text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Appellant was given the maximum sentence for petty theft under Illinois law of one year's imprisonment and a $500 fine, plus $5 in court costs. The judgment, as permitted by statute, provided that if when the one-year sentence expired he did not pay the monetary obligations, he had to remain in jail to work them off at the rate of $5 a day. While in jail appellant, alleging indigency, unsuccessfully petitioned the sentencing judge to vacate that portion of the order confining him to jail after the sentence expired, because of nonpayment of the fine and costs. The Illinois Supreme Court rejected appellant's claim that the state statutory provision constituted discriminatory treatment against those unable to pay a fine and court costs, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of appellant's petition, holding that "there is no denial of equal protection of the law when an indigent defendant is imprisoned to satisfy payment of the fine." Held: Though a State has considerable latitude in fixing the punishment for state crimes and may impose alternative sanctions, it may not under the Equal Protection Clause subject a certain class of convicted defendants to a period of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum solely by reason of their indigency. Pp. 239-245.
41 Ill. 2d 511, 244 N. E. 2d 197, vacated and remanded.
Stanley A. Bass argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Jack Greenberg, Michael Meltsner, and Anthony G. Amsterdam.
James R. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were William J. Scott, Attorney General, and Joel M. Flaum, Assistant Attorney General.
The National Legal Aid and Defender Assn. filed a brief as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Richard L. Curry, Marvin E. Aspen, and Edmund Hatfield, filed a brief for the City of Chicago as amicus curiae urging affirmance. [399 U.S. 235, 236]
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal from Illinois presents an important question involving a claim of discriminatory treatment based upon financial inability to pay a fine and court costs imposed in a criminal case. The narrow issue raised is whether an indigent may be continued in confinement beyond the maximum term specified by statute because of his failure to satisfy the monetary provisions of the sentence. We noted probable jurisdiction 1 and set the case for oral argument with No. 782, Morris v. Schoonfield, post, p. 508, also decided today.
On August 16, 1967, appellant was convicted of petty theft and received the maximum sentence provided by state law: one year imprisonment and a $500 fine. 2 Appellant was also taxed $5 in court costs. The judgment directed, as permitted by statute, that if appellant was in default of the payment of the fine and court costs at the expiration of the one year sentence, he should remain in jail pursuant to 1-7 (k) of the Illinois Criminal Code to "work off" the monetary obligations at the rate of $5 per day. 3 Thus, whereas the maximum term of imprisonment for petty theft was one year, the effect of the sentence imposed here required appellant to be [399 U.S. 235, 237] confined for 101 days beyond the maximum period of confinement fixed by the statute since he could not pay the fine and costs of $505.
On November 29, 1967, appellant, while still an inmate in the county jail, petitioned the sentencing judge 4 to vacate that portion of the order requiring that he remain imprisoned upon expiration of his one year sentence because of nonpayment of the fine and court costs. Appellant alleged that he was indigent at all stages of the proceedings, was without funds or property to satisfy the money portion of the sentence, and that he would "be able to get a job and earn funds to pay the fine and costs, if . . . released from jail upon expiration of his one year sentence." The State did not dispute the factual allegations 5 and the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition
In addition to renewing the constitutional argument rejected by the state courts, appellant advances a host of other claims 7 which, in light of our disposition, we find unnecessary to reach or decide. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of 1-7 (k) of the Illinois Criminal Code and argues primarily that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits imprisonment of an indigent beyond the maximum term authorized by the statute governing the substantive offense when that imprisonment flows directly from his present inability to pay a fine and court costs. In response the State asserts its interest in the collection of revenues produced by payment of fines and contends that a "work off" system, as provided by 1-7 (k), is a rational means of implementing that policy. That interest is substantial and legitimate but for present purposes it is not unlike the State's interest in collecting a fine from an indigent person in circumstances where no imprisonment is included in the judgment. The State argues further that the statute is not constitutionally infirm simply because the legislature could have achieved the same result [399 U.S. 235, 239] by some other means. With that general proposition we have no quarrel but that generality does not resolve the issue.
As noted earlier, appellant's incarceration beyond the statutory maximum stems from separate albeit related reasons: nonpayment of a fine and nonpayment of court costs. We find that neither of those grounds can constitutionally support the type of imprisonment imposed here, but we treat the fine and costs together because disposition of the claim on fines governs our disposition on costs. 8
The custom of imprisoning a convicted defendant for nonpayment of fines dates back to medieval England 9 and has long been practiced in this country. At the present time almost all States and the Federal Government have statutes authorizing incarceration under such circumstances. Most States permit imprisonment beyond the maximum term allowed by law, and in some there is no limit on the length of time one may serve for nonpayment. 10 While neither the antiquity of a practice nor the fact of steadfast legislative and judicial adherence to it through the centuries insulates it from constitutional attack, these factors should be weighed in [399 U.S. 235, 240] the balance. 11 Indeed, in prior cases this Court seems to have tacitly approved incarceration to "work off" unpaid fines. See Hill v. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460 (1936); Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1878). 12
The need to be open to reassessment of ancient practices other than those explicitly mandated by the Constitution is illustrated by the present case since the greatly increased use of fines as a criminal sanction has made nonpayment a major cause of incarceration in this country. 13 Default imprisonment has traditionally been justified on the ground that it is a coercive device to ensure obedience to the judgment of the court. 14 Thus, commitment for failure to pay has not been viewed as a part of the punishment or as an increase in the penalty; rather, it has been viewed as a means of enabling the court to enforce collection of money that a convicted defendant was obligated by the sentence to pay. The additional imprisonment, it has been said, may always be avoided by payment of the fine. 15
We conclude that when the aggregate imprisonment exceeds the maximum period fixed by the statute and [399 U.S. 235, 241] results directly from an involuntary nonpayment of a fine or court costs we are confronted with an impermissible discrimination that rests on ability to pay, and accordingly, we vacate the judgment below.
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), marked a significant effort to alleviate discrimination against those who are unable to meet the costs of litigation in the administration of criminal justice. In holding that the failure to provide an indigent criminal defendant with a trial transcript at public expense in order to prosecute an appeal was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, this Court declared that "[t]here can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." Id., at 19. In the years since the Griffin case the Court has had frequent occasion to reaffirm allegiance to the basic command that justice be applied equally to all persons. 16 Subsequent decisions of this Court have pointedly demonstrated that the passage of time has heightened rather than weakened the attempts to mitigate the disparate treatment of indigents in the criminal process. 17 Applying the teaching of the Griffin case here, we conclude that an indigent criminal defendant may not be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine beyond the maximum authorized by the statute regulating the substantive offense.
A State has wide latitude in fixing the punishment for state crimes. Thus, appellant does not assert that Illinois could not have appropriately fixed the penalty, in the first instance, at one year and 101 days. Nor has the claim been advanced that the sentence imposed was excessive in light of the circumstances of the commission of this particular offense. However, once the State has [399 U.S. 235, 242] defined the outer limits of incarceration necessary to satisfy its penological interests and policies, it may not then subject a certain class of convicted defendants to a period of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum solely by reason of their indigency.
It is clear, of course, that the sentence was not imposed upon appellant because of his indigency but because he had committed a crime. And the Illinois statutory scheme does not distinguish between defendants on the basis of ability to pay fines. But, as we said in Griffin v. Illinois, supra, "a law nondiscriminatory on its face may be grossly discriminatory in its operation." Id., at 17 n. 11. Here the Illinois statute as applied to Williams works an invidious discrimination solely because he is unable to pay the fine. On its face the statute extends to all defendants an apparently equal opportunity for limiting confinement to the statutory maximum simply by satisfying a money judgment. In fact, this is an illusory choice for Williams or any indigent who, by definition, is without funds. 18 Since only a convicted person with access to funds can avoid the increased imprisonment, the Illinois statute in operative effect exposes only indigents to the risk of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum. By making the maximum confinement contingent upon one's ability to pay, the State has visited different consequences on two categories of persons since the result is to make incarceration in excess of the statutory maximum applicable only to those without the requisite resources to satisfy the money portion of the judgment. 19 [399 U.S. 235, 243]
The mere fact that an indigent in a particular case may be imprisoned for a longer time than a non-indigent convicted of the same offense does not, of course, give rise to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Sentencing judges are vested with wide discretion in the exceedingly difficult task of determining the appropriate punishment in the countless variety of situations that appear. The Constitution permits qualitative differences in meting out punishment and there is no requirement that two persons convicted of the same offense receive identical sentences. Thus it was that in Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247 (1949), we said: "The belief no longer prevails that every offense in a like legal category calls for an identical punishment without regard to the past life and habits of a particular offender."
Nothing in today's decision curtails the sentencing prerogative of a judge because, as noted previously, the sovereign's purpose in confining an indigent beyond the statutory maximum is to provide a coercive means of collecting or "working out" a fine. After having taken into consideration the wide range of factors underlying the exercise of his sentencing function, nothing we now hold precludes a judge from imposing on an indigent, as on any defendant, the maximum penalty prescribed by law.
It bears emphasis that our holding does not deal with a judgment of confinement for nonpayment of a fine in the familiar pattern of alternative sentence of "$30 or 30 days." We hold only that a State may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine. A statute permitting a sentence of both imprisonment and fine cannot be parlayed into a longer term of imprisonment than is fixed by the statute since to do so would be to accomplish indirectly as to an indigent that which cannot be done directly. We have no [399 U.S. 235, 244] occasion to reach the question whether a State is precluded in any other circumstances from holding an indigent accountable for a fine by use of a penal sanction. We hold only that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the statutory ceiling placed on imprisonment for any substantive offense be the same for all defendants irrespective of their economic status. 20
The State is not powerless to enforce judgments against those financially unable to pay a fine; indeed, a different result would amount to inverse discrimination since it would enable an indigent to avoid both the fine and imprisonment for nonpayment whereas other defendants must always suffer one or the other conviction.
It is unnecessary for us to canvass the numerous alternatives to which the State by legislative enactment - or judges within the scope of their authority - may resort in order to avoid imprisoning an indigent beyond the statutory maximum for involuntary nonpayment of a fine or court costs. Appellant has suggested several plans, some of which are already utilized in some States, while others resemble those proposed by various studies. 21 The State [399 U.S. 235, 245] is free to choose from among the variety of solutions already proposed and, of course, it may devise new ones. 22
We are not unaware that today's holding may place a further burden on States in administering criminal justice. Perhaps a fairer and more accurate statement would be that new cases expose old infirmities which apathy or absence of challenge has permitted to stand. But the constitutional imperatives of the Equal Protection Clause must have priority over the comfortable convenience of the status quo. "Any supposed administrative inconvenience would be minimal, since . . . [the unpaid portion of the judgment] could be reached through the ordinary processes of garnishment in the event of default." Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 310 (1966).
Nothing we hold today limits the power of the sentencing judge to impose alternative sanctions permitted by Illinois law; the definition of such alternatives, if any, lies with the Illinois courts. We therefore vacate the judgment appealed from and remand to the Supreme Court of Illinois for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
When an indigent defendant has been confined in prison 30 days solely for the nonpayment of the fine, the defendant may petition the magistrate for discharge if certain conditions are met. Id. 12.55.030.
Specifically applying to convictions of misdemeanor and also providing for imprisonment at the rate of $1 per day. Id. Sec. 46-510.
Providing that confinement shall not discharge the fine which can only be collected by proceeding against the defendant's property. Id. Sec. 43-2606.
But imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine may not exceed in any case the term for which the defendant might be sentenced for the offense of which he has been convicted. Id.
Persons confined in jail for fines who have no estate with which to pay such fines may be discharged from imprisonment. Id. Sec. 39-10-9.
Rate of credit: $3 per day. Id. Sec. 18-50.
When a person is convicted of a crime punishable by a fine or imprisonment, the court may impose upon the offender a conditional sentence and order him to pay a fine within a limited time and in default of so doing, to be imprisoned. Id. Sec. 54-119.
In the same situation, justices of the peace and other named courts may order the person defaulting imprisoned for no longer than 90 days. Id. Tit. 11, Sec. 4103 (b).
In cases of convictions for misdemeanor, the court may order the defendant to serve not exceeding sixty days in default of payment of a fine. Id. Sec. 775.07.
Rate of credit: Id. Sec. 951.16.
Judge may provide as a means of enforcing payment of a fine that the defendant be imprisoned until the fine is paid. R. E. Lee v. State, 118 S. E. 2d 599 (1961).
A poor person, after having been confined for thirty days, solely for the nonpayment of a fine, may make application to the circuit court for the circuit in which he is imprisoned for release. The person may then be discharged upon the taking of an oath. Id.
Substantially the same is provided, for both felonies and misdemeanors, by Id. Sec. 18-303.
If a person confined in jail for failure to pay a fine has no estate with which to pay the fine, the court may release that person. Id. ch. 38, Sec. 180-6.
Rate of credit: $5 per day. Id. Sec. 9-2227a (Supp. 1969).
Rate of credit: $3 1/3 per day. Id. Sec. 789.17. [399 U.S. 235, 250]
Rate of credit: $2 per day. Id. Sec. 62-2109.
A person imprisoned for failure to pay a fine may be discharged from imprisonment if found to be unable to pay. Id. Sec. 62-1515.
Rate of credit: $2 per day. Id.
Rate of credit: $5 per day. Id.
[This provision has been amended by Chapter 147 of the 1970 Laws of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). See Morris v. Schoonfield, post, p. 508.]
Installment payments in some counties are provided for. Id. Art. 52, Sec. 18 (1969 Supp.).
Rate of credit: $2 per day (with some modifications resulting in shorter periods of confinement in some cases than would result at $2 per day). Id. Art. 38, Sec. 4 (1969 Supp.).
Rate of credit: $1 per day. Id. ch. 127, Sec. 144.
The execution of the sentence of confinement may be suspended and the defendant placed on probation on condition that he pay the fine within a certain time, either in one payment or in installments. In case of default, the court may revoke the suspension of the execution of the sentence. Id. ch. 279, Sec. 1.
Discharge of poor prisoners incarcerated for failure to pay fines. Id. ch. 127, Sec. 145, (when fine is less than ten dollars); Sec. 146, (when the prisoner has been confined for three months).
Execution may issue for the collection of fines in cases where no alternative sentence or judgment of imprisonment [399 U.S. 235, 252] has been rendered, but no one may be imprisoned under such execution for longer than 90 days. Id. Sec. 600.4815.
Rate of credit: $3 per day. Id. Sec. 641.10 (Supp. 1969).
Rate of credit: $3 per day. Id. Sec. 7906.
The judge, on petition of the prisoner, may sentence him to imprisonment for a limited time in lieu of the fine. Id. Sec. 546.840.
Rate of credit: $2 per day. Id. Sec. 551.010.
Magistrates' courts have similar powers but the rate of credit may vary from $2 to $10 for each day of confinement. Id. Secs. 543.260 and 543.270.
Rate of credit: $10 per day. Id.
Rate of credit: $6 per day. Id. Sec. 29-2412.
In cases of misdemeanor, offenders may be committed to the county jail until the fine is paid. Id. Sec. 29-2404.
Rate of credit: $4 per day. Id.
Rate of credit: $5 per day. Id. Sec. 618.9.
Defendant may also be permitted to remain at large for a fixed time to enable him to pay the fine. If defendant fails to pay, the court may then order him into custody. Id. Sec. 2A:166-15.
Rate of credit: $5 per day. Id. Sec. 2A:166-16 (Supp. 1969).
A disorderly person who defaults in the payment of a fine may be committed by the court. Id. Sec. 2A:169-5 (Supp. 1969).
Rate of credit: $5 per day. Id.
If a person so confined makes an affidavit that he has no property out of which to pay the fine, he must be released after three months of confinement. Id. Sub. B.
But convicts sentenced to the state penitentiary may not be required to serve more than thirty days for a fine. Id. Sec. 42-1-60 (1964).
Sec. 470-d has been limited by People v. Saffore, 18 N. Y. 2d 101, 218 N. E. 2d 686 (1966).
Persons committed for fines may be discharged from imprisonment upon taking an insolvent debtor's oath. Id. Secs. 23-23 and 23-24 (1965).
Rate of credit: $2 per day (but such imprisonment does not discharge the judgment for the fine.) Id. [399 U.S. 235, 255]
Rate of credit: $3 per day. Id.
In a case of conviction for a misdemeanor, the judge or magistrate has the same power as above, but there is no limit of six months. Id. Sec. 2947.20.
Rate of credit: $2 per day. Id.
A poor convict who has been imprisoned for nonpayment of a fine may be discharged after serving six months if two justices of the peace are satisfied that the convict has not had since his conviction any estate with which he might have paid the fine. Id. Tit. 57, Sec. 15 (1969).
Rate of credit: $5 per day. Id.
Indigents imprisoned for nonpayment of fine may be discharged after serving thirty days solely for such nonpayment if in the opinion of a magistrate or court it appears that the prisoner is unable to pay the fine. Ore. Rev. Stat. Sec. 169.160 (1967). [399 U.S. 235, 256]
The sentencing authority may allow payment of a fine by installments, but upon default the defendant may be committed. Id. Tit. 19, Secs. 953 and 956 (1964).
Rate of credit: $5 per day. Id.
The director of social welfare may recommend the release of persons so confined, but no guidelines are set out in the statute. Id.
Offenders so committed are entitled to the privilege of insolvent debtors. Id.
Installment payments as a condition of probation. Id. Sec. 55-593.
Rate of credit: $2 per day. Id. [399 U.S. 235, 257]
Rate of credit: $5 per day. Id. Sec. 41-1223 (1956).
Rate of credit: $2 per day. Id.
When a person is sentenced only to pay a fine, the court shall order that if the sentence is not complied with within twenty-four hours the person may be imprisoned. Id. Sec. 7223.
Rate of credit: $1 per day. Id. Secs. 7222 and 7223.
In any misdemeanor case tried before a court not of record in which a fine is imposed on a defendant, if no security is given, the defendant may be committed to jail until the fine is paid. Id. Sec. 19.1-338.
Installment payments permitted. Id. (1961).
Rate of credit: $1.50 per day. Id. Sec. 62-4-10.
Confinement for failure to pay a fine shall not exceed the term of six months. Id.
The court may grant a reasonable time not exceeding one stay of 30 days based on the defendant's circumstances in which to make payment before committing him to the county jail. Id.
The time of imprisonment, in addition to any other imprisonment, shall not exceed six months. Id.
Installment payments permitted. Id. Sec. 57.04. [399 U.S. 235, 259]
Rate of credit: $1 per day. Id. Sec. 6-8.
[ Footnote * ] [REPORTER'S NOTE: This appendix is reproduced in virtually the same form in which it appeared in the brief filed by the National Legal Aid and Defender Assn. as amicus curiae. See supra, at 239 n. 10. Any changes in the statutes listed herein are not indicated, except for the bracketed entry applicable to Maryland, infra, at 251.]
[ Footnote 2 ] Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, 16-1 (1967), which proscribes theft of property not from the person and not exceeding $150 in value.
[ Footnote 3 ] Section 1-7 (k) of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides:
[ Footnote 4 ] The post-conviction petition was filed pursuant to 72 of the Illinois Civil Practice Act.
[ Footnote 5 ] Parenthetically we note that appellant was unable to post pretrial bail of $2,000 and was therefore required to remain in custody.
On May 23, 1968, appellant completed service of his one year sentence, less time off for time spent in custody prior to trial. He then began serving the period of incarceration required to satisfy the $505 fine and costs. On May 28, 1968, however, the Supreme Court of Illinois, on motion of appellant's counsel, set bail pending appeal at $500; the 10% deposit was posted by the Civil Legal Aid Service. Appellant is free on bond, and since he has not yet served the full period of incarceration to satisfy the fine and costs the case is not moot.
[ Footnote 6 ] The Supreme Court of Illinois dealt exclusively with that portion of the unpaid sum stemming from the fine. Its opinion contains no discussion of the constitutionality of incarceration arising from failure to pay court costs even though the issue was tendered.
[ Footnote 7 ] Appellant also argues that every instance of default imprisonment violates either the Equal Protection and/or Due Process Clause(s) of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also asserts that the $5 per diem figure is unreasonable and irrational.
[ Footnote 8 ] See n. 20, infra.
[ Footnote 9 ] See generally 2 W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 43-44 (3d ed. 1927); 1 J. Bishop on Criminal Law 940, p. 693 (9th ed. 1923); 1 J. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 57 (1883). See also, Comment, Fines, Imprisonment, and the Poor: "Thirty Dollars or Thirty Days," 57 Calif. L. Rev. 778, 780-787 (1969).
[ Footnote 10 ] The National Legal Aid and Defender Association, as Amicus Curiae, has filed a brief containing an extensive appendix which includes state statutes with helpful annotations. We have reproduced this portion of its brief as an appendix to this opinion. The corresponding federal statutes are 18 U.S.C. 3565, 3569. See also Note, The Equal Protection Clause and Imprisonment of the Indigent for Nonpayment of Fines, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 938 (1966).
[ Footnote 11 ] See Walz v. Tax Comm'n, decided May 4, 1970, 397 U.S. 664, 678 , where we noted that, "Nearly 50 years ago Mr. Justice Holmes stated:
[ Footnote 12 ] We note, however, that neither in those cases, nor at any other time, were the constitutional issues flowing from lack of funds presented to this Court for resolution.
[ Footnote 13 ] See, e. g., American Bar Foundation, L. Silverstein, Defense of the Poor in Criminal Cases in American State Courts 123 (1965); S. Rubin, The Law of Criminal Correction 253 (1963).
[ Footnote 14 ] See, e. g., Chief Judge Desmond's excellent treatment of the historical development in People v. Saffore, 18 N. Y. 2d 101, 218 N. E. 2d 686 (1966).
[ Footnote 15 ] See, e. g., Peeples v. District of Columbia, 75 A. 2d 845, 847 (D.C. Mun. Ct. App. 1950).
[ Footnote 16 ] See Note, Discriminations Against the Poor and the Fourteenth Amendment, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 435 (1967).
[ Footnote 17 ] See, e. g., Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305 (1966); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963); Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (1961).
[ Footnote 18 ] See, e. g., Goldberg, Equality and Governmental Action, 39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 205, 221 (1964).
[ Footnote 19 ] We wish to make clear that nothing in our decision today precludes imprisonment for willful refusal to pay a fine or court costs. See Ex parte Smith, 97 Utah 280, 92 P.2d 1098 (1939). Cf. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970).
[ Footnote 20 ] What we have said regarding imprisonment for involuntary nonpayment of fines applies with equal force to imprisonment for involuntary nonpayment of court costs. Although the actual amounts prescribed for fines and court costs reflect quite different considerations, see generally Note, Litigation Costs: The Hidden Barrier to the Indigent, 56 Geo. L. J. 516 (1968), the purpose of incarceration appears to be the same in both instances: ensuring compliance with a judgment. Thus inability to pay court costs cannot justify imprisoning an indigent beyond the maximum statutory term since the Equal Protection Clause prohibits expanding the maximum term specified by the statute simply because of inability to pay.
[ Footnote 21 ] Appellant has suggested that the fine and costs could be collected through an installment plan as is currently used in several States. E. g., Cal. Penal Code 1205; Mich. Comp. Laws 769.3 [399 U.S. 235, 245] (1948); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 19, 953-956 (1964). See also American Bar Association Project, Standards for Criminal Justice, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures 2.7 (b), pp. 117-123 (Approved Draft 1968).
Appellant also suggests that the trial judge could impose a parole requirement on an indigent that he do specified work during the day to satisfy the fine. Cf. 50 U.S.C. App. 456.
See also Model Penal Code 7.02 (3) (a) (Proposed Official Draft 1962).
[ Footnote 22 ] Cf. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 239 (1967).
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring in the result.
I concur in today's judgment, but in doing so wish to dissociate myself from the "equal protection" rationale employed by the Court to justify its conclusions.
The "equal protection" analysis of the Court is, I submit, a "wolf in sheep's clothing," for that rationale is no more than a masquerade of a supposedly objective standard for subjective judicial judgment as to what state legislation offends notions of "fundamental fairness." Under the rubric of "equal protection" this Court has in recent times effectively substituted its own "enlightened" social philosophy for that of the legislature no less than did in the older days the judicial adherents of the now discredited doctrine of "substantive" due process. I, for one, would prefer to judge the legislation before us in this case in terms of due process, that is to determine whether it arbitrarily infringes a constitutionally protected interest of this appellant. Due process, as I noted in my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961), is more than merely a procedural safeguard; it is also a "`bulwark . . . against arbitrary legislation.' Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , at 532." See Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), and my dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 655 (1969). [399 U.S. 235, 260]
The matrix of recent "equal protection" analysis is that the "rule that statutory classifications which either are based upon certain `suspect' criteria or affect `fundamental rights' will be held to deny equal protection unless justified by a `compelling' governmental interest," Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, at 658 (HARLAN, J., dissenting). In Shapiro, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 680 (1966), and Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 41 (1968), I attempted to expose the weakness in the precedential and jurisprudential foundation upon which the current doctrine of "equal protection" sits. See also Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 34 -36 (1956) (dissenting opinion); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 360 (1963) (dissenting opinion). I need not retrace the views expressed in these cases, except to object once again to this rhetorical preoccupation with "equalizing" rather than analyzing the rationality of the legislative distinction in relation to legislative purpose.
An analysis under due process standards, correctly understood, is, in my view, more conducive to judicial restraint than an approach couched in slogans and ringing phrases, such as "suspect" classification or "invidious" distinctions, or "compelling" state interest, that blur analysis by shifting the focus away from the nature of the individual interest affected, the extent to which it is affected, the rationality of the connection between legislative means and purpose, the existence of alternative means for effectuating the purpose, and the degree of confidence we may have that the statute reflects the legislative concern for the purpose that would legitimately support the means chosen. Accordingly, I turn to the case at hand.
The State of Illinois has made the unquestionably legitimate determination that the crime of petty larceny [399 U.S. 235, 261] should be punished by a jail term of days, up to one year, in combination with a fine of a dollar amount. Anyone who, in the judgment of the trial judge, should receive the stiffest penalty known to Illinois law for this crime may, if he possesses funds, satisfy the demands of the criminal law by paying the fine superimposed on the jail term. If he cannot pay his debt to society, it is surely not unequal, but, to the contrary, most equal, that some substitute sanction be imposed lest the individual of means be subjected to a harsher penalty than one who is impoverished. If equal protection implications of the Court's opinion were to be fully realized, it would require that the consequence of punishment be comparable for all individuals; the State would be forced to embark on the impossible task of developing a system of individualized fines, so that the total disutility of the entire fine, or the marginal disutility of the last dollar taken, would be the same for all individuals. Cf. Michelman, Foreword: On Protecting the Poor Through the Fourteenth Amendment, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 7 (1969). Today's holding, and those in the other so-called "equal protection" decisions, e. g., Douglas v. California, supra; Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), offer no pretense to actually providing such equal treatment. It cannot be argued that the requirement of counsel on appeal is the right to the most skilled advocate who is theoretically at the call of the defendant of means. However desirable and enlightened a theory of social and economic equality may be, it is not a theory that has the blessing of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not "every major social ill in this country can find its cure in some constitutional `principle,' and . . . this Court [is not equipped to] `take the lead' in promoting reform when other branches of government fail to act. The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a [399 U.S. 235, 262] judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 624 -625 (1964) (dissenting opinion).
The reluctance of the Court to carry its "equal protection" approach to its most logical consequences accents what I deem to be the true considerations involved in this case, namely, whether the legislature has impermissibly affected an individual right or has done so in an arbitrary fashion. Cf. Michelman, supra. While legislation usually will not be deemed arbitrary if its means can arguably be supposed to be related to a legitimate purpose (see my dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson, supra) and generally the burden of demonstrating the existence of a rational connection between means and ends is not borne by the State) see Flemming v. Nestor, supra, and my dissenting opinion in Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 447 (1967)), the presumption of regularity that comes with legislative judgment is one that is not equally acceptable in all instances, nor is it blind to the nature of the interests affected.
Thus, as a due process matter I have subscribed to the admonition of Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), where the Court cautioned that there are limits to the extent to which the presumption of constitutionality can be pressed where a "basic liberty" is concerned. See my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 543. The same viewpoint was implicit in Flemming v. Nestor, supra, where the Court noted the breadth of latitude to be accorded to a legislative judgment when the interest was that of a "noncontractual benefit under a social welfare program." 363 U.S., at 611 . Thus while that "interest . . . is of sufficient substance to fall within the protection from arbitrary governmental action [399 U.S. 235, 263] afforded by the Due Process Clause," when that interest is the "withholding of a noncontractual benefit under a social welfare program . . ., we must recognize that the Due Process Clause can be thought to interpose a bar only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification." Ibid.
The implication of Flemming is, however, that the deference owed to legislative judgment is not the same in all cases. Thus legislation that regulates conduct but incidentally affects freedom of expression may, although it is a rational choice to effectuate a legitimate legislative purpose, be invalid because it imposes a burden on that right, or because other means, entailing less imposition, may exist. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 185 (1961) (concurring in the judgment); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 388 (1968) (concurring opinion).
These decisions, by no means dispositive of the case before us, unquestionably show that this Court will squint hard at any legislation that deprives an individual of his liberty - his right to remain free. Cf. my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, supra. While the interest of the State, that of punishing one convicted of crime is no less substantial, cf. concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 347 (1970), the "balance which our Nation, built upon postulates of respect for the liberty of the individual, has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society." Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 542, "having regard to what history teaches" is not such that the State's interest here outweighs that of the individual so as to bring into full play the application of the usual salutary presumption of rationality. [399 U.S. 235, 264]
The State by this statute, or any other statute fixing a penalty of a fine, has declared its penological interest - deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation - satisfied by a monetary payment, and disclaimed, as serving any penological purpose in such cases, a term in jail. While there can be no question that the State has a legitimate concern with punishing an individual who cannot pay the fine, there is serious question in my mind whether, having declared itself indifferent as between fine and jail, it can consistently with due process refrain from offering some alternative such as payment on the installment plan.
There are two conceivable justifications for not doing so. The most obvious and likely justification for the present statute is administrative convenience. Given the interest of the individual affected, I do not think a State may, after declaring itself indifferent between a fine and jail, rely on the convenience of the latter as a constitutionally acceptable means for enforcing its interest, given the existence of less restrictive alternatives. Cf. Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950).
The second conceivable justification is that the jail alternative serves a penological purpose that cannot be served by collection of a fine over time. It is clear that having declared itself satisfied by a fine, the alternative of jail to a fine serves neither a rehabilitative nor a retributive interest. The question is, then, whether the requirement of a lump-sum payment can be sustained as a rational legislative determination that deterrence is effective only when a fine is exacted at once after sentence and by lump sum, rather than over a term. This is a highly doubtful proposition, since, apart from the mere fact of conviction and the humiliation associated with it and the token of punishment evidenced by the forfeiture, [399 U.S. 235, 265] the deterrent effect of a fine is apt to derive more from its pinch on the purse than the time of payment.
That the Illinois statute represents a considered judgment, evincing the belief that jail is a rational and necessary trade-off to punish the individual who possesses no accumulated assets seems most unlikely, since the substitute sentence provision, phrased in terms of a judgment collection statute, does not impose a discretionary jail term as an alternative sentence, but rather equates days in jail with a fixed sum. Thus, given that the only conceivable justification for this statute that would satisfy due process - that a lump-sum fine is a better deterrent than one payable over a period of time - is the one that is least likely to represent a considered legislative judgment, I would hold this statute invalid.
The conclusion I reach is only that when a State declares its penal interest may be satisfied by a fine or a forfeiture in combination with a jail term the administrative inconvenience in a judgment collection procedure does not, as a matter of due process, justify sending to jail, or extending the jail term of, individuals who possess no accumulated assets. * I would reserve the question as to whether a considered legislative judgment that a lump-sum fine is the only effective kind of forfeiture for deterrence and that the alternative must be jail, would be constitutional. It follows, a fortiori, that no conclusion reached herein casts any doubt on the conventional "$30 or 30 days" if the legislature decides that should be the penalty for the crime. Note, Discriminations Against the Poor and the Fourteenth Amendment, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 435 (1967). Such a statute [399 U.S. 235, 266] evinces the perfectly rational determination that some individuals will be adequately punished by a money fine, and others, indifferent to money - whether by virtue of indigency or other reasons - can be punished only by a jail term. Still more patently nothing said herein precludes the State from punishing ultimately by jail individuals who fail to pay fines or imprisoning immediately individuals who, in the judgment of a court, will not undertake to pay their fines.
On these premises I join the Court's judgment vacating appellant's sentence and remanding to the Supreme Court of Illinois to afford it an opportunity to instruct the sentencing judge as to any permissible alternatives under Illinois law. It may be that Illinois courts have the power to fashion a procedure pending further consideration of this problem by the state legislature. Cf. Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 421 -422 (1970), and my opinion concurring in the result in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 344 (1970).
[ Footnote * ] In this regard, unlike the Court, I see no distinction between circumstances where the State through its judicial agent determines that effective punishment requires less than the maximum prison term plus a fine, or a fine alone, and the circumstances of this case. [399 U.S. 235, 267]
Was this helpful?
Thank you. Your response has been sent.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 399 U.S. 235
Docket No: No. 1089
Argued: April 22, 1970
Decided: June 29, 1970
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Walworth County was formed by legislative act early in 1838 and was named in honor of Chancellor Ruben N. Walworth of New York. County officers were nominated and elected the same year and began their duties and terms of office on January 7, 1839. The Walworth County Sheriff's Office was established in 1839 in the Territory of Wisconsin, 9 years before Wisconsin became a state. Sheldon Walling of rural Lake Geneva was the first of four territorial Sheriffs.
County Jail
The first Walworth County Jail was erected in 1840 and was the first building owned by the county. It was constructed of logs and measured 14 by 20 feet. The first jail stood for 12 years. The Sheriff was then, as he is now, the official custodian of the county jail and the prisoners committed to it. If the Sheriff himself is committed to jail for any cause, it is the duty of the Coroner to take charge of the jail.
Work Release
The first jail was also the setting for an unofficial "Work Release" project. One of the early inmates of the jail was William Brown, a young German man who had a very limited command of the English language. He had been arrested for horse stealing. There was no energetic movement to indict him and he was confined to the log jail. The Sheriff at the time, Otis Preston, also took a liking to Brown and allowed him "Freedom of the yard", which included all of Elkhorn.
He worked cleaning up the park and in the evening he would sit in the jail and play cards or visit with townspeople who would stop by to see him. Brown was given a key to let himself in and out of the jail. Two grand juries failed to bring charges against Brown and he was ordered released from "custody". Sheriff Preston found Brown on the park grounds, read him his discharge papers, demanded and received the jail key, and walked over to the jail and locked Brown "out".
1852 New Jail
The county board voted on April 21, 1851 to condemn the old jail and build a new one. Four thousand dollars was appropriated and February 1, 1852 was set for a completion date. The jail was built on the Northeast corner of Court Street and Church Street in the City of Elkhorn. It was constructed of stone and brick and was two stories high.
The front of the building served as the Sheriff's quarters, with the jail in the rear section. Escapes were frequent and additional work on the cells was done later to make the jail more secure.
1878 New Jail
In 1877 plans were made for a new jail - the third in Walworth County history. The structure was completed in 1878 by Janesville Contractors. It was built on the Northwest corner of Church and Walworth Streets in Elkhorn. The total cost, including the lot, was $10,546.
It was two stories tall and provided for a Sheriff's residence in the front and the jail in the back, with two tiers of cells. Construction material was mainly quarried stone and brick.
1915 New Jail
In 1910, the State Board of Control condemned the jail. The new jail was completed in 1915 and cost approximately $35,000. It was built on the same site as the 1878 jail and stood until the mid-1980s. The new jail also housed the Sheriff's quarters (east end, upstairs) and the Sheriff's Office headquarters (east end downstairs). There were cells on both the first and second floors.
In 1911, the County Board appointed a special committee to investigate the method of compensating the Sheriff and his Deputies. It called for the Sheriff to be paid $1,800 per year. The number of Deputies to be appointed by the Sheriff was limited to seven. One of the designated appointees was to be an "able-bodied male person over the age of 21" who was to reside at the County Jail and be paid $300 per year plus room and board at the jail. He was to act as turnkey, deputy, and jailer.
Three of the deputies were to reside (one each) in the cities of Whitewater, Lake Geneva, and Delavan. They were to receive $2 per day for each day while actually engaged in the performance of duties as a deputy, but not more than $75 each in any year (plus expenses).
Schedule of Hours
During June 1929, a regular schedule of hours for the four deputies was devised so that all were on duty on busy days and nights. Each deputy was to have one day off each week. Because of the demand for services and numerous calls, this schedule was not lived up to and from May 1st to September 1st, Deputies O'Brien and Dorr each had only 2 days off and Deputy Gardner had only 1 day off.
As a result of the success of the full-time deputy concept, the salary was adjusted. Starting pay remained at $150 per month but a raise to $175 per month was authorized after 1 year of employment and to $200 per month after 2 years.
Roger Touhy
One of the Walworth County Jail's most well-known "guests" was Roger Touhy. Touhy and his men were some of the most wanted criminals in the Midwest. On the night of July 19, 1933 Touhy, Triggerman William Sharkey, Eddie "Father Tom" McFadden, and "Gloomy" Gus Schaeffer (once one of the most wanted criminals in America) were traveling near Elkhorn to an unknown destination. Near Bethel Church on Highway 12, their large Chrysler sedan hit a rut and they broke off a telephone pole. They might have escaped had they not been seen by Hugh Squires, who called the police.
Rookie officer Harry Ward, without a car at his disposal, hailed George Wiswell and they drove out of Elkhorn toward the scene. They spotted the car just outside Elkhorn and stopped it. The driver of the Chrysler and the occupants initially denied knowledge of the incident but Officer Ward noticed damage to the car and confronted them with it. Ward insisted that they return with him to the County Jail to settle up and pay for the damages.
Roger Touhy argued the matter and was required to go to jail in Wiswell's car. Sharkey then drove the Chrysler to Elkhorn, with Officer Ward standing on the running board for the trip to the jail. Apparently, Ward and Wiswell believed that the men were just fishermen from Illinois and were here to simply enjoy Wisconsin. Touhy was held while damages could be figured out and the others were given permission to find a cold beer. While they were gone, the vehicle was searched and a considerable number of guns were found.
Arrest & Parole
Touhy was immediately locked up by Sheriff George O'Brien and Deputy Sheriff Joe Dorr and a search went out for the others. Sharkey hitched a ride on a chicken truck to Lake Geneva and called the jail, inquiring about the damage to the telephone pole. He was arrested by Deputy John Cusack. McFadden and Schaeffer were picked up by Officers Ward and Wiswell near Elkhorn.
Touhy went to prison and was paroled in November 1939. He was shot down, gangland-style, only 22 days after his release.
On May 4, 1937, the County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to equip the Sheriff's and Deputy Sheriff's cars with police radios and the jail with a central radio station. The officers owned their own cars and were given a $200-per-year allowance for depreciation on their vehicle. A special fund was set up to accept contributions to help pay for the radio system and the County Board authorized $5,000 toward the expense of the system. The central system and three cars were equipped to have sending and receiving capabilities. A fourth car was only equipped with a receiver.
In September 1937 the County Board authorized $675 to pay the salary of a second class radio operator from August 14th to December 31st. The new radio station was WM.P.E, a 250-watt station, and was capable of broadcasting "beyond the county lines". Walworth County's new radio system was the first two-way police radio set-up to be utilized in the rural areas of the State of Wisconsin.
New Sheriff's Office
In 1962 the Sheriff's Office moved from the building that had served as the jail and office since 1914. The new quarters were located in the West end of the new Walworth County Courthouse. In July 1963, approval was given to construct 3 additional adult cell blocks in the jail and the work was completed in 1964.
Walworth County Law Enforcement Center
In September 1987, because of pressure to address our jail overcrowding problems by the State Jail Inspector, Walworth County formed an Ad Hoc Jail Study Committee. The County's approval in December 1991 to construct the Walworth County Law Enforcement Center on County-owned land at the Lakeland Complex provided a solution to some of the problems. By moving the Sheriff's Office out of the courthouse, space became available to address some of the rest of the county government's needs.
Current Sheriff
The current Sheriff of Walworth County is Dave Gerber.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
More than 70 NASA employees and their supporters gathered in front of Moffett Field's main gate on Wednesday to protest the federal government shutdown that has kept them from their jobs since Oct. 1.
"We want to get back to our data analyzing and research paper writing!" said Lee Stone, president of local 70 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, to the crowd, which began chanting "We want to work! We want to work!"
All but a skeleton crew is now working at NASA Ames Research Center on important missions. As one scientist said, "Ninety-seven percent of us are not going through that gate."
"I'm supposed to be looking for planets, but I'm not," said Kepler mission scientist Natalie Batalha, whose words inspired the crowd to began chanting, "We love Kepler! We want Kepler!" She added that she would even volunteer her time to continue her work, but she can't.
The crowd also cheered for Brian Day, EPO lead for LADDEE, the lunar atmosphere and dust environment explorer, when he said LADDEE had "just entered orbit around the moon."
"It's a very interesting story and unfortunately we aren't telling it," he said.
"Normally I'd be trying to prevent foreign countries from trying to hack into our data but I'm not doing that right now," said cyber-security expert Matt Linton. He said a "skeleton crew" was still doing that work, but that it would be "insufficient" in the longer term.
Stone, who works on airplane safety at Ames, said that among the projects being delayed was the testing of a new tail section of the Boeing 757 airliner designed to make it "more efficient and safe."
The protest was at times humorous. As one speaker mentioned a type of planet in the solar system, someone in the crowd asked, "Do they have jobs (on those planets)? I'll go!"
A middle-schooler named Eliana had skipped school for what her dad called the "ultimate civics lesson." She held a sign that said "Congress do your job so my dad can do his," while her sister Natalia's said, "Let my daddy work!"
"Science is kind of a continuous act," Linton said. For example, he said researchers were in the middle of a window of time once a year that planes can fly in and out of Antarctica, to replenish supplies and relieve personnel who can can only stay a few months at a time. A continued shutdown could mean that all research in Antarctica would have to stop for almost a year.
For some missions, "If you don't collect data now it slips by," Linton said. "Once you halt it, you have to start all over again." He said many people would like to volunteer their time to continue their research but he says they aren't allowed.
Linton told the crowd that he wore a shirt with the word "Expendable" on it in irony, to which the crowd began chanting, "We are not expendable, we are not expendable!"
"There's no reason to continue this shutdown," Stone said. "Argue your politics in D.C., but open the government now!"


text:
Moscow-born comic artist Iouri (Youri) Jigounov got his interest in comics through Tintin magazine from Belgium. He studied at the Academy of Civil Aviation in Moscow for a period of two years, and then fulfilled his military service. He published his first short comic stories through the Moscow-based studio Kom in 1989. Because of the limited possibilities for publication in Russia, Jigounov presented his work for West-European publishers. He made a comic called 'Les Lettres de Krivtsov', which he translated to the French language himself with the aid of a dictionary.
Les Lettres de Krivtsov
In 1994, he headed for Brussels, Belgium, and sold his story to the publishing house Le Lombard. Edited by Paul Renard, the album was published in 1995. Jigounov continued his collaboration with Renard to start the espionage series 'Alpha' in the following year. The artist left Russia for good and settled in Belgium in 1997.
Following Renard's death in 1997, Jigounov continued 'Alpha' with Mythic, but took over the scriptwork himself in 2009. He handed over the artwork of the series to Chris Lamquet in 2011, when he got the opportunity to succeed William Vance and Jean Van Hamme on 'XIII' together with scriptwriter Yves Sente.
XIII - Operation Mayflower


text:
The entire original cast of "Arrested Development" -- Jason Bateman, Will Arnett, Jeffrey Tambor, David Cross, Michael Cera, Portia De Rossi, Tony Hale, Alia Shawkat and Jessica Walter -- will be back for the new season on Netflix, according to writer Dean Lorey.
"We're really doing this thing," he wrote. "Mitch Hurwitz, Jim Vallely and I are off writing the new season of 'Arrested' to premiere on Netflix in 2013."
To all the skeptics out there, Lorey confirmed that production is underway, even though the schedule is under wraps. "There are offices and parking spaces," he wrote. The new season is slated to debut on Netflix in 2013, with a film to follow.
"Arrested Development" creator Hurwitz first announced the series' revival in October 2011 at the The New Yorker Festival. "Arrested Development" originally aired for three seasons on Fox from 2003-2006 and movie rumors kicked off soon after cancellation; but now, more than five years later, the Bluths are officially returning.
The current plan is for a 10 episode series for Netflix followed by a feature film. Series star Bateman confirmed the news shortly after it was announced in October.
"'Arrested Development' is one of the finest American comedies in TV history and its return through Netflix is a perfect example of how we are working closely with studios and networks to provide consumers with entertainment they love," Ted Sarandos, Netflix's chief content officer, said in a statement in November.
Let the chicken dancing continue!


text:
10:05 PT – Jason Snell: Sorry everyone, some serious connection problems here and everywhere. I think the Internet just died.
10:06 PT — Dan Moren: Jobs is on stage talking about some other topics. Talking about how well Apple is doing, including the iPhone.
10:06 PT — DM: Apple is the #1 mobile device maker in the world.
10:06 PT — DM: Wall Street Journal: "Last time there was this much excitement about a tablet, it had some commandments written on it."
10:07 PT – JS: Back in time to 1991 – first PowerBooks.
10:07 PT – JS: Now today, Apple reinvented the iPhone. And the iPhone 3GS, then. So all of us use laptops and smartphones now.
10:07 PT – DM: Is there room for a third category of device in the middle?
10:07 PT – JS: New device has to do stuff better than iPhone or laptop. Better at browsing, e-mail, photos, video, music, games, eBooks.
10:07 PT — DM: Jobs is talking: Some people have thought this is a netbook, but the problem is netbooks aren't better an anything.
10:08 PT — DM: Slow, low quality displays, run PC software. They're not better than a laptop at anything, just cheaper. We don't think they're the 3rd device.
10:08 PT — DM: But Apple thinks it has something that is — it's called the iPad. And look! Steve Jobs happens to have one on hand!
10:09 PT — DM: It's a slate that looks like a larger iPhone. There's a home button, an aluminum bezel like a MacBook, a glass screen. Your able to personalize your home screen however you want. You can browse the Web with it — Steve says it's the best browsing experience you've had.
10:09 PT — DM: Phenomenal to see a whole web page right in front of you. Way better than a laptop, way better than a smartphone. Turn it up down sideways, automatically adjusts to whatever orientation you want. Holding the Internet in your hands; it's an incredible experience.
10:17 PT – DM: He's showing off the attachments in the e-mail. View wineries in Napa Valley or a Paris metro map. Looks a lot like the iPhone Mail client.
10:17 PT – JS: Sorry everyone – we were waylayed by the complete destruction of the (shocker) Verizon data network.
10:17 PT – DM: To send the message, just hit the compose button. He's typing on it like a standard QWERTY keyboard, just putting the tablet in his lap. I guess that answers the text entry question. Not sure you'd want to type on it for a long time, though.
10:18 PT – JS: Jobs is sitting in the armchair doing all this, to show us how easy this is. He's typing on the pad while it's on his lap.
10:18 PT – DM: Now looking at photos. You can turn in portrait or landscape and flick through the photos, just like on the phone. Grabs metadata from PC or Mac. If you're on a Mac, you can also get events, faces, and places from iPhoto. Look inside any album just by pinching it open. Scrub through them with a little bar at the bottom.
10:19 PT – DM: Events, Faces, and places. Shows a big map with pins in it. Tap and hold on the pin and see all the photos there. Tap on it to open the photos. There are built-in slideshows, so yo can bring up slideshow options and pick your transition. Just starts playing music and then flips through the images.
10:21 PT – DM: "You get the idea. Isn't that cool?" Now on to looking at music. The iPod interface looks a lot like the album view in iTunes on the Mac mixed slightly with the Cover Flow view on the phone.
10:22 PT – JS: This interface is interesting, because unlike the iPhone, it's got panes and floating windows and lots of stuff that you can do when you've got a bunch of screen space.
10:23 PT – JS: Great calendar. week view, day view, month view, a lot like iCal, but it actually looks nicer…
10:23 PT – DM: (Sorry about the time travel!) Here's our current location in San Francisco. Typing in sushi to search and should find all the sushi places nearby. Tap on a pin. Tap Google street view and it shows you the restaurant. (How many people are going to stalk Steve at Sushi Boat?)
10:24 PT – DM: Video. Go to YouTube. Pick a clip called Wet and Woofy in HD on YouTube. IT's a surfing dog!
10:25 PT – JS: lots of use of tabbed interface with a pane or two. Really kind of a combo of Mac UI philosophy and iPhone UI.
10:25 PT – DM: Landscape mode for videos. Movies, TV shows, music videos. Tap on Modern Family, pick an episode and watch it. Or Star Trek, go to Chapters. The aspect ratio is a little weird; there are some pretty big letterbox black bars on top and bottom. Showing off Up. Double-tap to make it full screen if you want. That's video on the iPad.
10:27 PT – DM: A little bit of an overview as to what the iPad can do. Watching it is nothing like getting one in your hands. Feeling all of that right underneath your fingertips. Back to the hardware a little bit.
10:27 PT – DM: A half inch thin. Weighs just 1.5 pounds. Thinner and lighter than any netbook. 9.7 inch IPS display. Super high quality using IPS technology so you get great angle of view. Full capacitive multi-touch. 1GHz Apple A4 chip (Gruber laughs). Most advanced chip they've ever done; processor, graphics, I/O, and everything in one chip. 16GB, 32GB, or 64GB of flash solid state storage.
10:27 PT – JS: People don't like the iPad name but I think the connotations you're thinking of will drift away. iPod didn't mean anything either, but here we are.
10:29 PT – JS: That's the PA Semi chip there, Apple's own A4 chip.
10:29 PT – DM: 802.11n WI-Fi and Bluetooth 2.1. Accelerometer & compass, speaker microphone, 30-pin connector. Battery. What is the battery life of this device? 10 hours of battery life. Applause! Take a flight from SF to Tokyo and watch video the whole way on one charge. In addition, over a month of standby life. Set the iPad down, goes to sleep automatically, walk away and come back in a month and it still has a charge.
10:29 PT – JS: 10 hours of battery life – key if you're going to sit on your couch with this. Or fly somewhere with it.
10:30 PT – DM: Arsenic free, BFR-free, mercury-free, PVC-free, highly recyclable. Now back to software.
10:30 PT – DM: We've seen some great built-in applications. But now let's talk about the App Store. Here's Scott Forstall, SVP iPhone Software.
10:31 PT – DM: Forstall: App Store has been a huge success. Launched a year and a half ago. Customers have already downloaded 3 billion apps choosing from among 140,000 apps. Built the iPad to run virtually every app unmodified right out of the box. Do that in two ways. Pixel-for-pixel accuracy in a black box in the middle of screen or automatically pixel double and run apps full screen.
10:32 PT – DM: Here are a number of apps from the store unmodified. Here's Facebook. Bottom right corner of the screen shows "2x". Tap on it and it automatically scales up to full screen. It all just works. Facebook uses a lot of text, photos and videos, but what about an app that really drives graphics, like a game?
10:32 PT – JS: Good detail on the iPhone compatibility there. There's an option to run apps at one size or full screen, scaled up. (The screen is definitely not 16×9, it's closer to the 4:3 used in traditional TVs.) When you run an app on the iPad it can run at iPhone size, with a little bezel around it to indicate you're emulating an iPhone. Or hit the 2x button and it blows up to double size.
10:32 PT – DM: ESPN's XGames SnoCross. Plays a video at the beginning. Video works great on the iPad. Skip the rest of the video and get to the game. Race in Arcade mode. IT's an OpenGL ES game, so it really drives graphics hardware. Unmodified right off the App Store.
10:34 PT – DM: Steering with acelerometer. 2X it looks pretty good. Tremendous frames. Having played some games on here, they're smooth and fun. There you go. Right out of the App Store unmodified.
10:35 PT – JS: Huge move by Apple to take advantage of the apps in the app store and get them on this device. It was really a must, and it instantly makes it more valuable.
10:34 PT – DM: Sounds like you can download all your iPhone apps right on to your iPad.
10:35 PT – DM: If developer spends some time modifying, they can take full advantage of the large touch-screen display. This is what Apple did with its own apps, like Music, Photos, etc. So, to that end, they've enhanced iPhone SDK to support development for iPad. SDK is being released today at Apple.com
10:35 PT – DM: Develoepers can download today and get going. It even includes an iPad simulator so you can run your iPad apps right on your Mac as you develop them. We thinkit's going to be a whole new gold rush for developers. And of course, every iPad comes with App Store loaded up on it.
10:36 PT – DM: We're going to highlight and feature apps specifically built for iPad. They're going to put it front and center. Really excited about the possibilities for developers. So just about two weeks ago, they invited a few developers to iPad to Apple to give them a sneak peek and see what they could develop. Inviting a few on stage.
10:37 PT – DM: Gameloft is up first. One of the largest developers of games for iPhone and iPod touch. Over 60 games on the App Store downloaded over 55 million times. Mark Hickey is going to come up and show off some games.
10:37 PT – DM: Showing off Nova, a shooter. Can move the user interface wherever you want on the big screen. Added a minimap that you can stretch out. Slide two fingers across the screen to throw grenades. Multiple target acquistion system. Drag a targetting box around a group of enemies and then fire on all simultaneously. Definitely useful when you're outgunned and outnumbered. This is what they could do in just a few short days. You'll be able to see what else is in store when this version ships later this year.
10:39 PT – DM: Next up is The New York Times. Huge readership both nationally and internationally. One of the best Web news sites in the world. Inviting up Martin Nisenholtz to talk about the iPad plans.
10:40 PT – DM: Steve showed you the Times Website and it looks great, so why develop something else? They've optimized for iPhone, now want to do the same for the iPad. The best of print and digital all rolled into one.
10:40 PT – JS: This is the part where Apple saves the newspaper industry, right?
10:41 PT – DM: Captured the essence of the reading experience. Jump to sections, look at articles. Reading experience is great, tap to change number of columns, resize text at a pinch. Jump to sports to see latest Olympic coverage. Emebedded video. Can turn on updates to get breaking news in all the sections. Been at this for three weeks, and excited to pioneer new journalism.
10:43 PT – DM: Forstall: I already find myself reading my paper on the iPad in the morning using Safari. Can't wait to try this app.
10:43 PT – DM: Next up is Brushes. (This has gotta be the perfect title to show off the iPad). Steve Sprang comes up to show it off. Artists of all skill levels have used it to produce images for all sorts of venues, including print. Gallery includes a handful of original iPhone paintings. Tap to edit any images. Tap to show up palettes or other tools. All the brushes from the iPhone are avaialble, adjust size, spacing, and opacity. Pinching lets you zoom in up to 32 times. By tapping and holding, you could actiavte eyedropper. Just drag across the screen to paint. Can undo if you need to. On the iPad, it's going to support in-app playback of your painting. Very cool. Brushes will be available at product launch.
10:45 PT – DM: Forstall: Imagine artist with a canvas this large. No paints, no easel, it's going to be incredible.
10:46 PT – JS: I was talking to someone yesterday who thought there might be a stylus component to this device. It didn't make sense to me then, and we didn't see it here — artists using their fingers might seem like fingerpainting, but it eliminates any intermediate object between them and their art. Pretty cool.
10:46 PT – DM: Next up, Electronic Arts. Major supporter of iPhone since launch of App Store, with over 40 titles. #1 publisher of mobile games. Travis Boatman's here to show it off.
10:46 PT – DM: As gamers, the first thing we wanted to check out was performance. What better game than Need for Speed? Gorgeous 3D version of BMW displayed on huge display. Took them a very short time to get this up and running on the iPad; will be able to bring existing titles to iPad in no time. Building for the iPad is different: like holding an HDTV just inches from your face. Fully touch-enabled. Played with different interfaces. Tap on the car to see inside the car. Started adding new interface like the shifter and the mirror because there was so much real estate on the screen. Performance is really important.
10:48 PT – DM: Here's how fast this device really goes. Ramping up the speed. Okay, that's pretty fast. That's Need for Speed running on the iPad and you can expect more from EA soon.
10:49 PT – DM: Forstall: Last up is MLB.com. Official website of Major League Baseball and publisher of At Bat. That app has been downloaded nearly 2 million times, nearly 60 million videos. Here's Chad Evans to show off the iPad version.
10:49 PT – DM: Extremely excited to make something for the iPad. Didn't just want to make their app biger, wanted to create whole new experience. Live game experience with data from last April. Navigate league scoreboard across the top. Shows you every throw. Tap any player to flip open baseball card. Show video highlights while this is going on. Across the bottom you can see box score, field, line up, summary. Watch live with your choice of home or away announceres. Enhance with live data from MLB.com while you watch.
10:51 PT – JS: Wow. I liked MLB At Bat before, but that was awesome. Amazing merging of game data and live video.
10:51 PT – DM: Forstall: I for one know that instead of carrying transistor radio, I'll be taking my iPad and this app. Very excited about the opportunities for devs to build amazing apps. Providing SDK today but while we wait for those apps to come out, can still run existing iPhone apps.
10:52 PT – DM: Steve's back. "Isn't that awesome? They only had two, two and a half weeks to work on this. Imagine what they can do with more times." Another one of Apple's apps—an e-book reader!
10:53 PT – DM: Amazon's done a great job of pioneering this functionality with the Kindle, so we're going to stand on its shoulders. Here's reading a book with our new app, "iBooks."
10:53 PT – JS: I KNEW iBook was coming back. Okay, partial credit.
10:53 PT – DM: Bookshelf of books, there's a button on upper left corner that's the Store. They've created the new iBook Store, fully integrated with the iBooks app. Download and purchase apps right on your iPad. Top chart list, NYT bestseller list. Five of the largest publisher: Penguin, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, Hachette Boook Group. (Didn't see McGraw-Hill on that list!)
10:54 PT – DM: Here's a demo. Hitting the store button is like a secret passageway. It flips around. If you've used iTunes or the App Store, you're already familiar. Prices look like they very between $7.99 and $14.99. Buying Teddy Kennedy's memoir. You can get a sample if you want, but Steve's going to tap and buy. Downloads right onto the bookshelf. "It's just so simple." Just tap if you want to read. Tap anywhere on the right fo flip forward, on the left to flip back. Drag page if you want to slowly turn the page. Go to Table of Contents and pick a chapter.
10:56 PT – DM: Photos, black and white, color, video in your books. Change the font size if you want, bigger or smaller. Change the font: Baskerville, Cochin, Palatino, Times New Roman, Verdana. That's iBooks. a
10:57 PT – JS: We didn't see any hyphenation in iBooks, and it was all force-justified text. I wonder if those will be options.
10:57 PT – DM: All in one really great app. Using epub format. Most popular open book format in the world. Very very excited. Think iPad will be a terrific e-book reader for poular books and textbooks.
10:57 PT – JS: Big announcement that they're using EPUB. That's basically the standard, so that's huge news because Apple could have gone its own way.
10:58 PT – DM: Now we're switching gears to iWork. Create a version of iWork for the iPad. Initial reaction was that they were really heavy duty apps that require a lot of horsepower. Could tablet power them? Answer was a resounding "you betcha." Could we come up with an entirely new interface for these apps? Very different from a personal computer.
10:58 PT – DM: So here's Phil Schiller to talk about iWork on the iPad.
10:59 PT – DM: Schiller: iWork is a suite of applications that millions and millions of our customers really love. Home, business, and school customers can do word processing, presentations, and spreadsheets. Can you bring this software to a multi-touch product.
10:59 PT – DM: Completely new version of Keynote designed just for the iPad. Complete new version of Pages—the most beautiful word processor that you will ever see. And Numbers: a spreadsheet that is fun and cool to use—when's the last time someone told you that? And Phil's going to give us a demo.
11:00 PT – JS: Putting a "work" suite of apps on this device is a big deal, because it says that it's not just a toy, not just for recreation, but also for people who want to get work done. That's interesting because it broadens who Apple will sell this product to.
11:00 PT – DM: Keynote first. Keynote runs in landscape because slides are designed horizontally. First thing you see is slide library. Presentations that we've created in Keynote. Tap a button to create a new presentation, access to tempates. Choose one and you get the layout. Menu items on top and slide navigator on the left. Scroll with your finger to move around the slide navigator. Go to a slide? Just tap on it. Text, tables, charts.
11:02 PT – JS: I assume that Amazon will be allowed to build its own app for iPad, as it has for iPhone. So there may be an outlet for Kindle owners.
11:01 PT – DM: How do you move a slide around in the navigator without a keyboard or mouse? Tap and hold, drag it wherever you want and now you've rearranged your slide. Can select multiple slides by tapping and holding and then tapping additional slides. Here's a slide with images: how do you get those in? Grab them from your photo albums with a media navigator. Drag your photo where you want. To resize, grab a handle and start resizing. Want to match size? While resizing tap another photo and it matches. Want to do a mask? Just tap and pan around.
11:03 PT – DM: What else? Animations. Tap the animation mode. Tap an animation, and you can choose one and it previews it. With just a finger you're doing very advanced slide animation techniques. Hit the play button and we're presenting. Tap or swipe to go forward.
11:04 PT – JS: The more I see about this device, the more I start to think that Apple really does want you to replace your laptop with this thing. At least for some tasks that people currently use laptops for because there's been no other option.
11:04 PT – DM: So that's Keynote. Let's look at Pages. Same sort of set up at the beginning: a library of documents, and access to templates. Scroll through the text. Tap anywhere and up comes a keyboard. And there's a ruler—The most beautiful ruler you've ever seen! says Phil. New tool called Page Navigator. Hold finger on the right and it brings up a loupe that lets you skim through your pages. Automatic text wrap around a graphic. Tap and drag an image around and it automatically reflows text. Tap the info button to bring down control panel to change text styles.
11:06 PT – DM: And last, Numbers. Library of spreadsheets, templates. Tabs along the top: one doc can hold many spreadsheets. Here's what you can do without a keyboard and mouse. Rearrange columns by tapping and and dragging. Move the columns to the end of the table and it auomatically updates linked chart.
11:08 PT – JS: Okay, some questions. Where do all these documents get saved, how do you view and open, and more importantly, how does it sync? Over a wire? Over the network? To a computer, or the cloud?
11:07 PT – DM: What about adding new rows of data and adding a subtotal? Tap button bottom left to add column and then double tap to bring up specific keyboard for data entry. Access to numbers, forumulas and functions, and text. Just want to add a sum on the coumn. Tap the SUM button and it automatically figures out the formula needed. Then just tap the green checkbox and we're done. If you want to fill that across all of them. You could copy and paste, but it's faster to just fill (uses same pop-up style menu as Copy/passte on the iPhone I note). Change style of graphs.
11:09 PT – JS: All this entry does make us ask the question, are you expected to type only on this device, or is there some sort of external keyboard option from Apple? Because if I could take iWork with me on the road, I might not want to type that entire Pages document by touchscreen.
11:09 PT – DM: Drag a slice out of the pie chart to just highlight part of a chart. Create a form from a spreadsheet with just a tap. So that's a quick look at iWork on the iPad.
11:10 PT – JS: That form view is very Bento-like. Interesting.
11:10 PT – DM: Shows the power of the iPad to take difficult and advanced applications. So what are we going to charge? Just $9.99 each for applications. Three completely new apps, with new user interfaces, compatible with iWork on the Mac. Easily connect to projectors (aha!). Buy on the App Store, right from the App Store.
11:11 PT – DM: Steve's back. The iPad syncs with iTunes on your Mac/PC just like the iPhone or iPod touch. Sync Photos, Music, Movies, TV shows, Contacts, Claendars, Bookmarks, Applications. Backups are synced back. Ever lose your iPad and get another one, restore it right from the backup.
11:12 PT – DM: Let's talk about wireless networking. Every iPad has Wi-Fi, but we're also going to have models with 3G cellular wireless data built in as well. Now, what does it cost for the data plans? In the US, telecoms charge about $60 a month for data plans for laptop. We got a real breakthrough here, two awesome plans for iPad owners. First one gives you up to 250MB a month. Most people will get by on that: just $14.99. Unlimited data if you feel you need more, for just $29.99. Breakthrough deal with AT&T. (Yes, it's AT&T people.) And free use of Wi-Fi hotpots all throughout US.
11:14 PT – DM: Now how do you turn this on and manage it? Don't have to go to store, just activate it on iPad. No contract: it's pre-pay (somebody seriously just gave a whistle to that). Cancel anytime. We think it's phenomenal.
11:15 PT – DM: Hope to have international deals in place by June/July. Gonna start on that tomorrow. All iPad 3G models are unlocked and use new GSM micro SIMs. So if carriers use micro SIMs, the existing iPad will just work.
11:18 PT – JS: It's interesting, the flexibility they've built in here, and that's a very good deal that they've struck with AT&T. But what will it mean for possibly doing carrier-subsidized prices?
11:16 PT – DM: So, iPad. Review time. Internet, e-mail, best device for photos. Great for enjoying music. Video is phenomenal. Runs almost all 140,000 apps on the App Store as well as a whole new generation of apps. And it has a new iBooks application with iBook Store. Carry literally thousands of books around on your iPad. And the iWork suite for doing productivity.
11:17 PT – DM: What should we price it at? If you listen to the pundits we're going to price it at $999. When we set out to develop the iPad we not only had very ambitious technical goals and user interface goals, but we had a very aggressive price goal. We want to put this in the hands of lots of people. And just like we were able to meet or exceed our technical goals, we have met our pricing goals. Starts at $499!
11:19 PT – JS: That's huge. Did anyone expect it to start at $499? I am starting to think they will sell a ton of these at that price.
11:18 PT – DM: At $499 a lot of people can afford an iPad. $499 for 16GB is the base model. For 32GB it's $100 more, for another $100 you get 64GB of storage. The 3G models cost an extra $130 to build in radios. $629, $729, $829. These are the six models. The most expensive model is just $829. Unbelievable price.
11:20 PT – DM: When can you get your hands on one? 60 days, worldwide availability. Another 30 days to get 3G models through approval process, so about 90 days for 3G models. Soon you will be able to get an iPad in your hands for just $499.
11:20 PT – DM: Really great accessories as well. There's a dock! Why is that so interesting? When you're in lock screen, it puts you in the slideshow, so you have a great picture frame. Another dock WITH A KEYBOARD. Just slide your iPad into it. Charge your iPad and if you need to do a lot of typing, this is the way to go. Third accessory is a really nice case, doubles as a stand for typing, or watching video.
11:22 PT – DM: We made a video to put on the Web, here it is on the big screen.
11:22 PT – DM: Jony Ive!
11:22 PT – JS: Jason faints at seeing the keyboard dock. (Also, yes, it's hardware and not bluetooth. But you'd need to prop up the device to type anyway. The hardware dock serves as your iPad-holder for typing. It makes a lot of sense.)
11:27 PT – JS: Monitoring The Twitter, I see a lot of people blown away by the price here, and also a bunch of people sold on the keyboard. Fraser Spiers, a Mac developer and a schoolteacher, says the 16GB wi-fi only model with keyboard extra makes it an amazing product for education.
11:30 PT – DM: Steve's back. Do we have what it takes to establish a 3rd product? The bar's pretty high. It's got to be far better at doing some key things like browsing, email, photos, etc. We think we got the goods. We think we've done it. We're so excited about this product. Another thing we're so excited about is because we've shipped over 75 million iPhones/iPod touches, all those people already know how to use the iPad.
11:31 PT – JS: Interesting that there was no mention of magazines or newspapers in the iBookstore segment. That suggests to me that for publishers of periodicals, app development is going to be the way to go.
11:31 PT – DM: We have the iTunes Store, App Store, and now the iBookstore. Over 125 million accounts with credit cards. All enabled for one-click shopping on all these stores. Over 12 billion downloads from these stores. Ready for the iPad. Now the iPad, to sum up "Our most advanced technology in a magical & revolutionary device at an unbelievable price." We think this is going to be a really great combination.
11:32 PT – DM: The reason Apple is able to create products like the iPad is because we've always tried to be at the interesection of technology and liberal arts. To get the best of both, to make extremely advanced products from a technology point of view, but have them be intuitive, easy to use, fun to use. Fit the users, rather than having users come to them. The combination of these two things has let us make the kind of creative products like the iPad. We've got a hands-on area next door. (Woot!) When you feel this much fun in your hands, you'll never want to go back!
11:33 PT – DM: We hope you love the iPad as much as we do. And that's it!
11:33 PT – DM: Thanks everybody! Sorry for our tech issues.
11:33 PT – JS: Thanks everyone for being here. Sorry for the technical problems. We're going to go get our hands on the iPad now and we'll have much, much more on this in the coming days on Macworld.com.


text:
$12.15 $14.92
Made of top-ranking leather material, comfortable to grip.
Provide a maximum protection for your Phone from scrathes, bumps, dirts and so on.
It can also be used as a phone bracket, easy to watch videos.
Item type: Mobile phone cover
For:XIAOMI 10/MI 10 Pro
Style: Simple, fashion
Color: As the picture shows
Material: leather
Packing list:
1 * Mobile phone cover
The colors deviation might differ due to different monitor settings.


text:
Telehealth lets you easily have a video chat or phone call with a licensed doctor.
Get a valid ESA certificates after speaking with one of our licensed doctors via Telehealth. Appointments available same-day.
Without an ESA letter, passengers with animal companions can be barred from boarding a flight.
Airlines are able to charge passengers extra for allowing them to board with their ESA.
Those who own an emotional support animal and rent an apartment can be charged more per month.
If you own an emotional support animal without an ESA certificate, it can be much harder to find suitable housing.
Don't worry about airline flights and finding a new place to live for you and your animal companion. An ESA letter allows for owners to have greater freedom when traveling and when finding new housing. With a legitimate ESA certificate, no landlord or airline will be able to deny you and your ESA.
Unlike the multitude of ESA scam sites you come across online, Mango Clinic provides a valid service to residents. With us, you will always speak directly with a licensed MD who will sign your ESA certificate.
It's always easy to stay in touch with Mango Clinic and make an appointment. We can be reached at (786) 422-9327 if you have any questons or would like to make an appointment. We can also be reached online via our chat option, which can be found on any of our webpages. If you would like to setup an appointment online, visit our appointment webpage.
Due to their lovable and loyal natures, dogs often come up as prime ESA choices. They're plentiful, friendly, and are known for making great company and comfort for everyone.
Cats are known for being comfortable, quiet, and fairly independent, which can make them terrific emotional support animals for many Laurens applicants. Many who make cats their emotional support animal claim more than one.
Do you prefer a small, quiet rabbit or hamster? Perhaps a small but comforting bird? Or maybe you feel best when your pet snake is wrapping around you? If either of these are the case, you will be glad to know that any of these mentioned animals, and more, can be an emotional support animal.


text:
Ready, Set, Knit! 360: Kathy talks with Kirsten HipskySaturday, June 14th, 2014
Play Now:
This week Kathy talks with our Design Manager, Kirsten Hipsky, about the new Valley Yarns designs in our 2014 Valley Catalog.
Kathy and Kirsten talk about our cover design, a reknit of one of our most popular patterns the Falling Leaves Shawl designed by Katy Wight, originally knit in Valley Yarns Stockbrige and now in Valley Yarns Charlemont hand dyed by the Kangaroo Dyer.
Our divider pages are full of a collection of blooms that are available in our Valley Flowers e-Book.
They also discuss The Cordoba Shawl, the Colorfall Cardigan, the Intemporelle Pullover from Marcy Vandale, Mango Smoothie from Thea Coleman(Baby Cocktails), as well as the WEBS 40th Anniversary knit and crochet blankets e-Books created by our staff. And introducing our new yarn – Valley Yarns Superwash Bulky!
Steve's Yarn Picks :
- Mrs. Crosby Yarns from Lorna's Laces
- Manos del Uruguay Franca
- Classic Elite Yarns Villa
- Jaggerspun Heather
- Grignasco Merinogold – Closeout
- Grignasco Merinogold 8 – Closeout
Upcoming Events:
Stop by and check out current the Classic Elite Yarns Trunk Show.
The 4th Annual I-91 Shop Hop is happening June 26th-29th, get your Passport Today!


text:
The latest drone in DJI's popular Phantom series can track humans and dodge obstacles. The enhancements make the Phantom 4 one of the most advanced consumer drones on the market, and further lower the barrier to flight for most consumers. But the technology comes with a sizable price tag.
The new obstacle avoidance system uses two forward-facing optical sensors to keep track of what's ahead of the drone. If it senses a possible collision, the drone will attempt to fly around the object while maintaining the general flight direction.
Objects are sometimes tricky to avoid when piloting a drone because it's difficult to judge a collision course from the different perspective on the ground. YouTube is full of drone collision videos and most pilots have a story to tell about their drones hitting trees or flying into walls and rooftops.
With the new tracking system, pilots can tap on an object in the camera's frame through the iOS or Android apps. The drone will pick up on the object and keep it centered so, for example, a runner or cyclist will remain in the middle of the image as the drone follows them along.
DJI says the software is sophisticated enough to keep tracking the object even when it changes direction or appears to change shape from the camera's viewpoint. And while the subject remains centered, pilots still have full control of the camera's movement.
A new feature in the DJI Go app called TapFly allows pilots to tap on a destination and have the software automatically calculate the best flight path while avoiding obstacles in the path.
If they work as promised, the enhancements are a further step in the intelligence of drone control software that make the devices easier than ever to fly. DJI and its competitors hope that by removing the complex flight knowledge traditionally needed, more people will be encouraged to buy and use drones for leisure and commercial activities.
At first glance, the hardware appears little unchanged as the Phantom 4 retains the same basic shape as DJI's previous Phantom 3. That drone has become one of the most popular for serious amateur and low-end professional applications.
The Phantom 4 features a 4K video camera hanging from a new gimbal that DJI says provides more stability and vibration dampening.
There's also a new battery that promises 28 minutes of flight time. The top speed is 20 meters per second (45 miles per hour).
But all this high technology comes at a price. The Phantom 4 currently costs $1,399 at the Apple Store — that's a bump on the Phantom 3 Professional, previously the top-end device, that had been selling for $1,259. With the launch of the Phantom 4, the Phantom 3 Professional price has been cut to $999.
Customers ordering on the DJI and Apple websites will receive their drones on March 15, other retail channels will have the drone from April 1.


text:
Wow, I truly don't know where this month went. I blinked and it is almost over, dang day job getting in the way of Moustache March Magic.
The following Press Release went out to local news outlets in the Portland/Vancouver area today. I just checked and we are now at:
$12,819.48 There's still time left, keep raising!
News Release from: Clark Co. Sheriff's Office
Posted: March 29th, 2012 4:34 PM
With only two days to go, Moustache March has officially passed the record for donations to the American Cancer Society set last year. In 2011 deputies and citizens grew together raising $11,145.00. As 3/29/12 $12,015.01 has been raised for the American Cancer Society! Sgt Shane Gardner of the Clark County Sheriff's Office says "In three years now we have raised over $25,000.00 for a cause that benefits everyone from child to adult, across all socio-economic levels. Our organization has been directly effected by Cancer and we participate in this annual event to fight back against this indiscriminate disease."
About 60 Deputies and their family members attended the March 22nd Trailblazer game (against the Grizzlies ironically) and many shaved off their moustaches on the concourse before the game to draw attention to the event.
On April 2nd at 11:00 AM at Clark County Sheriff's Office Headquarters, notable moustaches like those sported by Sheriff Lucas, Sergeants Trimble and Neiman (who have each had their moustaches for over 31 years), and a few others will come off under the skilled hands of "Big Rick" from Bernie and Rollies Barber Shop.
The Clark County Sheriff's Office and the more than 90 participants of Moustache March would like to thank the media, Burgerville USA, Bernie and Rollies Barber Shop, Starbucks, and the Portland Trailblazers for helping make this another great success…
It's not to late to contribute…
You can visit www.Moustachemarch.com for more information.
It's that time of year again: March! This is the time of year we all put our egos aside and either shave what we normally sport, or grow what we normally keep short. MOUSTACHE MARCH!
This year we are offering bragging rights to the winners of several categories including: Clean Starters, Early Growers, The Ladies, The Fakers, Year-Rounders, and The Lil Ones. As it has been for the last two years, all donations raised will go directly to the American Cancer Society.
Last year Deputy Jim Orr grew with us and attended our Shave off on April 1st. On August 2, just four months later, he lost his battle with Melanoma Cancer. He is one of the many reasons we are trying to make a difference.
Cancer touches us all in some way or another. This is our way of fighting it; raising money for research to find a cure.
This year the American Cancer Society has created a website just for our fundraiser like they have for "Race for a Cure" access it below.
March 22nd will be Law Enforcement/Fire Fighter/Moustache March night at the Rose Garden. WWW.Moustachemarch.com will have a Kiosk on the concourse where they will "Shave the Day".
This event is open to anyone from the community who wishes to join in. Shaving (or growing) is not mandatory, it's about having fun making a difference.
Contact Info: Sergeant Shane Gardner
Community Outreach Sergeant
Clark County Sheriff's Office
(360) 607-1558 (cell)
If you have any questions, concerns, comments or answers please let us know!
live the 'stache,
Nate "Tank" Heath