocent people more than anything else. If there's no penalty for the cops busting into your bedroom because they don't like your haircut, they're going to do it. It's all for the war on terr, ya know.

We have a Bill of Rights that's supposed to protect everyone. There's no exception in there for people who are guilty.

How ironic that it was in Mapp v. Ohio, which applied the exclusionary rule to the states via the 14th Amendment that the majority opinion noted that "nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws."

And now, following warrantless wiretapping, data collection, security leaks, etc., we add another element to this administration's era...the decline of the exclusionary rule.

David Wright, you inadvertantly answered your own question:
Q:"I've never particularly understood the logic of the exclusionary rule..."

A:"The penalties for conducting an illegal search/seizure should be severe enough to act as a real deterrent against the practice."

Me, I cry not over Bush's NSA eavesdropping on al-Qaeda's precious overseas phone calls to their domestic sleeper cells. And I'm not alone --the vast majority of Americans agree with me-- in finding the al-Qaeda Bill of Rights platform flat-out ugly. So I'd be distancing myself from that one, not cozying up to it.

Even as a first-year law student I found the exclusionary rule flat-out weird. Ted Bundy was the criminal sensation de jour back then, and I remember thinking that, gosh, if some cop failed to properly Mirandize him, he walks, footloose and fancy-free, with millions of college coeds out there for him to target. How could that be justice? How could that be in the public interest? How does letting a guilty and dangerous perp go free benefit anybody? The exclusionary rule clearly doesn't deter bad cops. All it does is endanger the public. The better rule would be to continue to hold the guilty fully accountable, including cops who violate people's civil rights. Terminate them if they are incompetent. Prosecute them if they are intentional.

Which is to say, if you know *anything* about criminal procedure, it's so easy for cops to follow proper procedure that there is absolutely no reason for them to do otherwise.
That's why the exclusionary rule makes sense: it's harsh because there's no legitimate reason for it to be imposed, aside from laxity or wrongdoing on the part of the police that threatens not only the rights of the criminal, but the rights of the innocent.

Jud, of course I understand the supposed deterrent value of the exclusionary rule. What seems illogical to me is why the "penalty" should be "give the crook a free pass".

I'm all for protecting the rights of the innocent, and I'm all for the concept of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. I take your point, Jack, that the constitution applies to everyone.

Which is why I do believe there should be a strong deterrent to improper search/seizure. But I don't see why the cost of that deterrent should be borne by society (let the bad guys walk) instead of the individual(s) responsible (prosecute the cops, too, as Rusty says).

Under the current system, your right to be free of unreasonable search/seizure is conflated with your apparent right to break the law as long as you don't get caught. That's what it basically boils down to -- legitimate evidence of wrongdoing is excluded simply because the wrongdoer shouldn't have been caught.

That's the part that seems logically inconsistent to me: we are a nation of laws, so if we (the authorities) break the law while catching you breaking the law, the law you broke doesn't apply?

So what do you do with this guy? Talk about the posterboy for the exclusionary rule. Do we still allow the evidence he's collected even though we know he can't be trusted?

It makes sense to insist that government, when attempting to take away someone's freedom via a criminal trial, must follow its own laws to the letter.

Our freedom is precious. For the accused, it's all or nothing. Win or lose. The exclusionary rule puts a high but essential burden on government to take extra care in the pursuit of taking away someone's liberty, even for evil Ted Bundy.

Obviously the entire story of the Mollala officer is pathetic (see Chris' link above)... but here's what really stood out to me in that article -

"In one case Lister said he'd documented four purchases of drugs from a suspected drug dealer, one more than the three required to get a search warrant. Lister later admitted he documented just two purchases before submitting the affidavit."

WTF? Is there any other crime that you have to witness THREE times before an officer can take action?

The Exclusionary Rule does not give crooks "a free pass" unless ALL the evidence against them is tainted by the police failing to follow the rules. The police remain free to find evidence and build a case from witnesses or evidence they DIDN'T obtain unlawfully. That doesn't strike me as an absurdly high barrier.

And frankly, yes, I'd rather have a guilty guy set free than allow the police to ignore the rules. Most crooks aren't real bright; given time enough, they'll hang themselves. And having been burned once, the cops will probably be a lot more careful not to muff the arrest and prosecution the second time around.

We are the country that's actively using torture overseas. Wait 'til we start using it domestically -- it won't be long. "Prosecute the cops! Sue the cops!" Sure...

Do a google on Corey Maye and then tell me why cops should be able to barge in to a house unannounced.

I think the crucial thing the commenters on this blog are missing is that this was a search pursuant to a warrant - not an entry to a residence upon which the cops found evidence that they had not expected.

The difference is huge. And I'm an advocate for "a man's home is his castle." I don't think there should be any entry into a person's home unless there is a warrant issued. No sneak-n-peaks*, no bugging, no barge-on-in-because-we-think-you're-a-dealer, or any of that type of police activity. Guilty or not, civil rights exist and without extreme penalties for infringement, they are worthless.

However, in this case, the cops announced their presence, and walked in through the unlocked door. They didn't knock, but they didn't kick it in, either. My hackles get up when you hear about these cases where 6 cops bust a door down and hold everyone at gunpoint while they trash your house, even the kids. Oops. Transposed a digit. Wrong house.

But, whether it was Clinton, Bush, or the Martians, we are on a decidely authoritarian path that scares the bejeezus out of me. This case doesn't help, but it's not as bad as I had first thought it was. Upon review, the play stands as called.

*not a typo. Couldn't post with proper spelling due to content filter. Interesting, eh?

This case doesn't help

We are now way down the slippery slope. The exclusionary rule is over. Like the post says, it's all on a busy to-do list that will be controlling the show for a generation or more. Thumbscrew City.

The problem with the exclusionary rule is that it strips victims of crime from getting a day in court.

The exclusionary rule makes more sense when it goes after victimless crimes (drugs, pornography, prostitution) because we don't want government stomping through bedrooms looking for evidence of vice.

But it makes no sense to let a killer off the hook because some cop made an arrest error.

If we didn't have so many victimless crimes, I don't think the courts would have needed to fashion the exclusionary rule.

I think in Mapp v. Ohio, the police conducted a warrantless search of a residence and kept going through items looking for stolen goods with no luck. Eventually, a cop found some pornography (back when such was illegal) in an old trunk and used it as the basis for arrest.

Many of the other exclusionary law cases involve illegal drugs.

These possession crimes make it easy to plant some contraband (removed from an evidence locker) in order to validate a search.

My suggestion: reduce the number of victimless crimes and strengthen civil rights claim remedies for victims of warrantless searches. Then we won't miss the exclusionary rule so much and the real victims of crime can still get their day in court.

But it makes no sense to let a killer off the hook because some cop made an arrest error.

Cops are drilled to do everything "by the book". That's why they read cards with Miranda printed right on them and initial them immediately after reading them. They've got checklists and procedures that keep them in check and make sure every defendant is given the same access to due process. Which, afterall, what the American court system is all about. It's the process, in part, that keeps cops in line and innocents free. I'm a PRIME example. The crimes I was accused of, aggrivated assault and drive-by shooting, were certainly not victimless, but in no way should that have given the state a lower barrier to prove their case. They've got a huge barrier to get a conviction, yet they're able to get over it regularly. We cannot start allowing exceptions.

Jud said: if you know *anything* about criminal procedure, it's so easy for cops to follow proper procedure that there is absolutely no reason for them to do otherwise.
That's why the exclusionary rule makes sense: it's harsh because there's no legitimate reason for it to be imposed

Amen.

I take issue with the dissenters' use of "no viable alternatives" as a reason to uphold the Exclusionary Clause. The fact that civil suits against cops rarely succeed does not justify using the Clause as mere leverage. Once we go down that route we create a Jinga-like puzzle of checks and balances that simply requires the extraction of one piece to bring down the entire establishment.

As to Jack's points:

1. It has been on the books -- clearly that is an important point to consider when deciding a case but, given the Court's history, I doubt many would be happy if that were a rule.

2. It has worked quite well -- yes, it works extremely well as leverage but, as I argued above, I have a real problem with laws supported for this purpose.

3. You won't win a civil suit against cops -- comes back to the same point. Is that a sufficient reason to uphold a law? I like its effects but not the logical implications.

4. To protect innocent people -- I am entirely against warrantless searches and wiretaps, but that is not the issue at hand. I don't see how this comes into play.

Jack says, "We have a Bill of Rights that's supposed to protect everyone." That's a hard sell to the victim's loved ones who watch the accused walk solely because the cops moved in a few seconds too soon.

If through a proper warrant incriminating evidence is discovered, it should stand. As a nation we can surely figure out a form of punishment that deters police without permitting a potentially guilty man free. I think the right had it right this time.

That's a hard sell to the victim's loved ones who watch the accused walk solely because the cops moved in a few seconds too soon.

When the cops break the rules, somebody loses. There's no way around it. The idea is to make it so that they stay within the rules. The threat of "civil rights suits" is so laughable, we have an exclusionary rule. Or at least, we had one until we turned the country over to Bush.


Hear on the radio news, Abortion Rights is next on the Docket.

The threat of "civil rights suits" is so laughable, we have an exclusionary rule.
How many bites did the various levels of government have at the apple before they finally got to and crushed the cops in the Rodney King case? The point being, that if the government decides to get serious about getting a cop, they get him. Meanwhile, letting the perps walk does nothing to the cop who violated his rights. The cop goes home with his buddies, they pop open a few brews, and they all get a good guffaw out of it. Sending them to prison wipes those smiles right off their faces.

Wheeeee, it's a good ol'-fashioned StereotypeFest!

Cops: Don't care about procedure or Constitutional rights, don't care if job done properly, booze up with buddies. Check.

Scalia: Mussolini, Jr., right-winger stripping rights like clothes at the Acrop, in cahoots with Bush hegemony. Check.

Blogger comments: Overly broad statements, nonsensical simplifications, histrionic rhetoric. Check.

We need a Nazi invocation to complete the circle. Or perhaps a good "A priest, a rabbi and an imam walk into a bar" joke.

We certainly don't need to wait any longer for a right-wing troll...

Given the flawless record of bringing police officers to justice in Portland for excessive use of deadly force, I see no need whatsoever for the exclusionary rule. The only people who have anything to fear from the police are the guilty. And, maybe, some with certain kinds of nervous tics.

David,
When you say "[W]e are a nation of laws, so if we (the authorities) break the law while catching you breaking the law, the law you broke doesn't apply?" you are blatantly mis-stating the issue.
When you can re-state the issue correctly, you will know the answer to your question.

Jack, while I enjoy the snarky personal comment, your assertion is incorrect. Heck, I've told friends that I couldn't discuss Bush and NSA issues on the phone. One doesn't have to be right wing to dislike false statements, juvenile rhetoric and untenable arguments attacking any "side".

But thank you proving my simplification point.

How so, Jud?

You've got law enforcement with a valid warrant improperly executed.

There was in fact evidence of wrongdoing found during that improper execution of the valid warrant.

However, because the cops technically broke the rules, that evidence doesn't count, i.e., the criminal can't be prosecuted on the basis of that evidence.

So we have a situation where we know that somebody has broken the law, but we effectively aren't allowed to show that they broke the law in court.

As others have pointed out, this is not a case of warrantless search, etc. This is essentially the epitome of "getting off on a technicality".

So if I've got this wrong, Jud, please state the issue correctly for me.

I may not be a lawyer, but as a school teacher I know an antiquated and unjust form of punishment when I see one. Excluding evidence instead of punishing the cops is entirely misguided. It would be akin to me telling a student I'll put his best friend in time-out if he doesn't complete his homework. Will it be effective? Sure. Is it appropriate? Heck no, because it's threatening to punish the WRONG party, exactly as the exclusionary rule does.

I don't care if civil suits against cops are "laughable"...that in and of itself should not be the foundation of such an important law.

The Supreme Court has forced upon us a need to discover a new way to punish delinquent cops. None of this round-about crap that fails to directly punish the wrongdoers, and ultimately leads to the unacceptable consequence of letting guilty men walk. If the cops abuse this new decision, then people will do what is necessary -- through the PROPER channels -- to change police procedure.

I know this thread is dead, but I saw this today, and as per my post, it's the kind of thing that scares me...

At Least They Knocked
Rodolfo Celis answered a knock at his door one night and found himself staring at the business end of a gun. Six Murrieta, California, police officers forced Celis and five family members into their living room while they searched their house and garage. When family members asked what they were looking for, they were just told to shut up. Celis says police didn't even show him a warrant or ask permission. Police officers say they didn't need either because they were searching for a parolee they believed was armed. They didn't find the man they were looking for, but as they were leaving, the police did realize they were at the wrong house. The house the parolee allegedly lived at is the one next door to the Celis home. "We are all human and are going to err on occasion," said Lt. Bob Davenport. The darkness may have made it difficult to see the numbers on the houses, he adds. "They couldn't light it up with a flashlight to verify the numbers, because that would put them at a tactical disadvantage," Davenport said.


Don

It's mighty dispiriting to see the level of entrenched ignorance on display in this comment thread about basic civil rights. But it goes a long way toward explaining how and why our rights are being eroded so quickly.

"Excluding evidence instead of punishing the cops is entirely misguided. It would be akin to me telling a student I'll put his best friend in time-out if he doesn't complete his homework."

No, it's more like the teacher refusing to accept homework that was done by someone else, or plagiarized. It doesn't matter how well written or accurate the material is, it's irreparably tainted--giving the student a good grade but writing a stern warning beside the "A" doesn't do anything to prevent a recurrence. Failing him does.

I entirely agree. Permitting a plagarized assignment with a stern warning will not prevent the same from happening again. Undoubtedly the Supreme Court has created a gaping divide by removing the practical deterrent that keeps police officers from barging in at random but, in my opinion, that is a correct judgment for two reasons. One has to do with the entirely misguided form of punishment represented by the exclusionary rule, and is founded upon the existence of other, viable alternatives to deter cops from creating the act. As of today, we are certainly in a time of limbo, but it must not remain this way.

First, my whole analogy rests on the basis that someone else is unjustly punished for the wrongdoing of a particular individual. In the case of police officers entering too early, society often bears the brunt of the mistake by having a guilty individual walk free. My classroom analogy is similar in that an innocent student is punished for the delinquency of a different child. My point is: those who make the mistake should be punished -- directly. At most one could argue that police officers are indirectly punished through the exclusionary rule. Sadly, an innocent party, whether it be the good student who does his/her homework or society at large, must suffer the consequence that belongs to someone else.

Second, the public is not without recourse. We are now forced to make our opinion known so that police procedure might be changed (if that is what people truly want) to properly punish the rightful wrongdoers (cops who enter early). This issue must be taken up by the public through its elected officials (and those appointed by the elected) to adapt police procedures. People will determine for how long they are willing to accept police breaking the rules.

Although many will disagree, I predict that we will eventually find ourselves with a better deterrent that, if breached, will punish the wrongdoers rather than the innocent.

What a bunch of jumbled thinking. Try to separate the issues of "punishment" and "deterrence". The exclusionary rule is about effectively preventing (deterring) police misconduct. It's not about punishment.

You say I should "try to separate the issues of 'punishment' and 'deterrence'." Unfortunately, I don't see how that's possible. One of the primary foundations of our legal system is to make things right by punishing wrongdoers.

Scalia was exactly right: the benefit of deterrence simply does not outweigh the social cost (punishment to society) of letting guilty men walk. My argument, or "jumbled thinking", simply states that there are better alternatives to deter police from breaking the "knock and announce" rule that do not wrongfully PUNISH society.

If you'd care to explain the basis of the exclusionary rule without referring to any form of punishment, I'd love to hear it. Or maybe you just think letting guilty people walk free does not punish society. At that point we'd just have to agree to disagree.


Sponsors


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

If You See Kay, Red 2011
Turnbull, Old Bull Red 2010
Cherry Tart, Cherry Pie Pinot Noir 2012
Trader Joe's Grand Reserve Cabernet, Oakville 2012
Benton Lane, Pinot Gris 2012
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Reserva 2008
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2012
Pendulum Red 2011
Vina Real, Plata, Crianza Rioja 2009
Edmunds St. John, Bone/Jolly, Gamay Noir Rose 2013
Bookwalter, Subplot No. 26
Ayna, Tempranillo 2011
Pete's Mountain, Pinot Noir, Haley's Block 2010
Apaltagua, Reserva Camenere 2012
Lugana, San Benedetto 2012
Argyle Brut 2007
Wildewood Pinot Gris 2012
Anciano, Tempranillo Reserva 2007
Santa Rita, Reserva Cabernet 2009
Casone, Toscana 2008
Fonseca Porto, Bin No. 27
Louis Jadot, Pouilly-Fuissé 2011
Trader Joe's, Grower's Reserve Pinot Noir 2012
Zenato, Lugana San Benedetto 2012
Vintjs, Cabernet 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White 2012
Rainstorm, Oregon Pinot Gris 2012
Silver Palm, North Coast Cabernet 2011
Andrew Rich, Gewurtztraminer 2008
Rodney Strong, Charlotte's Home Sauvignon Blanc 2012
Canoe Ridge, Pinot Gris, Expedition 2012
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir Rose 2012
Dark Horse, Big Red Blend No. 01A
Elk Cove, Pinot Noir Rose 2012
Fletcher, Shiraz 2010
Picollo, Gavi 2011
Domaine Eugene Carrel, Jongieux 2012
Eyrie, Pinot Blanc 2010
Atticus, Pinot Noir 2010
Walter Scott, Pinot Noir, Holstein 2011
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
Coppola, Sofia Rose 2012
Joel Gott, 851 Cabernet 2010
Pol Roget Reserve Sparkling Wine
Mount Eden Chardonnay, Santa Cruz Mountains 2009
Rombauer Chardonnay, Napa Valley 2011
Beringer, Chardonnay, Napa Reserve 2011
Kim Crawford, Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Schloss Vollrads, Spaetlese Rheingau 2010
Belle Glos, Pinot Noir, Clark & Telephone 2010
WillaKenzie, Pinot Noir, Estate Cuvee 2010
Blackbird Vineyards, Arise, Red 2010
Chauteau de Beaucastel, Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Northstar, Merlot 2008
Feather, Cabernet 2007
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Alexander Valley 2002
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2002
Trader Joe's, Chardonnay, Grower's Reserve 2012
Silver Palm, Cabernet, North Coast 2010
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone 2009
Santa Margherita, Pinot Grigio 2011
Alamos, Cabernet 2011
Cousino Macul, Cabernet, Anitguas Reservas 2009
Dreaming Tree Cabernet 2010
1967, Toscana 2009
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009

The Occasional Book

Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 259
At this date last year: 107
Total run in 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269


Clicky Web Analytics