Law Street Media Staff – Law Street

Eleventh Circuit Rules Georgia Code is Uncopyrightable

Law Street Media Staff — Tue, 23 Oct 2018 03:22:05 +0000

Image courtesy of Public.Resource.org; License: (CC0)

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) cannot be copyrighted, reversing a decision by the district court in the case of Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.org.

The court held that the Official Code, including editorial catchlines and annotations written by LexisNexis, is constructively authored by the people of the State of Georgia, through its representatives in the legislature and their contractors. As such, the court reasoned, Georgia’s single official version of its statutes, the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, is in the public domain.

The case was brought when nonprofit Public.Resource.org scanned the O.C.G.A., distributed the scanned version to state legislators and published it online. The state Code Commission sued Public.Resource.org in federal district court for copyright infringement, and Public.Resource.org countersued for a declaratory judgment holding that state statutes are in the public domain and therefore uncopyrightable. The district court ruled for the state and issued a preliminary injunction, requiring Public.Resource.org to take all copies offline.

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion reversed, holding that the statutes themselves were clearly in the public domain under centuries of copyright precedents. In analyzing whether editorial annotations written by private publisher LexisNexis were copyrightable, the court held that the Code Commission had supervisory control over the work of LexisNexis, and that its annotations were merged with the statutory Code to produce the single, official, authoritative version of Georgia’s statutes.

Therefore, the court held, the complete O.C.G.A., including editorial annotations written by a private publisher on behalf of the Georgia Legislature, is constructively authored by the people of the State of Georgia. The court held that the entire O.C.G.A. was therefore uncopyrightable and in the public domain. As the court concluded:

[T]he annotations in the OCGA are attributable to the constructive authorship of the People. To advance the interests and effect the will of the People, their agents in the General Assembly have chosen to create an official exposition on the meaning of the laws of Georgia. In creating the annotations, the legislators have acted as draftsmen giving voice to the sovereign’s will. The resulting work is intrinsically public domain material, belonging to the People, and, as such, must be free for publication by all.

Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.org, No. 17-11589 (11th Cir., Oct. 19, 2018). The opinion is considered an important win for entrepreneurs, innovators, and members of the public who wish to use public law.

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Eleventh Circuit Rules Georgia Code is Uncopyrightable appeared first on Law Street.

Appellate Litigation Protip: Do Not Attach Drugs to Your Petition

Law Street Media Staff — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:57:37 +0000

Image courtesy of torange.biz; License: (CC BY 4.0)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit doesn’t have this problem often. But in an October 15 filing, it sent 18 copies of a petition for rehearing to the U.S. Marshalls Service for disposition, because the petitioner attached cannabinoid samples to each copy. Appellate litigation for the win.

From the Court’s order:

Appellant Jeffrey Nathan Schirripa submitted to the court 18 copies of his confidential petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Upon examination, Appellant affixed to each petition what appear to be samples of cannabinoids, which may be controlled substances possessed or mailed in violation of federal law.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit these 18 documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for appropriate disposition or alternate action within the purview of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Court of Federal Claims denied Mr. Schirripa’s demand that the court enjoin the United States from enforcing the Controlled Substance Act, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. You can find the complete docket for the case here.

Hat tip to University of Missouri School of Law Professor Dennis Crouch who originally tagged this nugget on Patentlyo. As of this writing, there is no word about whether Schirripa will appeal the case to the high court.

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Appellate Litigation Protip: Do Not Attach Drugs to Your Petition appeared first on Law Street.

Fracking and the Environment

Law Street Media Staff — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:30:23 +0000

Fracking. The word is thrown around in newspapers, in political debates, in discussions about the future of our global climate change problem. But what does it actually mean? What effect does it have on our environment and economy? Is it even legal? Read on to learn about fracking, the legal framework in place to permit it, and the arguments about the practice.

What is fracking?

Fracking–more scientifically referred to as hydraulic fracking–is the injection of fluids, including water and toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells at high pressure in order to extract the gas and oil. The fluids are projected at the earth with such strong force that it creates cracks from which the gas or oil can freely flow. It mirrors the hydraulic fractures can happen in the earth naturally.

What’s the law on fracking?

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by Congress on July 29, 2005 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, is “an act to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.” It provides incentives for diversifying sources of energy production. This includes ensuring increased use of biofuel with gasoline, requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to study and report on already existent natural gases, and providing tax breaks and guaranteed loans for making energy conservation improvements to homes.

While fracking was not protected under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Halliburton Loophole is the nickname for the ability to frack under the Act. Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the EPA created an exemption in order to allow hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to be legal.

The exemption is on page 102, Section 322 in the EPA.

SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
‘‘(B) EXCLUDES—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’

There are no regulations that require documenting the chemicals used during fracking, or their possible health or environmental effects. As a result, multiple states, the most recent being California, have passed laws to create fracking regulations. In 2011, Texas became the first state requiring companies to disclose the chemicals being used.

What’s the argument against current regulations on fracking?

Many argue that these state regulations still lack crucial information that all residents should know about. Additionally, certain state regulations and laws have trade secrets that keep important information about different chemicals from the public. The Clean Water Act found 32 million gallons of diesel fuel illegally injected into the earth during fracking. Evidence indicates that over six hundred different chemicals are used to frack. The popular HBO documentary Gasland 2 shows footage of Dimock, Pennsylvania where faucet water could be lit on fire because of contamination due to fracking. Many argue that the government should restrict the use of at least certain chemicals used in the process, or at the very least, require companies to state what materials they are using.

What’s the argument in favor of current regulations on fracking?

Fracking supporters argue that it is economically beneficial to the country. The IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates reported that fracking “supported 2.1 million jobs, added almost $75 billion in federal and state revenue, contributed $283 billion to the gross domestic product, and lifted household income by more than $1,200.” Fracking has promised us affordable and clean natural gas to help combat the foreign fuels we have now. Approximately 20 to 30 billion barrels of natural gas and oil have been recovered due to fracking. Currently, there is no other technology that retrieves natural gas and oil in places from places that fracking can reach.

Conclusion

Fracking has entered the national discourse as a possibly effective way to get some non-renewable resources that are available but difficult to reach. The regulations over whether or not we can use fracking to reach oil and gas resources have evolved over time, but they have done very little to stem the greater debate about the environmental and economical impacts of the process.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Energy Policy Act of 2005

Additional

FracFocus: Chemical Disclosure Registry

Clean Water Action: Fracking Laws and Loopholes

Independent Voter Network: Middle Ground is Possible for Debate on Fracking in America

State Impact: Pennsylvania’s Disclosure Rules: What the Frack’s in the Ground

Slate: Who’s Fracking in Your Backyard?

EnergyFromShale.org: Pioneering America’s Energy Future

Real Clear Politics: The Breathtaking Benefits of Fracking

Reason.com: The Promised Land of Fracking

American Enterprise Institute: Benefits of Hydraulic Fracking

Elsevier: Fracking–The Pros and Cons

Economist: Fracking

Inhabitat: The Costs and Benefits of Fracking

Huffington Post: Fracking Pros and Cons–Weighing in on Hydraulic Fracturing

Environmental Protection Agency: EPA Announces Final Study Plan to Asses Hydraulic Fracturing

—

Nicole Counts is a freelance writer, activist, and lover of books. She is graduate of Temple University with a BA in English and she lives in New York City. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [greensefa via Flickr]

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Fracking and the Environment appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: The Discrimination Continues

Law Street Media Staff — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 19:00:59 +0000

Image courtesy of [Kasya Shahovskaya via Flickr]

Russia’s treatment of its gay citizens has long been very unforgiving. The country often systematically discriminates against LGBT citizens, has rashes of hate crimes, and has been decried by much of the international community for the human rights abuses against the LGBT community. Read on to learn about the recent history of LGBT abuse in Russia, current issues, and what the future may hold.

Recent History of LGBT Rights in Russia

Russia is extremely socially conservative when it comes to LGBT rights. The influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church plays a large part in this, as it consistently stands very strongly against homosexuality.

On June 30, 2013, the upper house of Russia’s parliament passed a bill banning propaganda involving non-traditional sexual activity from being given to minors. The law defines propaganda as:

distribution of information that is aimed at the formation among minors of nontraditional sexual attitudes, attractiveness of nontraditional sexual relations, misperceptions of the social equivalence of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or enforcing information about nontraditional sexual relations that evokes interest to such relations . . . .

The law sets the penalty for individuals distributing propaganda at 4,000-5,000 rubles ($120-$150). The penalty for groups, such as NGOs or corporations, is up to 1 million rubles ($30,000). There are also harsh penalties for non-Russian citizens who break the laws. Foreigners can be sentenced to 15 days in prison, and possibly even deported from the country.

Around the same time, a much broader blasphemy law came into effect in Russia, which allows for prison sentences of up to three years for those who attend protests that infringe on Russian citizens’ religious feelings.

Courtesy of AmnestyUK.

HBO just released a documentary entitled “Hunted: The War Against Gays in Russia.” The striking documentary chronicles attacks against LGBT individuals by vigilante groups in Russia, and the consistent indifference of the authorities to the issue. The film depicts the nightmare that LGBT people in Russia face on a daily basis.

Case Study: 2014 Olympic Games

Russia’s approach toward gay rights became a strong topic of contention during last year’s Olympic Games. Yelena Kostychenko, an independent newspaper journalist, said that “this law has brought fascism to my country.” International human rights groups have indicted this law as “the worst human rights climate in the post-Soviet era.” The International Olympic Committee (IOC) heard from various sponsors expressing their concern over the new law. On SumOfUs.org there is a petition signed by 35,000 people asking for Coco-Cola to speak publicly against this law. Forbes even reported that “the safety and dignity of Russians, athletes and fans is in doubt as long as Russia’s anti-gay laws are intact.” In addition to the many activist groups, athletes, and general public against Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law, the “Open Games” has been created. Viktor Romanov’s gay-friendly Olympics in Moscow happened three days after the Sochi Winter Olympics for athletes of any orientation. Romanov has said he isn’t afraid and has taken this law and turned it into an outlet for acceptance.

Others believe that while this law may affect people’s perception of Russia, it should not affect the way athletes viewed the Olympics as an objective, unbiased event that draws on nothing except the skills of the various competitors. Alex Ovechkin stated, “I’m a hockey player and I’m not [into] politics.” Johnny Weir, who is an openly gay retired athlete was an analyst with NBC in Russia. He stated that he will not risk jail time by making a political statement. He, like Ovechkin, mentioned that he was not a politician and would respect Russia’s law. Russian athlete Ilya Kovalchuk agrees with the anti-gay propaganda law and said, “I’m Russian and we all have to respect that. It’s personal and, like I said, it’s a free world, but that’s our line. That’s our country, so everybody has to respect that.”

These athletes may or may not agree with the law, however they understood the importance of respecting Russian ideals. More than 70 human rights organizations showed support over Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law after the first week of publication, and hailed the country as guarding “genuine and universally recognized human rights” issues. Jack Hanick of Fox News supported Russia’s traditional values and banning of anything that diverts from this. The new propaganda law might have left a bad taste in certain people’s mouths, however it did not affect the competition or the actual games.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that Russia’s anti-gay laws didn’t end up having much effect on the 2014 Olympic Games, the conversation is far from over. Russia continues to sit by while the international community observes its many human rights violations happening on its soil. The way in which Russia moves forward on this issue could have a huge impact on its reputation within the international community.

Resources

The New York Times: ‘Open Games’ in Moscow to Test an Antigay Law

Forbes: Gay Rights Protesters Target Sochi Olympic Sponsors Coke, McDonald’s and Samsung

CNN: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law Could Hit Olympic Sponsors

Rawstory: Russia Passes Anti-’Gay Propaganda’ Bill

RYOT: Putin Says He Wants Gay Athletes to ‘Feel Comfortable’ at Sochi Olympics

CNN: Yelena Isinbayeva Defends Russia’s Anti-Gay Propaganda Law

Washington Post: Alex Ovechkin on Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: ‘I Just Support Everybody’

Life Site: Human Rights Groups Support Russia’s Law to Protect Children From Homosexual Propaganda

Equality Matters: Longtime Fox News Producer Testified in Support of Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws

SB Nation: Ilya Kovalchuk Supports Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws; U.S., Canadian Players Disagree

Advocate: Six U.S. Organizations Voice Support of Russia’s Antigay Law

Russia Beyond the Headlines: New Law Protecting Religious Feelings Divides Russians

Moscow Times: Putin Signs ‘Blasphemy’ and ‘Gay Propaganda’ Bills

Equality Matters: REPORT: Fox News Ignores Russia’s Anti-Gay Crackdown, Winter Olympics Controversy

Guardian: Russia Passes Law Banning Gay ‘Propaganda’

Policy Mic: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law, Spelled Out in Plain English

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: The Discrimination Continues appeared first on Law Street.

DNA Testing and Criminal Law: Not Always a Perfect Match

Law Street Media Staff — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:07:09 +0000

Image courtesy of [Thomas Wensing via Flickr]

Watch any legal drama on TV — Criminal Minds, Law and Order, CSI, NCIS — and you’ll probably see at least a few suspects caught, or exonerated, through DNA testing. But how is DNA testing actually used in the real world? Read on to learn about DNA testing, its benefits, and its problems.

What is DNA testing?

DNA evidence is used to identify criminals or exonerate the falsely accused. Its technological advancement has led to widespread acceptance in crime scenes across the country. Today, the federal government and twenty six state governments allow genetic swabs to be taken without a warrant. In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that DNA could be tested after an arrest, before a trial and conviction.

“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” the majority wrote.

What are the arguments for DNA testing?

Proponents tout the advantages of DNA testing such as helping solve difficult cases and exonerating the wrongfully accused. According to the Innocence Project, more than three hundred wrongfully convicted individuals have been freed due to post-exoneration DNA testing. The government has created grants to help fund the research and development of DNA testing. It is especially helpful in identifying missing persons, solving cold cases, forensic backlog reduction and conviction accuracy. It has been called the most significant advance in criminal investigation because it ultimately leads to a higher rate of accuracy keeping dangerous criminals off the street.

DNA evidence most often remedies cases in which there was:

Eyewitness Misidentification or Lying: Often, juries and judges listen to an eyewitness, especially if they seem confident, compelling, or convincing. However, as humans we aren’t perfect, and it’s entirely possible that eyewitnesses can make mistakes. Witnesses can also lie, possibly because they were coerced to do so. Informants are sometimes used in criminal trials, but they’re not always the most valuable witnesses because they’re usually testifying because they will get something out of it, such as a reduced sentence of their own.
Forensic Mistake: There are some forensic techniques, especially older and more technologically rudimentary forensic testing methods that seem sound but actually have never been fully subjected to rigorous review. These can include things such as bite mark and shoe mark comparisons.
False Confessions: It is also possible that a defendant lies. Whether out of confusion, coercion, fear, or any other reason, DNA has revealed that a confession was fabricated.
Police or other law enforcement mistake: Police officers are also fallible. Whether mistakes are accidental or made on purpose varies, but it’s entirely possible that a police officer could make a mistake by not paying attention, due to corruption, or personal biases. DNA testing can help sort out where those mistakes were made.
Lawyer Mistakes: Lawyers also aren’t perfect. Public defenders don’t always have the time or resources to launch a full defense, which can lead to false convictions.

What are the arguments against forensic DNA testing?

Opponents are concerned about the credibility of the process surrounding DNA testing. An investigation of eight hundred and forty three rape cases revealed that the technician had failed to document DNA evidence in twenty six sexual assault cases and had assigned the evidence to the wrong case in twenty six instances. Scientists have also reported that it is possible to fabricate blood and saliva samples containing DNA, essentially giving someone the ability to engineer an entire crime scene.

There have also been arguments against the way in which we as a state hoard DNA. Often when people are arrested, a DNA sample is collected, just like fingerprints are taken. But collecting the DNA isn’t always that effective. For example in 2011, the state of Maryland collected roughly 11,000 DNA samples, and less than 20 led to an arrest. Although there is limited and restricted access to DNA storage systems, they may get hacked or leaked by government officials who access these every day. Crime lab testing in general has numerous reports of sloppiness, inadequate training, and bias throughout the country.

Case Study

Michael Phillips

Michael Phillips was accused of raping a young woman in 1990. He pled guilty, not because he was guilty but because of the advice of his attorney. Phillips was a black man, the victim a white woman. And in Texas, a jury trial probably would have convicted him and sentenced him to a much worse punishment than what he received by pleading guilty. The young woman had also picked him out of a lineup, making the likelihood that he would be found guilty through a jury trial even more likely.

He was exonerated through DNA testing almost 25 years later. Through DNA testing of the rape kit performed on the victim, officials were able to determine that another man had raped the victim. Craig Watkins, the Dallas County District Attorney, released a statement saying:

DNA tells the truth, so this was another case of eyewitness misidentification where one individual’s life was wrongfully snatched and a violent criminal was allowed to go free. We apologize to Michael Phillips for a criminal justice system that failed him.

Conclusion

DNA testing is an important tool that can be used to find the guilty party and rule out those who have not committed the crime. But it’s not a magical solution to all law enforcement problems. It needs to be used carefully and responsibly to make sure that our criminal justice system is always fair.

Resources

Primary

ABA: Standards on DNA Evidence

National Institute of Justice: DNA Initiative

Additional

The Innocence Project: Home

CNN: Supreme Court: DNA swab after arrest is legitimate search

PBS: The DNA “Wars” Are Over

DNA Resource: Forensic DNA Policy

Law Office of Kevin P. O’Donnell: Is DNA Evidence Always As reliable As We Think?

The New York Times: DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

FSI Genetics: Authentication of forensic DNA samples

Congressional Research Service: DNA Testing in Criminal Justice: Background, Current Law, Grants, and Issues

NOLO: DNA Evidence in Criminal Cases

Lawyers: Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post DNA Testing and Criminal Law: Not Always a Perfect Match appeared first on Law Street.

Teen Driving Laws Aim to Curb High Accident Rates

Law Street Media Staff — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:32:28 +0000

Image courtesy of [State Farm via Flickr]

Young people all across the United States wait anxiously for their sixteenth birthdays — for many, it’s their first taste of independence. Yet we also have a problem in this country: the younger the driver, the more they are a danger to themselves and others. In response, many states have passed laws that restrict what exactly teens can do as behind the wheel. Read on to learn about the dangers that teen drivers face, the legislation that states have implemented in an attempt to protect teen drivers, and how that legislation has paid off.

Teens Driving

Statistically speaking, teens have high rates of accidents when driving. Here’s a helpful infographic to breakdown the statistics.

Courtesy of PhillipMiller.com.

Dangers for Teen Drivers

Distracted Driving

Distracted driving is a huge problem for teenagers, especially with the influx of modern technology to which young people now have access. In addition to traditional driver distractions, such as eating or drinking in the car, adjusting the radio, or external distractions, teen drivers now have access to cell phones and navigation systems that take their attention away from operating the vehicle.

Texting and driving has become especially problematic, with approximately 41 percent of teen drivers reporting that they had texted or emailed while at the wheel. For the general public, text messaging makes getting into an accident almost 23 times more likely than driving without distractions. Teen-aged drivers spend 10 percent of the time out of their own lane when texting. Those statistics are concerning, and pose real risks to teen drivers.

Inexperience

Another obstacle that teen drivers have to overcome is inexperience. There are plenty of hazards that can crop up for drivers, such as animals running into the road, ice, or problems caused by other drivers. Often, older drivers will have spent more time behind the wheel and will have a better ability to react to the unexpected hazards.

Types of Teen Driving Laws

In many states, driving laws enacted in recent years split teen drivers into a few different categories. Each state has a different name for them, but in essence, they categorize drivers as beginner, intermediate, and fully licensed. Beginner drivers are usually those who have learner permits. There are laws that specify when exactly a young person can apply for a permit — usually age 16, although occasionally a little earlier. There are also laws that designate how long a driver must remain at beginner status, and the steps that the beginner driver must take in order to get a license and become an intermediate driver.

Intermediate drivers are those who have received their licenses but still are subject to certain restrictions. Intermediate drivers often remain designated as such until a certain period of time after receiving their licenses, generally six months to a year.

Once each state designates who fits into each category, there are laws that create requirements for drivers within those categories. Some of these types of laws include:

Passenger Restrictions

Some states have created laws that restrict how many passengers young drivers can have, and who those passengers can be. Passengers can be potential distractions to new drivers. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia place some sort of passenger restrictions on intermediate drivers. The only states that do not are Florida, Mississippi, and South Dakota.

Nighttime Driving Restrictions

States also place driving restrictions on when young drivers can operate vehicles. Most of them surround “late night” hours, such as not allowing young drivers out between 11:00pm and 6:00am. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have some sort of nighttime driving rules. The only state that does not restrict when intermediate drivers can drive for at least some time period is Vermont.

Fully Licensed Ages

The point at which a driver “graduates” from intermediate to fully licensed also varies. For some states, it is a flat date of 18 years old, regardless of when the driver received a license. For others, it is a set period of time after receiving a license. This is one of the most varied driver restriction laws from state to state.

Case Study

Kyleigh’s Law

New Jersey was the first state to pass a Graduated Drivers License (GDL) decal law, also known as Kyleigh’s Law, in May 2010. Under this law, New Jersey drivers under the age of twenty-one must stick a pair of four-dollar red decals on their license plates, or be subject to a $100 fine. Kyleigh’s Law was passed after the death of Kyleigh D’Alessio, who was killed in car crash containing three teenagers, one of whom drove the car into a tree.

The purpose of the decals is to help the police identify GDL drivers who must adhere to curfews and restrictions about how many teenagers can be in the vehicle as passengers. GDL drivers cannot drive between 11:00pm and 5:00am, must be accompanied in the front seat by an adult who is above twenty-one years of age, possess a valid New Jersey driver’s license, and can have only one additional passenger unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

According to a report published by the National Safety Council, more than five thousand people die each year in crashes involving teen drivers. Novice drivers are three times as likely to crash compared to those with more experience. Each week for five weeks after Kyleigh’s death, there was at least one fatal crash in New Jersey involving teen drivers with multiple passengers. Proponents claim that Kyleigh’s Law has proven to be effective in its first year of regulation. A study conducted by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine revealed a nine percent reduction in crashes involving teenage drivers within the first year of the law’s implementation. This amounts to the prevention of approximately 1,600 crashes. Challenged in the New Jersey Supreme Court for reasons stated below, the law was upheld in a unanimous ruling on the grounds that it constitutes a legitimate state interest of ensuring vehicular safety.

Opponents are primarily concerned about the privacy issues that arise out of the public indication of one’s age group as a result of the decal. They claim that creating a tag for sixteen to twenty-one year olds makes youths particularly vulnerable to pedophiles and predators. One columnist analogizes the situation created by Kyleigh’s Law to that of murders and robberies arising from Florida’s rental car plate identification. It was challenged in the New Jersey Supreme Court for violating the federal government’s Drivers Privacy Protection Act because it released personal information and also constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. The court ruled in favor of the law but the plaintiffs plan to appeal its decision in federal court.

The law also raises some tactical issues. In situations where a car is shared by two or more individuals, decals remain on the car regardless of who is driving and can lead to non-GDL drivers being stopped by the police. Furthermore, teenagers who feel discriminated against or find the law pointless simply remove the decals from their cars once they obtain their license.

Conclusion

The ability to drive is a big step toward adulthood for many young people, but it can come with some risks. Legislatures in many states are working toward creating laws that protect young drivers. Some experimental laws, such as those enacted in New Jersey, may spread to other states, creating even more regulations on young drivers.

Resources

Primary

New Jersey: Graduated Driver License Program

Missouri Department of Transportation: Safety Tips for Young Drivers

NJ Division of Criminal Justice: Kyleigh’s Law Interim Report

Additional

Science Daily: New Jersey’s Decal for Young Drivers Reduced Crashes, Study Suggest

CBS: Data: New Jersey’s Graduated License Laws Impacting Teen Driving Fatalities

GHSA: Graduated Driver Licensing Laws

NewJersey.com: Senator Doubts Kyleigh’s Law Decals Prevented 1,600 Crashes

New Jersey.com: N.J. Senate Approves 6-Month Review of Kyleigh’s Law Decal Requirement

North Jersey: Kyleigh’s Law Decals Drive Controversy

AAA South Jersey: Kyleigh’s Law Update

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Teen Driving Laws Aim to Curb High Accident Rates appeared first on Law Street.

Stop and Frisk: Did Ending it Make a Difference?

Law Street Media Staff — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:19:10 +0000

Image courtesy of [Thomas Good via Wikipedia]

Stop-and-frisk policies were one of the hottest topics in law enforcement in the last several years. The controversial New York policy made headlines, led to accusations of racial profiling and discrimination, and was the subject of multiple court cases. Now, the practice has basically been discontinued altogether. Read on to learn about stop-and-frisk policies, the arguments for and against them, and the progress we’ve made since.

What is Stop and Frisk?

Stop and Frisk is a situation in which a police officer detains a suspicious person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect’s outer garments in order to determine if that person is carrying a concealed weapon. If this “patting down” doesn’t alleviate the officer’s suspicion, he may also check the suspect’s pockets. Its constitutionality derives from the 1968 Supreme Court decision of Terry v. Ohio in which the Court ruled that it is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment; however, many criticize the stop-and-frisk practice for being a racial profiling tool, claiming that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are subject to it.

On August 12, 2013, in Floyd v. City of New York, the Southern District Court of New York ruled that stop and frisk is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision was met with a lot of criticism and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals initially blocked and randomly reassigned the case in October 2013, stating that Judge Scheindlin, who wrote the majority opinion in August, “ran afoul” and had “compromised the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” More recently, the Court of Appeals failed to find any misconduct or ethical violation by Scheindlin and declined to reverse the decision. But it continued the stay on the ruling until the City of New York appealed it.

Why was it ruled unconstitutional in August 2013?

Activists in New York have been fighting stop and frisk for years. The August 2013 decision was based on a wealth of statistical data. Out of 4.4 million stops over the span of eight-and-a-half years, 52 percent of suspects were Black, 31 percent were Hispanic, and 10 percent were White (from a population of 23 percent Black, 29 percent Hispanic, and 33 percent White). Furthermore, in 23 to 24 percent of all stops with Black or Hispanic suspects, the police used force. Contrastingly, the police used force in 17 percent of all stops with White suspects. It was this evidence that prompted Scheindlin to write, “the policy encourages the targeting of young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints. This is a form of racial profiling.” Unlike former Mayor Bloomberg who strongly supported the practice, Mayor Bill de Blasio sharply criticized the policy during his campaign and promised to reform it. The public was outraged when the City of New York appealed the August 2013 decision.

What was the argument in favor of stop and frisk?

Supporters of stop and frisk believe in its efficacy for driving down crime. One of the most vocal supporters of the practice said that rules against stop and frisk “will make it harder for our police officers to protect New Yorkers and continue to drive down crime.” He argued that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are stopped under this practice because a disproportionate number of them commit crimes. At least 10 out of 19 stops have been deemed justified. A report stated that gun shootings have increased by 2.3 percent between August and November 2013. The efficacy of this practice is further supported by a study that revealed that more than half of stops lead to guilty convictions, therefore keeping criminals off the street.

What’s the status of stop and frisk now?

Stop and frisk has pretty much been eliminated. According to data obtained by the New Republic, stop-and-frisk incidents have fallen by almost 80 percent during the first three quarters of 2014. More importantly, the seemingly apocalyptic scenario that many warned about if stop and frisk was discontinued didn’t happen. In August 2013, right when stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said, “No question about it, violent crime will go up.” Bloomberg agreed: “if you try to so much as reform stop and frisk…you’re playing politics with people’s lives.”

But crime hasn’t actually gone up–in fact, just the opposite. It’s decreased, the same way that it has been steadily decreasing over the last few decades nationwide. Despite no more stop and frisk, the streets of New York City are getting safer.

Stop and frisk does still happen, though it’s gone down a lot. There’s a Twitter account dedicated to memorializing all the times that stop-and-frisk incidents happen, @stopandfrisk. It’s still active, and it still chronicles incidences of stop and frisk being used on citizens.

Stop and frisk could have made some sense, in theory, but ended up being a more problematic program than it was worth, not to mention unconstitutional. It’s heartening to see that the crime rate has continued to fall, even with stop and frisk no longer being used.