The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The ruling represents a serious complication for law enforcement nationwide, which increasingly relies on high tech surveillance of suspects, including the use of various types of satellite technology.

A GPS device installed by police on Washington nightclub owner Antoine Jones' Jeep helped them link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.

The California Supreme Court on Thursday gave Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers the right to eliminate community redevelopment agencies in a crucial victory on the state budget.

But the fate of the more than 400 redevelopment agencies remains unclear as cities — and even many lawmakers — vowed to seek a legislative compromise next year that would ensure the agencies' survival. Brown has little incentive to go along.

The court affirmed the state's authority to dissolve the agencies, calling it "a proper exercise of the legislative power vested in the Legislature by the state constitution." Doing so means more of the property taxes generated within redevelopment zones will go toward schools, law enforcement and other local services, freeing up as much as $1.7 billion in the state general fund during the current fiscal year. The money now is returned to the agencies to spend on future redevelopment projects.

Lawmakers and the mayors of several large cities said Thursday they were inclined to work out a compromise after the justices issued their split decision. While they affirmed the Legislature's authority to dissolve redevelopment agencies, the justices in a unanimous decision invalidated companion legislation passed last summer that was intended to keep the agencies operating by forcing them to direct a certain amount of property tax revenue to schools and other services.

A political operative convicted of bamboozling Mayor Michael Bloomberg out of hundreds of thousands of dollars was sentenced to prison Monday un a case that brought the billionaire politician to the witness stand and gave the public a behind-the-scenes look at his campaign and City Hall.

John Haggerty agreed to pay $750,000 in restitution to Bloomberg in addition to his prison term of 1 1/3 to 4 years.

Haggerty, a veteran Republican campaign consultant, was convicted in October after a trial that jurors called a crash course in the workings of politics. Besides the business-mogul-turned-mayor, the case drew in the state's third-largest political party and featured a coterie of Bloomberg insiders sketching their roles in his political, philanthropic and business affairs.

"Since starting my career, I've worked hard to make a reputation in the world of politics and government as a dedicated, honorable individual. Today, my reputation is destroyed," Haggerty told the judge in a strong voice. "If I could do it all over again, I would certainly do it much differently than I did."

He walked out of court briskly, without handcuffs, after state Supreme Court Justice Ronald Zweibel pronounced a sentence he said he felt necessary "to restore the public's confidence in the electoral process and to serve as a deterrent." Haggerty's lawyers said they planned to ask an appeals court to let him out on bail during a planned appeal.

A British court Monday gave WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange permission to continue his legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex crimes allegations.

The decision means Assange does not face immediate deportation. British judges said Assange could apply to the Supreme Court to hear one specific point of his legal case — but there is no guarantee that the higher court will accept his request.

Assange's lawyers had argued that every European arrest warrant issued by police or prosecutors was flawed, because neither should be considered a judicial authority.

The High Court judges did not indicate whether they agreed with the argument, but said Assange's legal team should have the chance to ask the Supreme Court to grant them a hearing.

Assange seemed pleased by the ruling. Asked if it was a victory, he said yes. He had listened attentively to the hearing, frequently taking notes.

Assange now has 14 days to submit a written request to the Supreme Court, Assange's lawyer Gareth Peirce said.

The Wisconsin office that regulates attorney conduct asked the state Supreme Court on Wednesday to suspend a former prosecutor's law license for trying to spark an affair with a domestic abuse victim through a barrage of racy text messages and allegedly making sexual remarks to a number of other women.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a complaint with the court alleging former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz violated multiple attorney conduct rules. The office recommended the justices suspend his law license for six months.

Kratz resigned in October 2010 after The Associated Press reported that he sent 30 texts over three days to a then-25-year-old domestic abuse victim in 2009. The Republican district attorney was prosecuting the woman's ex-boyfriend at the time.

Kratz, then 50, called the woman a "tall, young, hot nymph," told her he wanted her to "be so hot" and touted himself as "the prize" with a $350,000 house.

He has since set up a private practice that handles criminal defense, drunken driving, divorce and injury cases, according to the firm's website. Kratz didn't respond to an email or phone message left Wednesday at his office, and his attorney, Robert Bellin, also didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Human Genome Sciences, Inc. between July 20, 2009 and November 11, 2010, inclusive. Also included are those who acquired shares in the July 28, 2009 public offering at $14 per share and in the December 2, 2009 public offering at $26.75.

The Complaint charges that HGSI and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements concerning Benlysta®, HGSI's potential new drug for the treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, a chronic, life-threatening autoimmune disease. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Benlysta was associated with suicide in clinical drug trials conducted by HGSI.

The Complaint alleges that when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted its analysis of Benlysta on the Internet on November 12, 2010, investors learned for the first time of the association between Benlysta and suicide in clinical trials, causing HGSI's common stock price to fall. Meanwhile, the Complaint alleges, during the Class Period, HGSI sold over 44 million shares of its common stock in public offerings at artificially inflated prices, receiving $850 million in net proceeds.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January 10, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.

While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/humangenomesciences/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.