Recently, there have been a lot cases that deal with liability. Whether, it’s Uber X drivers, Lyft, or even MH370, there is a common trend following the advancement of technological convenience, that the lines of liability become blurred. The next foreseen liability issue will be automated cars. The invention of the automated car provides convenience and could potentially increase safety on the roads. Google, large automakers, and governments around the world are investing large amounts of money to jump start vehicle automation technology. This all sounds great until we consider one minor detail: whose liable if no one is driving?

Driver Automation: What’s the issue?

It becomes confusing to fairly separate blame between a person driver and an automated vehicle. Looking at the possibility of a driverless vehicle being to blame, there are multiple aspects to consider, such as how the vehicle was made or tested. Many experts believe that it will be liabilities such as these that will slow down or even halt the shift of driverless cars from the research grounds to the roadways.

Do we just assume that this invention of driverless cars is out of reach because the court system will not be able to handle the liabilities that come with it? Rather than attempting to imagine every possible dangerous situation that may occur involving driverless cars, the courts can use a legal frameworks that are already in place. That is the rapidly growing area of law, product liability.

Following rapid technological change that has occurred in the last couple of years, products liability has become a growing area of law. It centers itself around the responsibilities of selling and creating  newer products. Plaintiffs involved in product liability lawsuits will have multiple theories of liability to choose from in their attempt to recover damages, such as negligence, design defects and manufacturing defects. This already established product liability system can be applied to the recent invention of the automated vehicles.

Negligence

Manufacturers can be charged with negligence if they do not design their products to be safely used in ways that can be predicted. An example of this would be an automated vehicle that works correctly during the day but has issues at night. When this results in a crash or car damage, a plaintiff can argue that driving at night is a foreseeable activity for a driverless car. The fact that a manufacturer did not correctly account for this is negligence.

Design Defects

A design defect is another possible liability avenue for driverless cars, that the court will be able to legally handle. A design defect would be labeled as something such as when the software can not sufficiently brake on a downhill slope. This can cause a frontal collision with another car, allowing the plaintiff to file a design defect liability claim.

Manufacturing Defects

There are times when the design can be sufficient, but the manufacturer can still have a liability issue due to manufacturing defects. This occurs when a manufacturer accidentally ships an older version of software containing flaws that a newer version has improved upon. Any injuries caused by a mistake such as this one can lead to a lawsuit revolving around manufacturing defects.

Prior to jumping to conclusions and believing that liabilities will put an end to automated vehicles before they hit the highway, let us look at the facts. The court system will not find it impossible to deal with the liability issues of driverless cars, but can instead use the products liability legal structure. In reality, automated vehicles are not really in a league of their own, but held to the same expectation of offering products that function correctly and safety as other manufacturers.

[The Atlantic] [CNN] [The Washington Post]

—

Taylor Garre (TaylorLynn013)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Steve Jurveston, Mariordo via Wikicommons]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Driverless Cars Prove to be Too Much of a Liability? appeared first on Law Street.

Data Brokers are selling personal information including lists of rape victims, alcoholics, and people with erectile dysfunction disorder. After reading that statement you should not only feel outraged, but should also be thinking: is this legal?

The data brokering business has been under investigation for its secretive and sometimes overreaching activities. This issue was really highlighted in December 2013 after a year long investigation by the Senate. World Privacy Forum, Executive Director Pam Dixon first revealed some of these intrusive lists and outlined the concerns that should be made clear to consumers, when she testified in Congress. She argued that the release of such data could put people in danger. For example, a list of “rape victims” can be placed in the hands of a sexual predator or a profile of a senior citizen facing issues with dementia could make them vulnerable to scam artists. Dixon further explained that while some data broker companies provide an opt out policy, most of them do not. Furthering this issue is that most people do not even know that they are on these lists compiled by data brokers. 

Now I understand that this whole thing sounds very illegal and very sketchy. While yes, it is sketchy, it is unfortunately also legal. Scott Howe, CEO of Acxiom, one of the giants of the data brokering business, explains  that data brokering as an act of collecting data about people. These data profiles are then offered to businesses who can create relevant advertising. This seems harmless, right? That is only because this is a very skewed definition. In reality, data brokering has become a $156 billion industry that capitalizes on packaging all of our most personal information to sell it to advertisers including our movements both online and off.

Acxiom, holds profiles on over 200 million Americans. This is scary on so many different levels; one, because most of us do not even know that these profiles are being created and two, because of the information that make up these profiles. Think anything is safe? It really is not. Let’s check off the aspects of daily life that make up your personal profile, which is most likely filed somewhere in a broker’s filing cabinet. Medications? Check, if you have an illness, data brokers can sell the information to an advertisement company to capitalize on your particular condition. Alcoholism, depression, sexual orientation? Check, check, and check– along with most other personal information that you would hope to remain private. It would surprise many of us as to how willing retailers are to sell this information to data brokers.

The catch to the whole thing is that it is basically legal. Data brokers are legally required to maintain the privacy of customers data if it is used for employment, credit, insurance, or housing but that is it. At least we can be thankful that medical information is protected by our doctors who legally cannot sell it. Well, while doctors cannot share your medical information, data brokers have access to the purchase history of over the counter drugs as well as other medical products.

Now that I’ve horrified all of you into never using the Internet again or a credit card to make another purchase for that matter, let us look at what is being done to improve the situation.

Well, I will say that not much has been done in this past year to reform the data broker business. However, a conversation has started about the dark side of this industry, which is admittedly better than nothing. The Federal Trade Commission has called for more transparency within data brokering. While this is a good start, overall the government needs to take more action on regulating the dissemination of information. The government should work to prevent unsafe or harmful lists from circulation. If their actions are meant to benefit consumers by personalizing advertising, then please, let them educate consumers on the actions that they are taking. Believe me, we would all like to know.

Furthermore, opt out procedures should be widespread and clear. If we do not want our personal information compiled into a profile of our medical purchases or food orders, then we should have the right to say no. We may not be able to completely stop data brokers from doing their job, but we can at least prevent the spread of incorrect information or try to regulate the lists that are circulating with the help of government action and an opt out policy.

[Forbes] [CBS News] [CNN]

—

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Data For Sale: Brokers Selling Info on Rape Victims and Alcoholics appeared first on Law Street.

Usually, when a crime is committed, the person responsible for the illegal action goes to jail. Although, this is the correct sequence of events, it is not always what occurs in reality. This was recently proven by the Connecticut DCF system, which placed a 16 year old transgender teen in jail despite lacking one important aspect; technically, she has never been charged with a crime.

On April 8, 2014 a superior court judge ordered the girl, who will remain as Jane Doe to protect her identity, to be transferred from DCF custody to the woman’s prison, York Correctional Institution in East Lyme. This decision was made after the judge heard an overwhelming amount of evidence regarding the girl’s violent acts over the course of six days. The treatment of this youth is deemed appropriate by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. DCF referred to a legal statute which has not been used in 14 years, granting them the right to transfer dangerous juveniles who cannot be held at a treatment facility. According to DCF, this transfer was necessary because of her past violence against both staff and fellow patients at a number of treatment facilities.

The Jane Doe is a transgender teen who was born as a male and identifies as a female. She has been living within the DCF system since the age of 5, and when discussing her time with DCF explains, “I feel that DCF has failed to protect me from harm and I am thrown into prison because they have refused to help me.”

This has becomes a battle between DCF and the girl’s lawyer, Aaron J. Romano. DCF has made it clear that this youth is uniquely dangerous to both staff and patients alike, making it hard to provide her with proper support within the facility. On the other hand, Romano explains that the girl’s aggression is the result of the sexual abuse that she has faced in the DCF system and should not be the cause of her jail time. Instead, her attorney explains that the girl spends around 22 hours a day in solitary confinement and her condition is deteriorating due to a lack of counseling.

Here are the issues at play:

1. Gender

This case caused a wide spread legal debate, questioning the rights available to not only minors, but individuals who identify as transgender. Historically, the Department of Correction has chosen to place individuals with the inmate population that correlates to their biological gender. However, the court regarded the 2011 bill which makes it illegal to discriminate against an individual based on their gender and identity expression. This caused Jane Doe to be placed in a woman’s prison. While her rights have been granted, this becomes a double edged sword, allowing her to be in a woman’s prison, but forcing her into isolation. This is due to the fact that she is not only considered to be a violent inmate, but one with a male organ, calling into play the issue of rape.

2. No crime was committed.

Another issue is that this youth was never charged with a crime, but moved to an adult prison due to the lack of resources to support her treatment within an alternative facility. Many activists question, if this individual identified with her biological, male identity, would she have ended up in jail? Many agree that she would most likely have been placed into a treatment facility with other males, and much of this stems from DCF’s lack of transgender options.

Romano has filed a legal complaint against DCF and its commissioner, Joetter Katz as well as the State Department and its commissioner, James Duzrenda. The youth’s lawyer charged that the state law used to transfer the teen is illegal because it violates two federal laws. The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 which provides funds to states in order to follow core protections for youth in the justice system and the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 dealing with the sexual assault of prisoners. Romano is hoping to overturn the “unconstitutional” transfer. The complaint further requires DCF to create programming and treatment specific to transgender children and youth.

While this youth has committed acts of violence, an adult prison facility is not the place for her. I would think that it would be more beneficial for a troubled youth to be working through her emotional turmoil rather than sitting in solitary confinement, where nothing can be done. This is partially the fault of the court system, which opted to place this youth in jail due to DCF’s lack of options. There are not many treatment options for transgender youth or even high risk individuals but changes need to be made. DCF should create new programming to accommodate such circumstances.

[The Huffington Post] [The CT Mirror]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transgender Teen is Imprisoned, But is it Constitutional? appeared first on Law Street.

The headlines always describe a similar situation, one exemplified by the well know Sandusky case, or possibly closer to home, by one of the scandals in our local schools. Ringing any bells? Dirty coach found amidst a sex scandal, abusing their power in the locker room. This story becomes old news right after headlines break, with the coach rightfully being fired or placed in jail. However, the state of Iowa is allowing coaches to get away with this sexual exploitation without penalty, causing heated debate over Iowa legislation. How is this possible?

On Friday, April 11, 2014 the Iowa Supreme Court in a vote of 5-2, ruled to overturn the sexual exploitation conviction of Patrick Nicoletto because of a loophole stating he was not hired as a licensed teacher. This means that Nicoletto’s current employment title prevents him from being charged with sexual exploitation under Iowa law.

This case first arose in 2012, when 36 year old Nicoletto was accused of sexual exploitation. This case arose when another school employee uncovered the Bloomfield basketball coach’s sexual relationship with a 16 year old high school junior on his team. Nicoletto was sentenced to five years in jail, but posted bond while his case was on appeal.

This ruling was reversed on Friday by Justice Brent Appel due to the fact that Nicoletto was hired as an assistant coach, rather than a licensed teacher or school administrator. Thus, he could not legally be prosecuted under the current Iowa legislation because coaches are not specifically mentioned by Iowa Code. This solely outlines sexual exploitation by a counselor, therapist, or other school employee (not including coaches or assistant coaches).

This new ruling is causing a stir within the Iowa community, noted by  Governor Terry Branstad’s calls for legal revisions. Other states such as Alabama specifically label coaches and assistant coaches as falling within sexual exploitation statutes– Iowa should do the same. Advocates such as Executive Director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Beth Barnhill, are making their concerns regarding this case very clear. They feel that the sexual exploitation statute should clearly extend to a case such as Nicoletto regardless of his current status. They agree this case creates an opportunity to clarify exactly who falls under the sexual exploitation statute and who can be convicted.

This case is not the first to present the idea that Iowa sexual exploitation legislation is too broad. This past November presented a similar debate regarding exploitation statutes, but outside of a school setting, as pastor Patrick Edouard was convicted of sexual exploitation, as a counselor. The defense attorneys argued that Iowa Supreme Court had previously labeled “counseling” as a professional activity that did not include the type of relationship that Edouard had with his parishioners. The Iowa attorney general’s office has appealed the ruling and both sides of the argument have been heard by the Supreme Court, although there is no current ruling.

Both of these cases underline the fact that legislators need to write criminal statutes with a clear voice and Iowa must specifically define who can receive penalties for sexual exploitation. The fact that someone such as a coach, who is placed in a position of authority, can take advantage of his power by having sex with a student is absurd. The fact that in Iowa this can be done without penalty is even more absurd. This means that legally due to a loophole labeling Nicoletto as a coach rather than a licensed school official, he had sexual relations with a 16 year old student that is on his team. On the other hand a teacher would reap the consequences for these exact actions. We can find solace in the fact that while Nicoletto may not under Iowa law, be charged with sexual exploitation, he may be brought up on other charges. Although, 16 is on the cusp of consensual sex. On a broader level, this case demonstrates that laws with loopholes may create injustice. It would be right for this coach to be penalized regardless of his job title, but simply because the law is not specific enough, Nicoletto was able to escape through the cracks unscathed. In the future, laws as serious as these must have specific definitions with specific consequences.

[The Des Moines Register] [Iowa Code]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This is Legal: Iowa Coaches Can Sexually Exploit Their Students appeared first on Law Street.

It is no secret that higher education comes at a cost, one that many find overwhelming and in some cases impossible to cover. There has been no shortage of news coverage on the current state of the education crisis seen here and here. With increasing publicized coverage of the rising student debt, perspective students are reconsidering their future plans at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some schools have recently recognized the problem of funding higher education and are attempting to make some reforms. Here are some highlights of what is happening in education reform today.

Free Tuition.

That is not a typo. Tennessee Governor, Bill Haslam is proposing a program, called “Tennessee Promise” that covers a two year full ride to any high school graduate. The goal is to improve the current graduation rate of 32 percent to a desired 55 percent by the year 2025. Overall, this campaign is an effort to improve job qualifications and attract employers to the state. Students graduating from this two year program can choose to continue onto a four year track and enter another university as a rising junior. This program is projected to pass through the voting process, with some adjustments and a set plan to cover the costs of this education reform. Higher education experts list Florida, Oregon and Mississippi as other states considering similar reforms. College may not have to burn a hole in your pocket, with future reforms such as this one, higher education may not cost anything at all.

A One Year Law Degree That Means Something. 

Law school, many have tried it, some have prevailed and others would prefer not to continue to the bar exam. What about the individuals that decide after year one that law school is not for them? Cleveland Marshall College of Law now offers alternative option for these students and is removing some of the financial risk from attending three years of law school with a convertible new, one year masters degree in legal studies. This degree was implemented in spring 2014, making CML one of the first colleges to offer an advanced legal degree to professionals wanting to work in close proximity with the law, but not necessarily be admitted to the bar. Students who complete one year of J.D. curriculum, now have the option to accept this degree in legal studies without taking additional courses. This education reform makes law school less risky and offers a faster and less expensive alternative.

Cutting Tuition Costs and Forgetting About National Rankings.

Recently covered by my colleague, Brooklyn Law School is becoming a trailblazer in reinventing legal education. In order to increase demand and remain open, Brooklyn Law School is abandoning their attempts to rise in national rankings and cutting their tuition costs by fifteen percent. Other law schools are quickly following this trend such as the University of Iowa College of Law and University of La Verne College of Law. These law schools are taking the hint that not everyone can afford ridiculously expensive tuition and with a loss of students comes the closure of a school.

An International Effort. 

The obstacles that are preventing students from reaching their educational goals and receiving a college degree are becoming recognized not only in the United States but around the globe. Countries including Ireland, China, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France and the United States are coming together on April 9th and 10th to discuss higher education reform at the Galileo Summit. This international summit is occurring in Essex, New York to spark a discussion how to expand college access. It is taking some of the most powerful countries to discuss the policy, funding, and proposed graduation rates of the future.

Graduating college is a hard enough task on its own and the financial burden is an unnecessary restriction. The United States as well as countries around the world are finally realizing that education is not affordable to everyone, when it really needs to be to maintain the global economy. An educated society is beneficial to all countries and if education is a prerequisite for the workforce, it has to be more easily attainable.

[The Huffington Post] [DNJ] [The New York Times] [Cleveland State]

—

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Education Reform Relieves Students’ Debts and Doubts appeared first on Law Street.

“A Tennessee teacher drives ill student to the hospital and pays for the bill.”

“A third grader shaves her head to show her support for a friend with cancer.”

These heartwarming headlines sound like stories of praised heroic acts, but are, in fact, cases in which their schools have taken disciplinary actions against these seemingly good deeds. While society is moving forward and becoming more accepting, many school policies are lagging behind.

Let us look at a few examples in which certain actions that should have been applauded by a school board, were instead deemed as inappropriate.

On March 31 2014, a teacher named Jennifer Mitts was forced to resign from her position with Red Bank High School based on her selfless actions. The well liked, Mitts drove a 20-year-old student, lacking health insurance, to the hospital and paid for the bill. This incident sounded extremely familiar to actions that Mitts had undertaken last year and was previously scolded as a consequence. Last year, Mitts drove a pregnant student tentatively diagnosed by the nurse to have pneumonia to the doctor, saving the life of the unborn child and Red Bank student.

Rather than receiving praise for her actions, Mitts earned a slap on the wrist and ultimately a forced resignation. The school board originally regarded the primary hospital visit as inappropriate and after learning of her recent actions, “forced” her to sign a letter of resignation. This is justified by the assistant superintendent, Stacey Stewart who called Jennifer Mitt’s actions, a liability issue, an issue of insubordination as she was already scolded for similar actions and finally a neglect of duty after leaving the classroom unattended. There is currently a petition circulating in order to return Jennifer Mitts to her teaching position, that has already received 500 signatures.

There is debate over whether Jennifer has the grounds to file a lawsuit. Mitts is claiming that with the signing of her resignation, she was forced to waive her rights to a hearing. On the other hand, officials are claiming that Mitts was only going to be suspended temporarily and the resignation was voluntary. A lawsuit may be filed against the school board in the near future.

A similar story that circulated the news on March 26, is the suspension of third grader Kamryn Renfro, who shaved her head in support of her cancer ridden friend, Delaney Clements. Rather than administrators at Caprock Academy of Colorado applauding the brave actions of the young Kamryn, they instead disciplined her for violating the dress code. The school board chairman, Catherine Norton Breman explained that the school dress code policy is very detailed in order to prevent a distracting environment and promote uniformity. Therefore, shaved heads are not permitted.

Kamryn was forbidden to return to school on Monday, March 24. However on Tuesday, when this story broke to the news world, Kamryn was temporarily readmitted to school. Finally, a vote was taken regarding the issue and the Caprock Academy School Board readmitted Kamryn to school in a 3 to 1 vote on March 25.

I fully understand that certain policies are in place to keep order within a school setting such as requiring a teacher to be present in a classroom or labeling certain clothing items as outside of the realm of dress code. Although, there are extreme cases that should overrule the school policies in place because some things can be considered more important than a school policy. For example, let’s say, a student’s life or maybe even the compassion a little girl shows to a friend who is fighting cancer. Yes, school policies are there for a reason and should often times be enforced, however these extreme cases are exceptions. I do not believe that either of these individuals should have received disciplinary actions for their noble behavior simply because they may have bent a few rules. Sometimes, rules are meant to be broken.

[The Huffington Post] [The Huffington Post]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schools Decide That No Good Deed Goes Unpunished appeared first on Law Street.

“Ho Ho! Hey Hey! Birth control is here to stay!” Or is it?

Just when we think that the debate about contraception coverage has been laid to rest, another group of angry women are chanting outside of the supreme court and fighting for their right to be insured for their contraceptives. Although this time is a little different. This fight against contraception coverage was not brought about by a religiously affiliated group or a non profit religious organization, but by two corporations whose owners have certain religious beliefs. Thus, the debate regarding contraception coverage under the affordable care act continues, leading to the convening of the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday March 25, 2014.

What is the background regarding this debate?

A provision of the affordable health care act requires many employers to provide a variety of birth control methods to female employees who have comprehensive insurance coverage. This law does not apply to all employers due to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents law from substantially burdening an individual’s free exercise of religion. With this act, it was decided that the responsibility to provide birth control to employees was not extended to religious employers such as churches and religiously affiliated groups.

Who are the challengers?

This case has been brought to the supreme court by two for-profit corporations who argued that their businesses are run under religious principles. This includes the Hobby Lobby, arts and crafts chain that is run by a Christian family and Conestoga Wood Supplies, a cabinet making company owned by a Mennonite family.

The argument of the government:

The requirement of corporations to pay for contraceptives for female employees is an insurance that that all women will have equal opportunity and access to services regarding their health care. It is not the right of the employers to decide which form of contraception is best for their female employees, because that is the job of their doctor. It is believed that the corporations providing of birth control will lead to less abortions overall.

The argument of the two corporations:

They are not rejecting all forms of birth control, but instead feel that covering the costs of certain methods such as condoms, birth control pills and diaphragms would be within the boundaries of their religion. Now, there are various methods of birth control, but the main ones that are in contention include emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill because the corporations feel if they comply, they are condoning abortion.

What will the outcome be?

We will have to wait and see. A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected in June. It is for the court to decide whether the challengers have the right to object to this birth control coverage of specific types of contraception under the 1993 Religious Restoration Act mentioned above. This would mean that the religious beliefs of the corporations were, “substantially burdened”, which is of course up for the Supreme Court to decide.

Where I stand:

There is a large difference between a for-profit company and a non-profit, religiously affiliated organization. In my opinion, there is difference between who should cover birth control and who has the right to opt out. Corporations are now trying to play the religion card, which is a very slippery slope. Let’s think about this. There are many for-profit businesses out there with owners who most likely have some religious affiliation or another. Simply because a business owner closes their doors on Sunday or considers themselves a Christian should not give them the easy way out for covering the birth control of employees, as is the law under the affordable care act. Once some corporations are granted their “religious liberties”, who is to say that not all corporations with a religiously practicing owner can opt out of paying for birth control. These companies are not religiously affiliated, they are not non-profit and they need to pay to cover their employee’s birth control.

For more information, to see the protesters and to decide for yourself:

[Reuters] [The New York Times]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Not Another Contraception Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone in the United States is expected to follow the black and white laws of the land or face the penalties; but how often do we find ourselves in the gray area? Luckily, law schools aross the country offer seminars to clear up confusion surrounding everyday legal issues for the average joe.

The People’s Law School at Baylor is comprised of free, hour-long courses taught by volunteer lawyers and legal experts. Baylor’s curriculum offers participants the chance to learn about a variety of legal issues — from buying and selling real estate to wills and estate planning.  

The “Stand Your Ground, Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine” course taught at the February 16 session by criminal defense attorney Susan Johnston, brought the ins and outs of the highly controversial law to the average citizen. Johnston attempted to decode the perceptions of self defense and convey its legal implementations.

Self-defense laws vary from state to state. For example, New York law states that self defense, or deadly force, may be used against another person only when is it necessary to defend oneself against what one reasonably believes to be a kidnapping, rape, or robbery; however, if one elects to use violence against another — especially to the point of death — his or her actions will be highly scrutinized and legally analyzed for justification. Similarly, the Castle Doctrine gives individuals the right to forcibly protect themselves or others when in their own homes. In Florida, for example, the Castle Doctrine is very strong and applies not only to one’s home, but to any dwelling, mobile or immobile.

In the course, Johnston used the example of a case that she prosecuted in 1997, in which a man was convicted for second degree manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years for killing a 14-year-old boy during a home invasion. In that case, rather than instantly calling police to report the break in, the man held the young intruder captive for several hours while calling friends to explain his intentions of shooting the teen. Ultimately the man poked the boy with the gun, which went off and killed him. The man claimed that it was an accident, but the jury could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not mean to shoot the child. As exemplified by the law, simply because the child broke into the man’s house did not give the man the right to shoot and kill the young intruder without penalty.  

The Stand Your Ground course is especially relevant now, in light of several high-profile cases in which defendants invoked such self-defense laws, including the George Zimmerman and Dunn Trials. Both of these cases centered on the issue of whether self defense was necessary in order for the accused to prevent his own imminent death or bodily harm. 

The rise of People’s Law courses is an important addition to the justice system, as they contribute to increasing the public’s legal knowledge. The implementation of these courses alleviates some of the confusion that non-lawyers experience when dealing with legal issues both big and small. A population well educated in their legal rights is beneficial for all parties involved — both the individuals as well as the public at large.

[WacoTribe] [The People’s Law School] [Baylor Law School]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013) 

Featured image courtesy of [Xbxg32000 via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People’s Law School Teaches Average Joe His Legal Rights appeared first on Law Street.

When the police come knocking at your door, you usually have two options: one, allow them to search your home regardless of whether or not they have a search warrant; or two, deny them entry until a warrant is presented. Well, you may not even have these two options anymore. The Supreme Court set a new precedent on Tuesday February 25, giving police more authority to search your home if they find someone willing to let them in.

The Supreme Court debated previously accepted notions of when and how the police may enter a home, ultimately ruling in a 6 to 3 decision that the occupant of a home can not object to a home search if he or she is not at home. An occupant who is absent due to an arrest or lawful detention is now placed in the same category as someone who is not home for any other reason, making any of their prior objections to a home search null and void.

A previous ruling in 2006 had upheld the decision that when two occupants disagreed on whether to let the police search their home, the objecting party was honored. After presiding over the court decision of  Fernandez v. California, this was reconsidered by Justice Samuel Alito who felt that allowing the objecting party to prevail could be harmful in cases of domestic abuse. This case stemmed from an incident when police uncovered ammunition, a gun, and a knife after searching a Los Angeles apartment shared by couple Walter Fernandez and Roxanne Rojas. When Rojas first answered the door for police, she appeared to have been beaten. Fernandez rushed to the open door and ordered police to leave based on his constitutional rights. Due to the fact that the police were aware of the recent fight between the couple as well as Fernandez’s affiliation to a recent robbery, he was arrested and removed from the scene. After the arrest of Fernandez, police persuaded Rojas to allow them to search the home.Fernandez is currently facing a 14 year sentence on the basis of robbery and gun charges.

When brought to court, California argued that the police had enough evidence to obtain a warrant in order to search the house, but this became unnecessary when Rosa allowed them entry. The court upheld this proposition on Tuesday, creating an adjustment in our justice system which extends the opportunities of the police to search homes in question, when a previously objecting party is no longer present.

The issue at hand becomes whether or not this new precedent will allow the police to abuse their power, giving them the ability to dodge the requirement of a warrant within the domain of home searches. Overall, the purpose of this new authority is to create a fairer and more efficient way to conduct a home search, not a ploy for police to disregard warrants. This precedent gives the police the ability to search a house with consent from one party, rather than having to go through the long process of applying for a warrant and waiting for its approval. It is justified that if one person is arrested and no longer present, the other living in the home can give the police permission to enter. Regarding the case of Fernandez and Rojas, if the police had not accepted Roja’s permission to enter the home, it would have shown a type of disrespect for her independence. She was now the sole occupant of the home, awarding her the right to make the decision regarding a home search. This right that should be respected, regardless of the choice of the no longer present Fernandez. Hopefully, this extension of home search rights will create a more efficient system, one that takes into account the idea that possibly one homeowner may actually want the police to search the home. This extension of authority is not meant to be an abuse of power but rather a more effective way for the police to seek justice.

[Huffington Post] [LA Times]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Rizuan via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Authority Extended When Entering Homes appeared first on Law Street.

So let me drop a lyric: “I meet aggression with aggression, I learned that on the streets” by 50 Cent. What does this lyric conjure?

Let us all admit that when we hear rap lyrics like this one, not all of us automatically get a warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts. In fact, many rappers are criticized for producing overly aggressive lyrics about controversial topics; the objectification of women; and violent threats towards individuals who have wronged them. Most of us consider the lyrics of rappers to be more of a style choice — the way in which they want to market themselves to their prospective audience rather than an autobiographical representation. But now a question: Have you ever considered the rap lyrics coming through your headphones to be a confession to a crime? The United States Court System has.

In the past several years, rap lyrics have been used against the accused as evidence to support their criminal actions. In 2013, it was found by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey that in 18 cases, rap lyrics were considered as possible evidence and were used in trial 80 percent of the time. When these rap lyrics are shared in court, it can be detrimental to the accused. 

A study conducted in the late 1990s explored if rap lyrics used during a trial swayed jurors’ opinions. Participants were given basic biographical information about a hypothetical 18-year-old black male, and some were shown a set of his explicit rap lyrics. Those who read the lyrics were significantly more likely to believe that the hypothetical accused would have committed a violent crime.

This bias regarding artists who express themselves through rap lyrics has repeatedly displayed itself in court, stirring debate as to whether these lyrics should be used as a form of evidence.  It is doubtful that when Vonte Skinner first wrote the lyrics, “Look in my palms. You can see what I’m gunnin with,” he would foresee their use against him in court. However, Skinner was placed on trial in 2008 for possible involvement in the shooting of Lamont Peterson in 2005. Skinner, also known by his rap name Threat, was found guilty after the prosecution read 13 pages of his violent lyrics — similar to those mentioned above. It is speculated that these lyrics have contributed to the charge and conviction against Vonte for attempted murder. This conviction was later overturned on appeal, and will be officially decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in March.

This case presents the idea that rap lyrics can be used to misrepresent the accused as a horrible or violent person. In reality, Skinner’s lyrics were written long before the shooting and subsequent paralysis of Lamont. In fact, the lyrics did not mention the victim or even specific details regarding the crime. Thus, lyrics can be used when minimal evidence is available, in order to turn the tides of a case. This exact situation occurred again when Los Angeles rapper Lil Boosie was accused of paying a hit man, Mike Loudon to shoot and kill Terry Boyd in 2009. With no physical evidence linking Boosie to the crime, prosecutors built their case around his rap lyrics. Despite the objections of the defense attorney, prosecutors went ahead and presented lyrics from songs such as “Bodybag,” claiming it was a representation of evidence to tie Boosie to the murder. Luckily, the jurors were not convinced by the lyrics. While Lil Boosie escaped conviction and Vonte Skinner will have a second chance through the Supreme Court, the issue becomes whether courts should be allowed to utilize rap lyrics as evidence.

Many believe that this “alternative form of evidence” should not be considered evidence at all. As a genre, rap is a form of entertainment, one that uses exaggerative and figurative language. Often rappers use lyrics as a form of artistic expression and this is how we should view them. Instead of taking rap for what it is — an art form — prosecutors present the lyrics of rappers as an autobiographical expression or admission to illegal behavior. Defense attorneys often object to the use of lyrics, as courts typically do not allow the presentation of evidence meant to damage a defendant when it is not directly related to a crime. However, the presiding judge over a case has the ultimate decision and rap seems to have become an exception, as many judges have allowed the use of rap in court.

Then why do rap lyrics keep presenting themselves in court? The rap industry has become synonymous with criminality, as more and more artists are going on trial and lyrics become more explicit. To this extent, it is less than surprising that musicians find their own lyrics used against them. However, the courts should find stronger evidence to tie an accused to the crime rather than obscure lyrics taken out of context. Why would anyone willingly incriminate themselves? Clearly, just because a lyric is violent, does not mean it is a confession to illegal activity. The hearing of Skinner’s case in the Supreme Court can turn the tides for rappers, and possibly end the use of lyrics as evidence in trial.

[New York Times] [North Carolina Criminal Law] [The Roott]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Susanne Davidson via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Rap Lyrics Represent an Admission of Guilt? appeared first on Law Street.

Let us examine a scenario; parents go to a hospital to treat their child’s cancer and after seeing the debilitating effects of chemotherapy, opt to end the treatment. The hospital, however, sees the child’s cancer as curable and uses the court system to attempt to force their patient to continue treatment. Which party has the law on their side, the parents of the child or the hospital?

This seemingly hypothetical situation has become a real debate between an Amish couple in Ohio and the Akron Children’s Hospital. Parents, Andy and Anna Hershberger, have decided to stop the chemotherapy treatments of their 10 year old daughter, Sarah, who is battling Leukemia. The couple originally consented to the chemotherapy of Sarah in May 2013 but put an end to the treatment in June 2013. The parents saw the effects of the treatment as more harmful than helpful and opted to use natural herbs and vitamins rather than radiation to rid the girl’s body of the cancer.

While it is the belief of Mr. and Mrs. Hershberger that chemotherapy was actually killing their daughter, it is the moral and legal obligation of the hospital to make sure that the young girl received proper care. As explained by Robert McGregor, Akron’s chief medical officer, the hospital believes that the girl will die without the chemotherapy treatment. “We really have to advocate for what we believe is in the best interest of the child,” explained McGregor.

This is where the law stepped in, as the hospital went to court in order to force Sarah’s continued chemotherapy treatment. Judges appointed an unaffiliated third party, or “court guardian” to the case, Maria Schimer who is an attorney as well as registered nurse. Along with guardianship came Maria’s power to make all medical decisions regarding Sarah’s continued treatment. With this decision, the Amish family went into hiding about four months ago and has refused to reappear until the guardian is removed. Maria Schimer recently requested to be dropped from this case as she can no longer reach Sarah and her family.

The Hershbergers are currently fighting to obtain the right to make health care decisions for Sarah after the legal guardian is formally removed from the case. These parents are appealing the decision that allowed Maria Schimer to step in and make medical decisions for their daughter in the first place. The couple feels that assigning this guardian has infringed upon their constitutional rights and are appealing under the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment, approved in 2011. This amendment prohibits laws that force Ohioans to, “participate in a health care system.” This appeal is the first time that the court has been forced to determine the scope of this amendment, which has previously been seen as a symbol against President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The representing attorney to the Hershberger’s, Maurice Thompson of the libertarian 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in Ohio also helped draft the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment. Thompson feels that this case is a significant issue under said amendment because the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment is in place to preserve the rights of parents and children to choose their health care free of compulsion and prevent forced health care. “Allowing an uninterested third-party, one that has never even met the family or the child, to assert an interest in an exceedingly important parental decision will completely undermine the parent-child relationship,” argues Thompson.

Though the case of the Hershberger family has not yet been decided, it is most likely going to face multiple challenges. This stems from the fact that though the Ohio Health Care Freedom Ammendment was approved, it did not prevent the implementation of the Obama’s new federal health care law. This is because a state amendment does not have the ability to nullify a law. This situation could harm Ohio’s ability to enforce its specific laws and amendments to a case such as this. It is also questionable as to whether this amendment can extend to the point of protecting the Hershberger family’s case, which will be up to the court system as they decide on the full scope of the amendment.

The bigger picture of this case becomes, is it the right of the parents or the right of the hospital to determine the medical future of a child? While the Akron Hospital, versus the Hershberger family case is one of the most recent, there are other similar situations in which parents have lost the custody of their ill children to decisions made by the hospitals treating them. Fifteen year old Justina Pelletier was taken from her parents and placed into the custody of Boston Children’s Hospital in February 2013. This event occurred due to a dispute between Justina’s parents and the hospital, when her diagnosis changed from a mitochondrial disorder to a mental illness. After the change in diagnosis, the Pelletier family threatened to withdraw their daughter from the hospital in order to seek a second medical opinion. Once a child is labeled with a mental disorder, it is within the hospital’s power to call child protective services. In this case DCF labeled the parents behavior as insolent and abusive. The parents were stripped of their custody and the state of Massachusetts forcibly been treating as well as detaining Justina since that time. Based on the current ruling, it looks as if Justina will not be fully released until she is 18 years old.These two extreme cases can seem terrifying in the eyes of parents, and rightfully so. It seems that the hospitals often have the final say in the treatment of child patients rather than the parents.

While both sides of this scenario, the hospitals and the parents, seem to be looking to protect the child’s best interests, it becomes hard to draw a line between who is correct in their judgements. If parents are fully informed about treatment options as well as their risks and decide that the risks do outweigh the benefits, it should be within their ability to opt out of treatment as the child’s legal guardians from birth. However, this becomes complicated with the consideration of some parental religious beliefs that could bar the child from receiving potentially life saving treatment. On one hand, due to custody under the hospital or a third party guardian, a life can be saved, but on the other religious beliefs may be compromised. This medical debate does not have an all encompassing answer.

At what point, does it become ok to take over the custody of a child without the consent of their parents, or is it ever ok? To each his own, what is your opinion?

[The News- Herald] [Fox News] [Police State USA]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Randall Pugh via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Parents vs Hospitals: is Forced Treatment Legal? appeared first on Law Street.

In a speech on Saturday, February 8, 2014 to a gay rights group in New York City, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. outlined the plan for the United States government to extend legal rights to same sex couples in order to decrease the inequalities between gay and straight marriages. “In every courthouse in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite sex marriages,” promised Holder to the gay community.

The latest changes applied to protect same-sex married couples include:

1. Same-sex spouses are eligible to file jointly for bankruptcy, providing joint relief from debts. This excludes debts of one spouse owed to another or former spouse, which will still need to be paid as well as domestic support obligations.

2. Federal inmates who are in same-sex marriages will have the same rights and privileges as those in heterosexual marriages, including the rights to visitation, to be with the other spouse in times of crisis, to be escorted to the funeral of an inmate spouse, protection of communication between same-sex spouses, and the early release of an inmate if the spouse becomes debilitated.

3. Individuals in same-sex marriages now qualify for multiple Justice Department Benefit Programs including the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, as well as benefits offered to spouses exposed to radiation.

4. Death and educational benefits in the case that one spouse is killed or injured in the line of duty as a public safety officer.

5. The right to decline to give testimony against a spouse in civil and criminal cases. This will be applicable to all states, even those that do not extend this right to same-sex couples.

Multiple agencies falling under the Department of Justice are affected by this extension of privileges, including the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

These privileges can be seen as an extension to the Supreme Court case decided in June 2013, United States vs. Windsor, which struck down the idea that same-sex couples could not receive federal marital benefits under the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, the conclusion of this case is being applied within the justice system, as same-sex couples are receiving the benefits they deserve within a legal marriage.

This extension of legal rights to same-sex couples was made official on February 10, 2014 through a policy memorandum. These privileges immediately ensure that all same-sex married couples are treated equally under the law.

In the larger picture, this extension has amounted to a step closer to equality in our country. These are provisions that all heterosexual couples are granted and it seems absurd to consider being married without such security. The fact that one spouse in a same-sex marriage could be killed in the line of duty and the other was previously not granted death benefits is almost unethical. A marriage should always include such protection in cases of death, imprisonment, and criminal offenses. The extension of these privileges  by the government has made real the marriage vows that many same-sex couples have promised to one another, allowing them to support each other whatever circumstances they may face. If marriage is granted to same-sex couples, the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples should also be extended.

[La Times] [New York Times] [SCOTUSblog]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Marc Love via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Ways Same-Sex Couples Are Finally Winning in the Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

A man breaks the law by selling bread from his home in California. While this sounds like a scene from Les Mis, or something of that era, it was in fact an incident a few years back, involving the bread baker, Mark Stambler in Los Angeles.

Stambler began his craft of baking bread over thirty years ago. However, things did not really begin to get serious in the bread business until years later in 2005, when Mark Stambler and his wife Suzette began building a massive 6 foot tall oven in their back yard. This hobby soon became an idea for a full fledged home business labeled the Pangoul Boulanger. His private business soon became public with a featured story regarding his bread baking in the Los Angeles Times in May 2011.

These fifteen minutes of fame were indeed short lived, as the complete description of Stambler’s home baking business became a lead for the health department to follow all the way to Stambler’s doorstep. That day, the stores selling Stambler’s french loaves were forbidden from passing along his home made bread. In the words of Stambler, “the health department descended like a ton of bricks on the two stores that were selling my bread.” Following this departmental shut down, Pagnoul Boulanger went into hiding for 18 months.

Stambler decided to take a stand in order to follow his passion by becoming an activist and researching the cottage laws across the state. These laws classify cottage products as those that are low risk for spreading bacteria. With the help of his assemblyman, Mike Gatto, Stambler began to draft of the California Homemade Food Act (AB 1616). This law would allow low risk foods to be made in the home and sold for public consumption. This act sailed through the California State Assembly in a vote of 60 to 16 and later also passed through the Senate in 2012. 

The law went into effect in January 2013, and Stambler became one of the first to legally sell food from home in Los Angeles County. Stambler laid out a path for many other home business owners to follow, as currently there are around 270 cottage businesses within his county and an approval of around 1,200 across the state. 

The passage of the California Homemade Food Act, came with specific procedures to follow, as home business owners are required to pass a food processor course, must label goods, and follow sanitation precautions. Also, homemade food producers must obtain a permit falling under Class A or B. Class A permits pertain to direct sales, from provider to consumer, allowing a bypass of inspections. Class B permits require inspections but can be used to make indirect sales through a third party such as a restaurant or bakery.

The food created by the home businesses in California include such as cookies, coffee, tea, jellies, etc, rather than any type of meat, dairy or seafood. These limitations have presented the cottage sales as safe business ventures. Multiple health departments have inspected several of the home businesses, however, they have received no complaints within the Los Angeles County and have not been forced to revoke any permits.

The law contains both pros and cons for small food entrepreneurs. On one side, it has freed many home bakers from having to rent commercial kitchens in order to bake their goods. Instead, cottage laws have allowed these business owners to cook from their own kitchens, escaping the costly fees of renting a kitchen. On the down side, the California Homemade Food Act, does not encompass all small business owners but instead sets a price cap that could prevent some from its protection. Once over the earnings cap amounting to $45,000, business owners must rent out a commercial kitchen. Many owners are calling to get rid of this cap, saying that it prevents small businesses from ever growing into large companies.

Giving small business owners a chance to legally expand their product by selling it to the public is only fair. However, the cottage laws do seem rather limiting, including a small list of goods that are labeled as available for home sale and the price cap placed on profits. California has a more liberal program regarding cottage foods than other states, one that should really set the precedent. Other states such as Minnesota have very restrictive laws, caping profits at $5,000 and only allowing bakers to sell goods in farmer’s markets. Anyone found denying these limitations can face both fines of up to $2,500 or three months in jail. Thus, the less strict application of cottage laws within California is making strides for home business owners. While there is still a ways to go before the cottage law program seems completely fair to all of these similar entrepreneurs, the program that California has instated is off to a good start.

[Forbes] [LaTimes]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [web4camguy via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Knew Selling Baked Goods From Your Home was Once Illegal? appeared first on Law Street.

Should a sexually abused minor be considered a criminal? This question is recently coming to the attention of the American justice system. Courts are now conscious of a new demographic within the legal system and are attempting to reform their ways to accommodate those members in need, particularly girls. Girls courts are being implemented around many counties within California, to the preexisting juvenile justice system. The courts are tailoring to the needs of at risk young women, specifically those recruited as child prostitutes, by providing not only judicial guidance but treatment facilities as well.

Statistics revolving around girls involved in criminal actions have recently been skyrocketing in certain counties such as San Mateo, Alameda, and Orange, causing a need for a change in the court system. One specific example of this recognition of at risk population and attempt to reform those involved, is the Alameda County in California. Between the years 1998 and 2007, there was a 45 percent increase in juvenile girls entering the justice system as well as a 49 percent increase for young girls committing non violent offenses. With such an increase in statistics, it was determined that a change was necessary and the Alameda County Girls Court was created.

The specific programs applied by girls courts are meant to aid victims of sexual assault, in combining the justice system with social services. Their focus and activities offered vary between specific courts. For example, the Alameda County Girls Court, provides a group of adults to gain the trust of young girls as well as offers Saturday sessions to discuss topics ranging from the legal system to body image. While this program is centered around young girls involved in sex trafficking, the Girls Courts of Orange County focus specifically on girls who have spent their lives in foster care.

While the Alameda Girls Courts are still relatively new to be measuring the effects of the system, girls courts in other areas have been making promising progress with their juvenile group members. Other girls courts within California have recently proven that they are making a difference, as the Girls of the Orange County program have presented an enhancement in the grades of the girls. Hopefully, the Alameda Courts will follow in close pursuit of this already established program. 

The previous judicial system resulted in a cycle of punishment rather than rehabilitation and treatment for the girls. In California, girl prostitutes were continuously adding to their criminal records, although in many areas an exchange of money for underage sex is a form of sex trafficking. Thus, the emergence of the girls court. This specific court became a pivotal aspect to the campaign to end sex trafficking. The main goal of this campaign is to label underage prostitutes as victims rather than criminals, and to offer these young girls treatment. The campaign is looking to make a change in the current judicial system, rather than convicting underage girls who have been abused.

Many of the young girls moving through the legal system have been sexually abused their whole lives and are unaware of the wrongdoings against them. By convicting these girls over and over the courts are not providing justice, but rather allowing them to continue on a downtrodden path. The introduction of girls courts is not an isolated case but has become key to a larger picture for many states, in changing laws involving sex trafficking and minors. In New York State, a system of 11 Human Trafficking Intervention Courts has spread across the state, for minors ages 16 and up. These courts remain similar to those labeled girls courts because they provide services to minors involved in the sex trade as well. However, the New York System has become a statewide campaign. Recently accompanying this new treatment of minors and sex trafficking, is an array of new Safe Harbor Laws enacted in states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois and several more. These laws are defined as preventing victims of sex trafficking from being prosecuted due to prostitution as well as protecting young children involved in sex trafficking by offering specialized services.

The beginning of girls courts is a representation of the change in how the justice system views minors involved in sex trafficking. This can reach back to the Supreme Court ruling, in Texas B.W. (2010) which ruled that children under the age of 13 could not be considered a criminal because of prostitution. Furthermore, children could not be guilty of an action that involved their own sexual exploitation. It can be seen that this ruling has come full circle, as court systems as well as the Safe Harbor Laws are attempting to aid those in need rather than convict them.

It is refreshing to see a change in the view of those involved in sex trafficking as well as an attempt to reform minors in need of help. Sex trafficking is an awful reality that is common throughout the United States, as over 300,000 children are involved in prostitution each year. Pimps specifically target children in need such as the homeless or abused. The Girls Courts, Safe Harbor Laws, and Human Trafficking Intervention Courts have taken the American justice system to a new level, in providing not only a court ruling but a service to push minors in the right direction. It is time that these efforts to end sex trafficking spread across the country to all states, rather than being isolated mainly to New York and California. The justice system needs to view these minors involved in sex trafficking as victims rather than criminals and to offer them the services they require.

 [National Center for Youth Law] [The New York Times] [Polaris Project]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Blemished Paradise via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Efforts to Reform Sex Trafficking Moving in the Right Direction With Specialized Courts appeared first on Law Street.

In the moment, it may seem harmless to share a provocative photo with a significant other during the comfortable times of a relationship. However, when in emotional turmoil these photos can spread across the internet like wildfire, ruining your reputation and in some cases your life. There is one specific type of public humiliation with regards to nude photos and while not everyone may be aware of this new trend called revenge porn, others are reaping the legal ramifications for it. Revenge porn consists of sexually explicit material shared publically through the media and is often posted by either exes or in some cases hackers. Before rushing to Google to make sure that one of your own compromising photos has not been leaked across the web, you can feel some comfort in the fact that one of the key contributors for these revenge porn sites was arrested by the FBI on Thursday, January 23, 2014.

Hunter Moore, created a business out of revenge porn through the foundation of his website IsAnyoneUp.com, lasting for sixteen months. This site was originally intended to be an outlet for angry exes to post nude pictures of their previous partners, accompanied by the subject’s full name, city of residence, profession and links to their social media profile. As if all of this humiliation was not enough, Moore would also guarantee that the posted photos be displayed across Google for everyone to see, including bosses, professors or even parents. In its prime, IsAnyoneUp.com boasted around 350,000 views daily and 15 to 30 unlucky victims featured on the site per day ranged from infamous celebrities such as the real housewives to mothers and schoolteachers. All of this spiteful sharing of photos, has earned Hunter Moore the title; the most hated man on the internet. Not to worry though, this revenge site was shut down in April 2012, when it was bought by Bullyville.com

Moore and his hacker associate Charles Evens, spent their work days not only receiving photos of unfortunate victims but also hacking into the email accounts of chosen victims to steal sexually explicit photos to fuel their website. The two are currently facing the consequences as they are being charged with a 15 count indictment, involving identity theft, conspiracy and computer hacking. If the pair of hackers are found guilty of the accumulation of charges, they have the possibility of facing up to 42 years in prison.

The specific date of this hacking has not been completely uncovered, but there is email evidence dating back to October 2011. This emailing back and forth between Moore and Evens consisted of conversations regarding how to hack email accounts as well as plans to exchange up to $250 for nude photos of 6 males and 6 females. It is documented that as the ringleader of the website, Moore paid his hacking assistant up to $900 in individual installments through March 2012.

Officially, the indictment involves seven counts of unlawful entry into a computer to obtain personal information, seven accounts of identity theft and charges the two men with conspiracy. The indictment includes a list of seven victims, identified by their initials, all of whom had email accounts containing “among other things, nude pictures of themselves and others.” The indictment is signed by four attorneys within the United States, working in intellectual, cyber and property crimes as well as the United States attorney’s Criminal Division.

Those affected by Moore are not the only ones facing an issue with publicized explicit content on the web. Embarrassing situations revolving around the topics of sexting and nude photos have become a point of debate across the United States legal system. Many victims are attempting to eradicate revenge porn sites, such as Maryland woman, Annemarie Chiarini. On January 28, 2014 Chiarini begged the Maryland House Judiciary Committee to create new criminal laws preventing revenge porn, after her ex boyfriend published her explicit photos across the internet. Actions are actually being taken to prevent the defamation faced by victims such as Chiarini, as Dels. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D- Montgomary) and Jon S Cardin (D- Baltimore County) are attempting to extend protection against sexual harassment on the Internet. Such legislation would stop someone from sharing explicit material featuring another person without their consent as well as requiring proof that publicizing this content was meant to cause emotional pain. Chiarini is pushing her state to move forward in revenge porn legislation, while other states such as New Jersey and California have labeled this type of public sharing of explicit photos as a crime.

These cases present the idea that not everything on the internet is private and something shared in confidence can easily become publicly viewed. It is ridiculous to me that a revenge porn site that was secretly stealing nude photos from email accounts could even last for sixteen months. The government is supposedly watching everything that is happening online so why did this slip past their view for so long? Privacy needs to remain sacred over the internet. The fact that images of your body can be exposed to the public without your consent makes me question what else can be so easily leaked about you. Just imagine what other information that you believed to be private is actually floating around the web at this very moment. While some states such as Maryland have begun creating legislation regarding revenge porn, others have fallen completely behind or believe that certain cases of sharing explicit photos do not fall under the category of crime. This is neither right nor just. Legislation regarding revenge porn and maintaining the privacy of Internet users needs to happen, now.  It just makes sense that if a picture or private information is being shared without your consent and with the intent to undermine someones career or reputation, steps need to be taken by the court. Victims of this injustice should be allowed the right to fight back against wrongdoing. Embarrassment is one thing, but an alteration in your entire lifestyle for the worst is another. This violating action happened to innocent victims, that never believed their information would be spread online. It could have been anyone and one day if the courts do not step in, it could be you.  

[Rolling Stone]  [The Guardian] [The Washington Post]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Cory Doctorow via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Finally Takes Action on Revenge Porn: Sign of Things to Come appeared first on Law Street.

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. His name continues to circulate the news press this week, as the government privacy board is set to release a report on Thursday January 23rd, saying that the National Security Agency’s wide spread collection of phone records, violates the law and should be shut down.  

Let us go back to the beginning, where this controversy first ignited. In June 2013, Snowden released the operations of the United State’s global surveillance program including the monitoring of both Internet and phone use of US citizens to The Washington Post and The Guardian. Rather than staying in the shadows and remaining anonymous, this whistleblower chose to take responsibility for his actions, saying, “my sole motive is to inform the public, as to which is done in their name.”

This leak of secret NSA documents spurred debate across the country. Just as Snowden had hoped, citizens have become more informed about governmental actions. American’s are now questioning the link between national security and privacy as well as wondering what else the government is going to great lengths to hide.

The NSA claims that they have the right to obtain phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act, which states that it is within the power of the government to collect records that are relevant to terrorist investigations. However, pressure from the privacy board has caused key governing figures to question the constitutionality of this surveillance program, specifically in regards to phone monitoring.

Last Friday, President Obama announced his plan to change the system of the mass collection of phone records, shifting it from the hands of the government to a private company such as AT&T or Verizon. Along with a possible shift in power, Obama suggested a requirement of approval from the courts in order to obtain records. While the President did explain these future reforms, he maintained the idea that the government should have access to phone records if needed. Not everyone is satisfied with these changes and some would like to see an end put to the phone surveillance program completely.

The New York Times and the Washington Post have obtained the 238 page report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which has not yet been released. The report calls to shut down the mass collection of phone records previously exposed by Edward Snowden. The Privacy and Liberties board in charge of protecting the privacy rights of the citizenry, admits that the program has not prevented any terrorist attacks and instead, has infringed upon the privacy of American citizens. The board further opposes the protection of the program under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which grants the government the power to use phone records in order to obtain relevant information. The privacy board argues that it is not possible to obtain only relevant information when using a tool that allows unlimited access to phone content.

The board further states that the NSA phone program is questionable in regards to both the first and fourth amendments. They turned to the 1979 ruling of the Supreme Court, stating that the police do not need a warrant to search through phone numbers or call durations. However, the board points to the fact that the surveillance being done today is on a mass scale, and is not comparable to the specific cases investigated by police.

Whether the NSA phone program will come to a complete end in the near future is not known at this time. It can be seen that there is current pressure being put on the government, in order, to make the program less intrusive on private citizens. I agree that the program must be altered, as it can be considered harmful to freedom of speech. The conversations that we have over the phone are of our own choice, which should be respected by the government. On the other hand, I do agree that if the security of our nation is being threatened based on a phone call, it is within the best interest of the public for the government to intervene. It seems that the best solution would be for the government to focus on the threatening situations at hand rather than eavesdropping on where my friends and I are meeting for lunch.

[Time] [Nationaljournal] [Theguardian] [Politico]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn13)

Featured image courtesy of [EFF via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

Jury duty is dreaded by many who feel as if they would prefer to be anywhere else besides performing their civic duty within the court. While many of us take this right for granted thinking of it more as a chore than an opportunity, we should stop to consider the alternative. How would you feel if you were denied the opportunity to participate in national governing, a right that is meant to be granted to all American citizens? Over the course of our nation’s history, several groups of citizens have been discriminated against with regard to jury service. In many cases, the Supreme Court has moved to fix these inequalities within our governmental system. For example, the 1896 Batson v. Kentucky case eliminated racial discrimination in jury selection and ratification of the 19th amendment eliminated discrimination of gender, giving opportunities to women to sit on a jury. In some ways, the courts have improved in their previously discriminatory practices. However, the discrimination of juror candidates based on sexual orientation has not been addressed until recently.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2014, the 9th Circuit United States Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, became the first appellate court to specifically rule that a potential juror cannot be removed during jury selection because of sexual orientation. This decision will extend the 1896 ruling of Batson v. Kentucky, mentioned above, not only in prohibiting the discrimination of jurors based on race, but sexual orientation as well. The three-judge panel was unanimous in their decision, saying that not choosing a juror because he or she is gay is a form of unlawful discrimination.

The basis for this new decision stems from the 9th Circuit case, Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, an antitrust trial over the price of a popular HIV drug. This case arose from a lawsuit filed in 2007, when Abbott increased the price of the drug Norvir, used by Smithkline in their creation of AIDS drugs. During the screening of potential jurors for the case, an Abbott lawyer utilized one of his preemptory challenges to remove a possible juror who had referred to his male partner multiple times during voir dire. Pointing fingers throughout the case, Smithkline accused Abbott of removing the possible juror due to the negative publicity that accompanied the increased pricing of the AIDS drug throughout the gay community. Abbott denied this accusation, stating the reason for the removal of the juror was due to the death of his friend from AIDS.

When questioned directly, the lawyer said that he was unaware that the juror, referred to as Juror B, was gay. However, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit panel said that this claim by the Abbott lawyer was “inconsistent with the record.” The lawyer asked Juror B five questions in total throughout the prescreening process. Judge Reinhardt felt that when questioning Juror B, the lawyer “failed to question him meaningfully about his impartiality or potential biases.” Instead, the Abbott lawyer simply assumed that this potential juror would impartially evaluate the case due to his sexual orientation. In reality it was not correctly discerned whether the Juror would have actually been biased or not. Judge Reinhardt was deeply upset by the presumed discrimination of a juror based on sexual orientation, saying, “gays and lesbians have been systematically excluded from the most important institutions of self governance.”

Eventually, the jurors who were seated at the Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories case ruled in favor of Abbott. However, due to the removal of one potential juror because of his sexual orientation, the 2011 verdict was overturned and the 9th Circuit ordered a new trial, showing that this one simple removal of a juror contains many civic ramifications. Homosexuals will now have more protection within the courts, and hopefully this sphere of equality will decrease discrimination within the legal system and professional world as well.

It is our individual right to be granted a jury of our peers and many of our peers are, in fact, gay, lesbian or of different sexual orientations. It is about time that this basic civil right be extended to include not only those of different races and genders but differing sexual orientations as well.

[abajournal] [washingtonpost] [blogs.findlaw]

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jarek Tuszynski via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Potential Jurors Can No Longer Be Discriminated Against Due To Sexual Orientation appeared first on Law Street.