1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby articulably suspect » Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:34 pm

PublicInterest wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What schools position you best to work as an ADA in a big city (NY, Chicago, etc)? For a job like that, does a T14 hold a significant advantage over a top regional school? What would you suggest doing during law school to position yourself for getting hired to a top DA?

If you happen to know, what are some of your colleagues long term goals? Work their way up as a prosecutor, get experience and open up a solo defense practice, etc.

Thank you for taking questions.


I went to a T14 and work at what would probably be considered a "top DA." I think school matters, at least a little bit. They tend to look for smart, motivated people who are committed to public service and are going to be able to persuasively argue in tough circumstances. If you go to Harvard, you can check off the "smart" box, but you've still got to show them everything else. Most urban DAs offices have strong ties to schools in the city, but they will hire from all over the country. If you do well there, particularly in crim/evidence classes, I think any advantage a T14 would give you is minimized.


As for getting hired: Intern, intern, intern. It's the best way to get experience and see if prosecution is really where your heart is set. It also exposes you to different offices and office structures. Some offices have "vertical prosecution" (one ADA per case), and others do "horizontal prosecution" (different ADAs at each level, like arraignment, grand jury, pre-trial, trial). Some break everyone into specialized units (narcotics, domestic vioence), while others have a more generalist approach. This really helps you explain why you want to be an ADA in a certain office, which is critical in getting a job.

Most of my friends also just started here, so no future plans for the moment. People leave for all kinds of places, like USAOs, DOJ, big firms, medium firms, and solo practice. Others go on to be judges, professors, politicians. I think it's a good place to start your career no matter what you want to do because it gives you immediate responsibility and actual trial experience, which is rare outside of criminal practice these days.


+1. Most DA offices offer internships all year. Many of the Attorney 1's that got hired where I worked were interns. You can get a lot of experience in the public sector as you go through ls, not just in the summer, so there are a lot of chances to get in there, network and build a solid reputation for yourself as a public servant. Showing interest and having a history of public service does account for a lot. Based on my experiences, they don't necessarily want the T14, 20, etc that's looking for a job because they struck out at OCI and have not real interest in the work or anything on their resume that would suggest that they do. To be honest, where I worked the entire ranking thing that everyone lives and dies by on here was essentially irrelevant, again based on my experience and this doesn't mean this is the case elsewhere.

Many DA, PD, AG, etc offices don't actively recruit either, so you have to go to them. It's a different ball game in the public sector.

Here's something interesting: http://www.cpda.org/2007-California-Pub ... ctices.pdf. It's regarding PD offices, but it does give you some insight in how various govt agencies operate in this regard.

lsb
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby lsb » Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:39 pm

I've heard that it's common for ADAs to have second jobs. Is this true?


articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby articulably suspect » Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:47 pm

lsb wrote:I've heard that it's common for ADAs to have second jobs. Is this true?


Where do you people here this stuff? I've never known any that did and have only heard this on TLS, shocker. With Attorney I's in CA making, on average, 50-65K starting, I don't really think it's necessary to get a second job in order to survive. I guess you could if you wanted extra income though. With LRAP and IRB, whatever debt one incurs has become much more manageable then it once was. However, of the public sector attorney's I've met, worked with, related to and friends with, who were paying of their loans without LRAP/IRB, they seemed to manage and never had to get a second job. Again, based on my experience and my region in N CA.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:47 pm

What's the background check like? Were you polygraphed?

articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby articulably suspect » Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:48 pm

lsb wrote:I've heard that it's common for ADAs to have second jobs. Is this true?


Actually, yes they do. Sometimes two or three pt jobs on top of their DA position. Seriously, don't apply.

articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby articulably suspect » Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What's the background check like? Were you polygraphed?


I'm not a prosecutor, just worked in a DA's office for several years as an enforcement officer and my dad was the Chief Deputy DA at another DA's office for a decade or so(decided who to hire). That said, no polygraph. I'm pretty sure you get run through the FBI and state justice system here. They will check out your references. Seriously, it's not that extensive compared to JAG, Fed, etc.

lsb
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby lsb » Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:13 pm

ejjones wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What's the background check like? Were you polygraphed?


I'm not a prosecutor, just worked in a DA's office for several years as an enforcement officer and my dad was the Chief Deputy DA at another DA's office for a decade or so(decided who to hire). That said, no polygraph. I'm pretty sure you get run through the FBI and state justice system here. They will check out your references. Seriously, it's not that extensive compared to JAG, Fed, etc.



Ya, I seriously doubt any DA office would polygraph. However, I do remember hearing something about AUSAs being polygraphed. Could be wrong, though.

articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby articulably suspect » Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:09 pm

Mall_cop$ wrote:Cops and probation officers are polygraphed, I'm not sure why the DAs office would be excluded.


Simple answer, apples and oranges. Very different jobs with very different types of authority. As a prosecutor you handle sensitive information/evidence, but I handled that stuff. They got it from me, I went to the various agencies to obtain the evidence/records/etc and prepared it for dicovery and trial. I didn't have to take a poly.

Cops/Probation officers carry lethal weapons and sometimes use them, not all PO's are required to carry a gun, but do carry a chemical weapon of some form. They arrest people, engage in search and seizures, use force etc. You basically are violating people's rights, they want to make sure they have an honest and psychologically sound individual for these positions. If they don't someone could die, get taken advantage of, etc. Or worse you could end up with a cops like these racist assholes in Dallas who wrote 38 tickets to Latinos for for being non-English speakers.

Also, if memory serves, I don't think JAG or Fed prosecutor jobs require polygraph tests.

One more thing, I just applied for a PO position and don't remember reading anything about a polygraph, just psychiatric and physical exams, along with the criminal background.

PublicInterest
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby PublicInterest » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:49 pm

cla wrote:What is the hardest part of your job?

What kind of positions can one transition into after working for a few years as a prosecutor? Do you have a plan or are you just seeing where this takes you?

Do you feel that your law school adequately prepared you to work in this area of law?

If you don't mind me asking, how well did you do in school and did your ranking/extras like law review/etc play a big role in landing your job?

Thanks for your time!


1. It's really hard at first figuring out what are fair plea offers to make. Some offices have more rigid policies in this area, but others don't and you pretty much have to decide on your own what you think the right thing to do is. Also, since most DA's offices hire people straight out of law school, it's tough gaining the trust and respect of cops, witnesses and victims when you're barely in your mid-20s.

2. I think you can go anywhere. Big firms, little firms, other gov't. Within the office you can try bigger cases and investigate complex criminal acts. I mean, you can really do any legal job where litigation experience, investigative skills and public service are valued.

3. Yes and no. Some classes like trial ad, crim pro and evidence really do help. But there is so much state-specific law and procedure that nothing in law school really prepares you for. I know it sounds silly but no matter how smart you are, you will almost always get burned by that seasoned defense lawyer who knows every in and out of the criminal procedure law. There's just no substitute for mastering the state-specific law, which you just don't do in law school (or at least not at mine).

4. I don't think they played a big role. I think if you have median or top1/3 and higher, they don't matter too much. Obviously if you have an A+ in crim pro and evidence that might give you a boost, just as getting a C in each of those might sink you even if you're otherwise above median.

lsb
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby lsb » Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:12 pm

PublicInterest wrote:
cla wrote:What is the hardest part of your job?

What kind of positions can one transition into after working for a few years as a prosecutor? Do you have a plan or are you just seeing where this takes you?

Do you feel that your law school adequately prepared you to work in this area of law?

If you don't mind me asking, how well did you do in school and did your ranking/extras like law review/etc play a big role in landing your job?

Thanks for your time!


1. It's really hard at first figuring out what are fair plea offers to make. Some offices have more rigid policies in this area, but others don't and you pretty much have to decide on your own what you think the right thing to do is. Also, since most DA's offices hire people straight out of law school, it's tough gaining the trust and respect of cops, witnesses and victims when you're barely in your mid-20s.

2. I think you can go anywhere. Big firms, little firms, other gov't. Within the office you can try bigger cases and investigate complex criminal acts. I mean, you can really do any legal job where litigation experience, investigative skills and public service are valued.

3. Yes and no. Some classes like trial ad, crim pro and evidence really do help. But there is so much state-specific law and procedure that nothing in law school really prepares you for. I know it sounds silly but no matter how smart you are, you will almost always get burned by that seasoned defense lawyer who knows every in and out of the criminal procedure law. There's just no substitute for mastering the state-specific law, which you just don't do in law school (or at least not at mine).

4. I don't think they played a big role. I think if you have median or top1/3 and higher, they don't matter too much. Obviously if you have an A+ in crim pro and evidence that might give you a boost, just as getting a C in each of those might sink you even if you're otherwise above median.


Thanks for taking questions.

Would you say that you have a very good shot at getting hired at a DA's office if you take criminal clinics, internships/externships, moot court, and have decent grades?

PublicInterest
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby PublicInterest » Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What's the background check like? Were you polygraphed?


No. You fill out a bunch of paperwork. They contact your references and former employers. I've heard of some offices sending an investigator out to your house and ask your super/neighbors about you.

You get printed, but no drug test. It's definitely a significant background check, but not what they go through at DOJ.

PublicInterest
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby PublicInterest » Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:44 pm

colemf wrote:Did everyone you knew in law school that went after a ADA job manage to find one?


No. This was not true at my school and elsewhere from what I've heard. Demand far exceeds supply, so it's really important to prepare well.

PublicInterest
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby PublicInterest » Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:48 pm

Would you say that you have a very good shot at getting hired at a DA's office if you take criminal clinics, internships/externships, moot court, and have decent grades?


Definitely, as long as you're targeting a good group of offices. If you're dead set on working in one specific metro area that isn't hiring, or focus on one office like manhattan, you may run into trouble regardless of how good a candidate you are. However, if you cast a wide net and are flexible, you have a great chance of finding a good permanent job.

lsb
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby lsb » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:11 pm

In your experience, do DA offices generally like to hire grads from area schools. For instance, if I went to a school in Indiana and wanted to work at a DA office in Illinois (not necessarily Chicago), would I be at a big disadvantage?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:55 am

My father worked in a solo practice, then partner practice, and then took on an associate who became a partner. Each of them worked as an assistant district attorney. The associate actually became District Attorney in the adjacent county (we were on the boarder). My father took a part-time position that became full-time later as well.

Basically, I think whether or not you have a second job often depends on whether your job is described as full-time or not. I think it also depends on the local jurisdiction. Even when it was part-time, I think my dad put in 35+ hours per week and worked from his own office (rather than a tiny DA's office in the courthouse). He still worked in his firm but the firm was unable to take criminal cases (conflict of interest). The compensation for the ADA job was probably at closer to 20hrs/week with a small secretarial stipend and travel stipend. It is a small, rural county, which is why they only had part-time positions.

Later, when he went full-time, in our county there was a DA and two ADAs. The ADAs were responsible for night courts with JOPs in each town. My dad seldom worked less than 40 hours per week, though he got to pick when he worked. However, sometimes he would get home from court at 11pm or later and have to go to court again the next day a 9am on the other side of the county (a 90 minute drive). He also had to keep up with all the work and deadlines. My dad is old, so it became too much for him.

Moral of the story: check with the jurisdiction you want to work in. Each will be different since DA's offices are local government.

Sorry for the anonymous posting, but I think my father would prefer it (if he knew).

PublicInterest
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby PublicInterest » Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:56 pm

lsb wrote:In your experience, do DA offices generally like to hire grads from area schools. For instance, if I went to a school in Indiana and wanted to work at a DA office in Illinois (not necessarily Chicago), would I be at a big disadvantage?


I think they do like to hire from certain local schools. More than that, most offices look for people they think are going to stick around and be happy working in the office for years to come. I think if you went to a law school in a neighboring state that would certainly help you too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:35 pm

Can a law clerk position in one county help to get you a post-bar position in a different county? I was just offered a 2L law clerk position in a district attorney's office for a large county (~1.5 million). I would love to work there after I graduate; unfortunately, there is a hiring freeze in the county that may or may not be lifted before I graduate. Even if it is, my interviewer made clear that getting a position is very competitive.

Also, any ideas on how small plaintiff's firms feel about students who worked in a DA's office their 2L summer?

articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby articulably suspect » Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:42 pm

PublicInterest wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What's the background check like? Were you polygraphed?


No. You fill out a bunch of paperwork. They contact your references and former employers. I've heard of some offices sending an investigator out to your house and ask your super/neighbors about you.

You get printed, but no drug test. It's definitely a significant background check, but not what they go through at DOJ.


wait, they didn't make you take a drug test? i find that interesting and completely counter to law enforcement.

lsb
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby lsb » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:48 pm

ejjones wrote:
PublicInterest wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What's the background check like? Were you polygraphed?


No. You fill out a bunch of paperwork. They contact your references and former employers. I've heard of some offices sending an investigator out to your house and ask your super/neighbors about you.

You get printed, but no drug test. It's definitely a significant background check, but not what they go through at DOJ.


wait, they didn't make you take a drug test? i find that interesting and completely counter to law enforcement.


I guess we should also drug test legislatures then because they make the laws.

articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby articulably suspect » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:05 pm

lsb wrote:
ejjones wrote:
PublicInterest wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What's the background check like? Were you polygraphed?


No. You fill out a bunch of paperwork. They contact your references and former employers. I've heard of some offices sending an investigator out to your house and ask your super/neighbors about you.

You get printed, but no drug test. It's definitely a significant background check, but not what they go through at DOJ.


wait, they didn't make you take a drug test? i find that interesting and completely counter to law enforcement.


I guess we should also drug test legislatures then because they make the laws.


ADA's don't make laws they're enforcing them and legislators aren't, so I don't get your lame attempt at a pot shot. The office I worked at and of the offices in my area, they all require drug testing. I'm not suggesting that every DA office has some sort of universal screening policy, but I figured this would be one that all did. If you want to work at Best Buy or any number of businesses you have to take a drug test for Christ sake. Maybe they don't want people who use drugs, have used drugs, etc for various reasons such as the handling of drug related cases, maybe they think drug use speaks to moral character, I don't know nor do I necessarily agree with probing drug history background checks. In my county they will send out investigators out to talk to your neighbors and ask them such questions as your alcohol consumption. I guess it's a matter of making sure you've got the right person for the job.

Oh, and legislators are elected officials, so it's, again, not at all related to my comment.

lsb
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby lsb » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:08 pm

Calm down, damn. You were suggesting that because ADAs are in a privileged position where drugs could seriously affect their job, they should be drug tested. If you don't like my legislature example (and who gives a shit that they are elected), what about doctors? I guess you think they should be drug tested. They come into contact with all types of drugs everyday and also hold the lives of human beings in their hands.

Second, why would ADAs be drug tested in the first place? They're not arresting people so they don't come into contact with money, guns, and drugs. It would insulting to treat an ADA like a clerk at Best Buy. Why don't we drug test Scalia, Roberts, and Ginsburg while we're at it?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:23 am

Ok, I don't want to get into this whole drug argument, but I have a related question that is on topic.

I know for jobs in the FBA, US Attorney's Office, etc. people say that any history of drug use (other than marijuana) is an automatic disqualifier. Personally, I would fall into this category. I know that I *could* lie about it as long as they don't polygraph me, but I value my integrity more than that. I'm not embarrassed about it and I don't think it made me (or says that I am) a person of "poor moral character." Since higher level federal jobs would automatically disqualify me upon this admission, are there any DA/prosecution jobs that would also disqualify me? Personally, I'm not sure what I want to do (public service/private practice/etc), but if my history is going to preclude me from getting a job as a DA, then I might as well get it out of my head now. Are the requirements as strict for these jobs?

Just to be clear (and since this is anonymous), I have done powder cocaine probably hundreds of times. I've never had addiction problems and I don't do that stuff anymore. It was mostly stuff my friends and I did in college. If it matters, I already have a secret clearance from the military (though that was before I went to college). LIke I said, in my eyes, it shouldn't matter because I don't do that stuff anymore and I'm not a bad person (clean record, good job history, etc.), but will this prohibit me from getting a position at the city/county level?

articulably suspect
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:01 am

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby articulably suspect » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:50 pm

lsb wrote:Calm down, damn. You were suggesting that because ADAs are in a privileged position where drugs could seriously affect their job, they should be drug tested. If you don't like my legislature example (and who gives a shit that they are elected), what about doctors? I guess you think they should be drug tested. They come into contact with all types of drugs everyday and also hold the lives of human beings in their hands.

Second, why would ADAs be drug tested in the first place? They're not arresting people so they don't come into contact with money, guns, and drugs. It would insulting to treat an ADA like a clerk at Best Buy. Why don't we drug test Scalia, Roberts, and Ginsburg while we're at it?


Your logic is terrible. I initially said that I thought ADA's not taking a drug test seemed to go against the grain of LE and is surprising based on my experience, this is the root of my comment. Where I worked(DA), everyone had to take a drug test when they got offered a job, attorney down to PT filing clerk, everyone. Privileged position, what the hell does that mean? Do you really think it's denigrating to ask a potential prosecutor to take a drug test, because they have a JD or what I don't get that? Because they have a JD they shouldn't have to take a drug test, you get tested before you get the ADA job so ADA's don't technically get tested where I've worked, you get tested before getting sworn in and never again?

Elected officials, that matters because they aren't hired, the voters give you a job, not an agency, business, etc, the people decide if they want you to represent them, drug use, hookers, etc or not. Do you seriously believe that the vetting process for Supreme Court Justices doesn't address things like past drug use or anything else related to their "character", integrity, intelligence, etc for that matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_H._Ginsburg?) Shit, how many haven't made it to the confirmation hearings due to the crap discucussed about them, see Harriet Miers?

Do you know that MD's working in various capacities don't have to take a drug test, because I don't know.

Re: the bold portion, yes they do! Coming from someone who obtained this type of evidence and hand delivered it to the prosecutors, they do come into possession of those materials. Also, ADA's can carry a concealed weapon if they wish where I live(ie not the backwoods), as far as I know this isn't uncommon.

Edit: please test Scalia, oh and I'm not big on drug testing BTW. Wasn't advocating widespread drug testing you ass.

lsb
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: 1st year big-city prosecutor taking questions

Postby lsb » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:25 pm

ejjones wrote:
lsb wrote:Calm down, damn. You were suggesting that because ADAs are in a privileged position where drugs could seriously affect their job, they should be drug tested. If you don't like my legislature example (and who gives a shit that they are elected), what about doctors? I guess you think they should be drug tested. They come into contact with all types of drugs everyday and also hold the lives of human beings in their hands.

Second, why would ADAs be drug tested in the first place? They're not arresting people so they don't come into contact with money, guns, and drugs. It would insulting to treat an ADA like a clerk at Best Buy. Why don't we drug test Scalia, Roberts, and Ginsburg while we're at it?


Your logic is terrible. I initially said that I thought ADA's not taking a drug test seemed to go against the grain of LE and is surprising based on my experience, this is the root of my comment. Where I worked(DA), everyone had to take a drug test when they got offered a job, attorney down to PT filing clerk, everyone. Privileged position, what the hell does that mean? Do you really think it's denigrating to ask a potential prosecutor to take a drug test, because they have a JD or what I don't get that? Because they have a JD they shouldn't have to take a drug test, you get tested before you get the ADA job so ADA's don't technically get tested where I've worked, you get tested before getting sworn in and never again?

Elected officials, that matters because they aren't hired, the voters give you a job, not an agency, business, etc, the people decide if they want you to represent them, drug use, hookers, etc or not. Do you seriously believe that the vetting process for Supreme Court Justices doesn't address things like past drug use or anything else related to their "character", integrity, intelligence, etc for that matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_H._Ginsburg?) Shit, how many haven't made it to the confirmation hearings due to the crap discucussed about them, see Harriet Miers?

Do you know that MD's working in various capacities don't have to take a drug test, because I don't know.

Re: the bold portion, yes they do! Coming from someone who obtained this type of evidence and hand delivered it to the prosecutors, they do come into possession of those materials. Also, ADA's can carry a concealed weapon if they wish where I live(ie not the backwoods), as far as I know this isn't uncommon.

Edit: please test Scalia, oh and I'm not big on drug testing BTW. Wasn't advocating widespread drug testing you ass.


Yes you're right, they may come into contact with guns and money, but it's after it's been processed. It would be ridiculous to think that they are going to steal a kilo of cocaine after it's already been obtained as evidence. It's different when it's a cop who pulls someone over on the side of the highway and come across 30k in cash.

I dont see why you think it matters that legislatures are elected. We're the boss and they are the potential employee.

And of course potential Justices get grilled before they get confirmed, but Congress does not say at the hearing "ok Sotomayor, now before we give you the official nod, we're going to need you to go to the ladies room and piss in this little cup for us. Now go quick and bring it back so we can get it analyzed." How insulting would that be?

No, doctors do not get drug tested. At least none that I've met.

Also, where do you live in where there is all this oversight? It sounds like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.