For the past couple months, residents in the Washington DC metro area have been inundated with almost daily images of missing teen girls on local TV newscasts and on social media. The unprecedented onslaught of missing persons coverage, involving primarily black and hispanic girls, has led locals to wonder what’s going on in the District, inspiring the hashtag #MissingDCGirls.

According to the DC Police Department’s website, there have been a total of 501 missing persons cases involving juveniles in the first three months of 2017. As of Friday, there are currently 22 open missing juvenile cases. While the case volume appears staggering, is it really out of the ordinary? Here’s what you need to know about DC’s missing teens.

Not Just Teen Girls Missing

Well for starters, it’s not just teen girls that are missing. There have been several teen boys reported missing as well, including 14-year-old Jaylen Lee and 14-year-old Navaras Johnson. Lee has been missing since March 18 and Johnson has been missing since February 27. Both boys are labeled as “critical missing.”

Have you seen him? 14 yo Jaylen Lee last seen 1000 b/o Maryland Ave, NE. Text 50411/ call 202-727-9099 #MissingPerson pic.twitter.com/tY5hh7xcLY

— DC Police Department (@DCPoliceDept) March 20, 2017

Viral Instagram Post Got it Wrong

An Instagram post claiming that 14 DC girls had gone missing in a single day went viral across social media on Thursday, sparking outrage.

14 black girls go missing in 24 hrs & I have to rely on Black Twitter to get info cuz mainstream media’s too busy to care. #missingdcgirls

— Shalisa Hayes (@ShalisaHayes) March 24, 2017

While any number of missing teens cases is definitely cause for concern, the police have said that this information is inaccurate. According to NBC Washington, actress Taraji P. Henson, rapper LL Cool J, and hip-hop mogul Russel Simmons were among those who shared the misleading post with their followers. Henson’s post garnered over 38,000 likes and countless comments.

Black Lawmakers Want Action

A group of black members of Congress have requested that the FBI and DOJ look into the missing black and hispanic teens.

In a letter obtained by the Associated Press, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C) called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director James Comey to “devote the resources necessary to determine whether these developments are an anomaly or whether they are indicative of an underlying trend that must be addressed.”

Number of Missing Teens is Actually Normal

While lawmakers are pushing for an investigation, local law enforcement don’t seem as worried by the numbers. At a press conference on March 16, Acting DC Police Chief Newsham, Commander Chanel Dickerson, and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser indicated that the number of missing kids was in fact normal.

“The number of missing person reports has remained constant…what has changed is getting that information out quickly. There is no evidence to suggest there has been an increase in missing persons,”  said Bowser.

Chief Newsham also said that the year-over-year number of missing persons, including juveniles, has held steady, and that there is no known link in D.C. now between missing people and human trafficking.

While the increased social media efforts have certainly made residents more aware of missing teens, they have also increased paranoia about a wider conspiracy.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About DC’s Missing Teens appeared first on Law Street.

Tomorrow, in the nation’s capital, people will have a taste of what the city would be like without a vital part of its community. Immigrants across the city will either skip work or walk out of work to participate in “A Day Without Immigrants,” as The Washingtonian reported.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is meant to put the economic significance of the immigrant community on full display and to protest President Donald Trump’s recent immigration policies. The protest comes during a time in which stories about ICE raids have been reported across the country, including one instance in which a Mexican immigrant in Seattle who had previously been protected from deportation under the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy was detained by ICE agents.

According to The Washingtonian, multiple well-known restaurants such as Compass Rose, Bar Pilar, and Pearl Drive Oyster Palace will stand in solidarity with their employees who are protesting, and will possibly close if they are too short-staffed.

Speaking to The Washingtonian, Compass Rose owner Rose Previte said, “We’re just going to go with what we have that day and tell customers, ‘This is what happens when immigrants don’t come to work.’”

Multiple restaurants and restaurant owners have taken to social media to highlight their solidarity with the striking workers.

In solidarity with our immigrant tribe we will close for the day on Thursday for our staff to join in #ADayWithoutImmigrants.

— Busboys and Poets (@busboysandpoets) February 15, 2017

In support of our people & #ADayWithoutImmigrants Thurs 2/16 we will not open @jaleo DC CC MD, @zaytinya or @oyameldc #ImmigrantsFeedAmerica

— José Andrés (@chefjoseandres) February 14, 2017

Staff & customers from around the world are integral to our business & community. Kitchen will be closed Thursday #ADayWithoutImmigrants

— Ivy and Coney (@ivyandconey) February 15, 2017

Public and charter schools in the District will not be participating in the protest and will function on normal hours, according to The Washington Post. However, schools expect many of their teachers and staff members to participate in the protest.

Per The Washington Post:

The chief of schools for D.C. Public Schools, John Davis, sent a note to principals in the school system saying that while many people may participate in the boycott, school will continue as normal and staff and students are expected to be in attendance.

‘We highly value and are committed to fostering a learning environment where staff and students feel safe and secure and we respect the right to self-expression and peaceful protest,’ the letter says.

Some restaurants that have announced their solidarity with their staff members–like Meridian Pint, which is located in the Columbia Heights neighborhood–are located in areas of D.C. that have a high concentration of Latino immigrants.

The protest was spread through social media and flyers that have appeared around the city.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is similar to the “Day Without Latinos” rally held in Wisconsin yesterday. These rallies aren’t the first immigrant-focused protests that have taken place since President Trump’s inauguration. Earlier this month, Yemeni-owned bodegas around New York City shut down in protest of the travel ban.

For those targeted by the latest Republican divide & conquer, look around and remember this: you are not alone. @daywithoutlatinos pic.twitter.com/1vuF6QZ6Oa

— Chris Larson (@ChrisJLarson) February 13, 2017

In addition, on Friday, a “General Strike Against Trump” is taking place in cities across the country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post D.C. Will Have “A Day Without Immigrants” Protest Tomorrow appeared first on Law Street.

On a quiet Thursday afternoon about 3,000 of Bernie Sanders’ supporters packed into a skatepark outside of RFK Stadium in Washington, DC to watch him rally once again–many likely thinking that this could be their final time to see him before he suspends his campaign.

Image Courtesy of Scott Zimmerman

What was different about Thursday’s speech was, well, nothing. Filled with his normal rhetoric and fiery and inspirational pushes for equal rights and justice for all Americans, Sanders caught the attention of the crowd and continued to push his idea of the “political revolution.”

.@BernieSanders said exactly the right thing. Get through DC, take a break, get with HRC, get to work beating Trump.

— Steve Schale (@steveschale) June 9, 2016

Unfortunately, Sanders did not stray from his talking points and discuss his Thursday meeting with President Barack Obama where he reportedly indicated that he is willing to back the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. He also didn’t bring up the president’s endorsement of Clinton, which occurred just hours before he spoke. He made no mention of any of those events and no mention that it is time to unify as Democrats…instead saying that the results from California aren’t even all in yet.

So if @BernieSanders ultimately wins California (might still happen) & then Washington DC … DNC in Philly will be interesting.

— Ben Goren (@BanGaoRen) June 10, 2016

However, amidst all of the impassioned speeches and cheers from the crowd, you could sense the feeling of denial in Sanders’ voice, and you could feel that it was his last stand.

Instead of using the time and the platform to urge his supporters toward unification of the party, he further polarized them. Chants of “Never Hillary” echoed through the crowd as he spoke about big money in politics. But he is doing his supporters a grave disservice by telling them that there is still hope. The naiveté of the situation is troubling, and is going to leave a lot of die-hard supporters left feeling even more so that the entire system was against them.

Image Courtesy of Scott Zimmerman

Of the many people I met in the crowd, few said they are willing to switch to Clinton. Some said they would even vote for Trump, and many others said they just wouldn’t vote.

Sanders stressed that women (along with other groups) did not used to have the right to vote, yet now his silence–or in some cases contradictory rhetoric–is being inferred by many of his supporters as a signal to not exercise that privilege. By not owning up to the idea that his campaign is coming to a close, he is further hurting Clinton’s chances against Trump. As the Democratic party continues to be divided, it is hard to imagine what November will look like between Clinton and Trump.

Today, as D.C. votes, it will most likely be Sanders’ last day in the race. Even if he does not drop out, it will still signify a deficit that will not be overcome no matter how many times Sanders tries to say more people voted for him. There’s a message here for Sanders: you joined the presidential race to catalyze institutional change, but that does not mean that you can just pretend that there is a secret outcome that has been robbed from you.

Bernie Sanders refuses to concede the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton https://t.co/VB3QxknsOf by @yamiche pic.twitter.com/Byh5UHccBT

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) June 13, 2016

If Sanders chooses to stay and continues to cause division, votes will be split between the Democratic nominee and other parties, giving more power to Trump. So, if Sanders really want to see his political revolution happen, he may need to get a grip and work with Clinton this round until he gets his shot.

Image Courtesy of Scott Zimmerman

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bernie Sanders’ Rhetoric is a Disservice to his Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

Inside the historic Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C. this afternoon, the mainstream press junket packed into a cozy conference room, preparing for a long awaited detailed foreign policy speech from Donald Trump.

Outside, a small group of protestors braved the gray early spring chill to chant and jeer the billionaire businessman, as sleepy cameramen waited around hoping to capture Trump after his speech, which had the presidential hopeful reading from a teleprompter for the first time. (Which according to Twitter, didn’t go all that smoothly).

The protestors held colorful makeshift signs with slogans like: “Love trumps hate” and “stand against Islamophobia.”

Protestors face the gilded doors of the Mayflower Hotel as security looks on. [Image Courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media]

With a backpack slung over his shoulder and his hands cupping his mouth, Justin Scoville led the protestors in a rhythmic chant: “Donald Trump go away, racist, sexist not OK.”

“I don’t really care about his foreign policy,” said Scoville, 26, who was arrested twice last week as a participant of the Democracy Spring protests. “I care about his domestic policy. What he represents domestically I find much more disturbing.” Addressing Trump’s reason for visiting the posh Mayflower–a detailed foreign policy speech–he added: “I think [US foreign policy] will continue no matter who is in office.”

Over wailing sirens and the general cacophony of downtown D.C., the protestors at times banded together shoulder by shoulder in front of the entrance of the hotel, anticipating Trump’s arrival, or bunched up in a tight mass. 

Justin Scoville (center, hands clasped) converses with fellow protestors. [Image Courtesy of Alec Siegel Via Law Street Media]

Beyond the gray concrete exterior of the Mayflower, in front of a group of reporters and cameramen, Trump dove a bit deeper into his broad foreign policy plan. Press members have reported the following details of the speech on Twitter. Various statements by Trump include:

“I would absolutely bring back interrogation.”

“We are going to get rid of ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] and we are going to do it very, very quickly. Believe me.”

“Replace chaos with peace.”

Amid the “Trump=Nazi” signs and young protestors–the Mayflower is blocks away from the George Washington University campus–the number of visible Trump supporters totaled one.

Laurie Saxson did not confront the chilly wind in a sleeveless turquoise dress simply to show support for a more detailed policy vision or a more “presidential” version of Trump.

Laurie Saxson shows her support for Trump, unlike the man in the camouflage jacket behind her. [Image Courtesy of Alec Siegel Via Law Street Media]

“I think he’s great the way he is,” said Saxson, who wore the ubiquitous red “Make America Great Again” hat. Saxson said she felt confident in Trump’s ability to follow through on the promise sewed onto her hat, and reiterated his positions in the same 140-character style of the candidate who hasn’t roused this much excitement in her “since Reagan”: “Strong economy, fight government corruption, and get rid of the illegal alien problem.”

As Saxson stood alone in the chilly air in a silent show of support, the protestors rushed to the curb as the wailing of a motorcade came cruising by, presumably escorting Trump. They stood on their tiptoes and shoved their signs toward the oncoming police cruisers and black SUVs, chanting, “two, four, six, eight, love always trumps hate!”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As Trump Gives Foreign Policy Speech, Protestors Gather In D.C. appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS has officially taken responsibility for the horrific attacks in Paris on Friday that killed a confirmed 129 people, and left hundreds injured. Now, the Islamic extremist group reportedly points to DC as its next target in at least one of its newly released propaganda videos

Reuters obtained and translated a clip of the ISIS video where jihadists warn of a Paris-like attack on American soil saying,

We say to the states that take part in the crusader campaign that, by God, you will have a day, God willing, like France’s and by God, as we struck France in the center of its abode in Paris, then we swear that we will strike America at its center in Washington.

I say to the European countries that we are coming, coming with booby traps and explosives, coming with explosive belts and (gun) silencers and you will be unable to stop us because today we are much stronger than before.

The video has not been authenticated as an imminent threat by U.S. officials, however, its timing and reference to Paris’ highly-orchestrated massacres led many to believe its legitimacy. Some people even offered safe wishes for DC natives via social media.

If you’re in the DC area please be careful and keep yourself updated on everything, ISIS released a video with a direct threat on DC.

— cat mom (@emilyxsnapp) November 16, 2015

Why did Isis have to release that stupid video I’m already always on high alert everywhere I go in DC — high end hetero (@Marximillion_) November 16, 2015

The thought of DC being attacked by ISIS… Smh no words

— ｃｉａｒａ (@bbyxCC) November 16, 2015

Meanwhile, the French President Francois Hollande has declared that his country is at war. Hollande told a joint session of parliament,

We’re not engaged in a war of civilizations, because these assassins do not represent any. We are in a war against jihadist terrorism which is threatening the whole world.

Hollande has also pledged that not only will France not end its U.S.-backed air strikes in Iraq and Syria, but it will intensify them, hoping to lean on the U.S. for support.

During a G20 summit Monday in Antalya, Turkey, President Obama echoed his support for the airstrikes saying that they have been “effective in taking out key members of the terror group’s leadership and that a large presence of ground troops in Syria would be a mistake.” The comments come as some members of the GOP have criticized the president for not implementing a more aggressive U.S. military effort against ISIS. Regardless, the U.S. demonstrating its solidarity with France is crucial in helping the country bounce back from these attacks and hopefully prevent a future one.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS Reportedly Releases Video Threatening Paris-Like Attack on DC appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve lived in Washington, DC for almost five years, and I’ve gotten used to pretty much any kind of disruption to my day because of security concerns. Whether it’s having to walk all the way around the White House complex due to it being shut down for security reasons, or not being able to cross the street because President Obama’s motorcade is coming through, minor interruptions to my day have become the norm. But last month, a man took even the most jaded DC residents, and the country, by surprise when he landed a gyrocopter in front of the U.S. Capitol Building. That man, Doug Hughes, was just indicted on six counts as a result of his misadventures, and could face a sentence of more than nine years in prison if found guilty.

Hughes is 61 and works as a mailman in Ruskin, Florida. He drove the gyrocopter up to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, then flew it to DC and landed it on the Capitol lawn. Hughes was completely aware that what he was doing was against the law; in fact, breaking the law was sort of the point, as it would allow him to attract attention and publicity for his cause. He was trying to deliver 535 letters (one for each member of Congress) to the Capitol building, protesting the power that big money plays in Washington politics. Hughes’ contraption looked like this:

#Gyrocopter pilot due in court today pic.twitter.com/aZOn3exMrb

— 10 News (@WTSP10News) May 21, 2015

The charges against Hughes include two felonies and four misdemeanors. One issue is that he didn’t have any sort of license to operate his “aircraft”–the felony charges are to that effect. The misdemeanor charges include three counts of violating national defense airspace, and for mislabeling his gyrocopter as a mail-delivery vehicle. Regardless of the jail time that Hughes is probably going to serve, he’s received quite a bit of attention for his message as a result of the stunt. When he came back to DC for his hearing, he was met by plenty of supporters. He appeared in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse just a few blocks away from where he landed his gyrocopter this Spring, and pleaded not guilty to the charges. He doesn’t contest that he flew the gyrocopter onto the Capitol lawn, just that he caused no damage when he did so.

#Gyrocopter pilot: “I’ll never do anything like this again, but I would do it exactly the way that I did.”@wusa9 pic.twitter.com/0RPHwliqaZ

— Andrea McCarren (@AndreaMcCarren) May 21, 2015

He also pledged to continue his fight against the influence of money in politics, and to continue to educate voters. Hughes stated:

Over time, the Congress, our Congress, has rewritten the rules to define an open marriage: They’re in bed with lobbyists, special interests, Wall Street and big banks. We are not asking, we are demanding that our government honor the vows of fidelity implicit in the Constitution…As long as I am free, I am going to keep introducing voters to solutions to the problems of corruption that the vast majority of voters recognize and oppose.

While Hughes certainly seems passionate about his cause, and did receive attention for the gyrocopter stunt, violating multiple laws really isn’t a great way to make a compelling argument for a cause, no matter how worthy the it is. Unfortunately for Hughes his actions, and the legal issues he’s going to have moving forward, probably won’t do much to advance his cause in the end.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Who Landed Gyrocopter Near Capitol Building Indicted appeared first on Law Street.

Waze is a popular application that provides information to drivers about the best route to take, and utilizes user-generated information to alert drivers to where cops are located. Because of this feature, Waze has encountered criticism from various police forces and the government; however, that same technology is now enabling Waze to partner with the city of Los Angeles for the greater good.

Instead of just providing drivers with the fastest way to get from point A to point B or warning them to slow down because of speed traps, Waze will now also provide alerts to users about hit-and-run incidences as well as kidnappings, in order to try to crowd source aid. The app may also be used to provide other information to Los Angeles users, such as notifications about road closures or other delays. Additionally, Waze could create a way for users to interact with the city, such as features that allow reporting downed lights or other things that need to be taken care of by the government.

This partnership was announced by Mayor Eric Garcetti in his recent State of the City speech, and spokespeople working for Waze have said that they’re happy to be working with the city of Los Angeles. The company was purchased by Google in 2013 and has continued to grow rapidly. While Waze is working with other cities as well, such as Boston and Washington D.C., this new move to partner with L.A. seems to be very extensive, and is a big get for Waze. De-Ann Eisnor stated about the new partnership, “We are very, very excited that Los Angeles is doing this. It’s huge for us.”

It’s also a good move for the city. Overall, some ten percent of its residents use the application. Los Angeles actually has the highest population of Waze users in the United States, at around 13.1 million, and the second highest population in the world, after Sao Paolo. It’s important to keep in mind however, that Los Angles and Sao Paolo are very big cities–the city with the highest proportion of Waze users is Tel Aviv, where Waze was founded. Adding more public safety features to the app in L.A. may up the user count there even more.

This new partnership probably won’t go all the way toward assuaging concerns that police officers, or governments, have over the app. The fact that it can provide information about the whereabouts of police officers certainly can be viewed as concerning. That being said, with all the potential for public benefit, Waze seems like it can end up doing a lot more good than harm.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Waze App and Los Angeles Announce Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

A few months back I wrote a story about “California Police Officers Found Stealing Suspects’ Nude Photos.” It centered around a few cops in Contra Costa County, California who were stealing nude photos off of female suspects’ cellphones while those cellphones were in police custody. They would share the pictures among themselves, and then discuss and rank the women, rendering it a kind of perverted “game.” Well, when I wrote that piece, I kind of expected that this wouldn’t be the only example we heard of such disgusting behavior. I expected a similar story to pop up in another city or state. I was right–although it happened a little closer to home than I anticipated. Similar allegations are now being waged against a police officer in my city of Washington, D.C.

An Alexandria woman named Natalia Argote has filed a lawsuit against the Washington D.C. Police Department (MPD) and the cop in question, Terrence Richardson. According to Washington City Paper Richardson no longer works for MPD.

The suit claims that Argote was stopped by Richardson and another officer on March 3, 2012 on suspicions of driving under the influence. Her phone and drivers license were taken from her, which seems like a normal enough procedure. One of the officers administered a sobriety tested, while the officer went through her phone. She claims that he saw a nude photo she had taken for her boyfriend, and without her consent sent it to himself.

Argote’s suit doesn’t just claim that it was Richardson who violated her rights. She claims that this is a pervasive problem in the ranks of the MPD. The suit states:

On information and belief, MPD officers regularly rifle through the phones of female citizens without their permission or a warrant, searching for salacious photos.

On information and belief, MPD officers regularly share the salacious photos with each other and individuals outside the MPD.

On information and belief, on March 3, 2012, MPD was aware that its officers were conducting warrantless searches of female citizens’ phones and sharing the photos they stole; yet, it took no action to stop and correct its officers.

Whether or not Argote and her lawyer, Latif Doman, will be able to prove those claims remains to be seen. It will also be interesting to see why Richardson doesn’t work with the MPD anymore–whether it has anything to do with these allegations, or other misconduct, or whether he left voluntarily. As of yet, the MPD does not appear to have commented on the lawsuit.

When I first heard about the admittedly very similar California case, I was outraged, and I reacted similarly when I heard about this one. If what Argote alleges is true, she has every right to sue for an unfair search and violation of privacy. Being pulled over doesn’t mean that you lose all rights. Hopefully, MPD is about to learn that first hand.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post D.C. Cop Accused of Stealing Nude Photos After Woman Pulled Over appeared first on Law Street.

I’m writing this from Washington D.C. As many of you know, as of 12:00am Thursday, recreational marijuana became legal in our Nation’s Capital. Things will never be the same. Our Congresspeople are lounging on the steps of the Capitol, smoking joints. (This hasn’t affected their productivity–it has remained dismal.) All of the CVSes are out of Doritos. The National Mall looks like modern day Woodstock. It’s the end of this city as we know it.

Just kidding. Everything is still normal. Although it did snow in D.C.–a rarity for late February–I don’t think that had to do anything with recreational marijuana becoming legal. No, everything here in D.C. is basically the same. The line at Starbucks was still too long. The metro is a fiery pit of despair. My hallway still smells like weed–although I guess we shouldn’t be as surprised by that one.

Regardless though, nothing has changed, but it is now legal to smoke, possess, and grow recreational pot in D.C., with some obviously pretty heavy restrictions. But, given D.C.’s status, it’s kind of a mess.

D.C. is a unique place, to say the least. For a long time there was almost no ability to self-govern–an attitude left over from the idea that D.C. was to be the city where our federal government was located and little else. We did receive some limited home rule in the 1970s, but there’s still a lot in D.C. that’s controlled by everyone’s favorite group of whiny toddlers–Congress.

Now, weed became legal because a pretty sizable majority of the population of the District of Columbia voted to legalize it during the 2014 midterms. The ballot measure was named “Initiative 71.” However, unlike the states that have approved the legalization of recreational marijuana, D.C. has had to wait to figure out if our votes actually allow us to control the legislation of our own city. (I’m clearly not bitter.) Basically, we had to wait and see if Congress would step in and stop the legalization of weed. It didn’t–or at least not in so many words, though we’ll get to that later–so we’re in the clear, right? If only. There are still a lot of complicated, absurd things happening here in D.C. with regard to the legalization of marijuana, and here are a few of the most pressing:

D.C. Has a Lot of Federal Land

D.C. has two kind of distinctive parts to it–there’s federal land and then there’s the land that’s occupied by the city and by private residences, businesses, and buildings. Initiative 71 obviously only legalized weed on non-federal land. Although you can’t smoke in public anywhere, you can have it on your person without it being against the law.

While that sounds pretty straightforward, it’s not. In D.C. Twenty-nine percent of the land is actually federal–including parks, monuments, and buildings. With a few exceptions, every time that two diagonal streets meet, a park, square, or circle is formed. And all of those grassy areas are federal land–meaning they’re not good “grassy” areas, if you catch my drift. Here’s what the map of D.C. looks like if you mark all the federal land–it’s in green in the map below.

Watch your step. Weed will be legal in D.C. but not on 29% of city that is federal land. Map http://t.co/5tOfIZi33Zpic.twitter.com/kKOWCKy3bN

— Mary Pat Flaherty (@marypatflaherty) February 24, 2015

So unless you want to memorize that map, be careful, and be prepared take some weird routes home.

D.C.’s Weed Legalization Expects Everyone to be Very Generous

So, what D.C. legalized is actually kind of weird–it didn’t set up any sort of parameters to sell recreational marijuana. So you can have recreational weed, but you can’t buy or sell it. You can, however, gift it, or receive it as a gift. So, there will be a lot of “gifts” happening, presumably.

Congress is Still Freaking Out

The situation with Congress right now is very complicated. There’s basically an argument over whether or not what D.C. is doing is legal. In a federal spending bill, Congress had included a measure preventing D.C. from using money to “enact” marijuana legalization. That, however, isn’t what D.C. is doing. There really isn’t any money being used–not arresting people for possessing marijuana doesn’t cost anything. Furthermore, it may have already been “enacted” when it passed in November, so that measure, passed later, wouldn’t apply. It just depends a lot on your definition of enacted. Congress could still act, but right now it’s all up in the air.

So, that’s the news from here in the District. Whether or not legalized marijuana is here to stay is yet to be seen. Everyone’s confused, avoiding public parks, and Congress is being a pain, so it’s basically just business as usual here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Absurdity of D.C. Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Law Street.

It’s that time of the year again: yesterday the Obama administration released a proposed budget for the next fiscal year. As always, it made waves, sparked plenty of political statements from both sides of the aisle, and will take a while to get sorted out. There are some interesting provisions included in this budget though–one of the most notable is that it may allow Washington D.C. to finally move forward with the recreational marijuana legalization initiative that was passed in November.

Obama’s support for Washington D.C.’s ability to legalize recreational marijuana is incredibly subtle. In fact, it’s so subtle that it pretty much hinges on one word included in the budget: federal.

How can one small word have such a large impact on the ability of a city with roughly 650,000 people to enact a law? Well, there’s a lot of background that needs to be considered. D.C. residents voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November, with a huge margin–roughly 65 percent–in favor. The way that D.C.’s ability to pass laws is set up is very complicated, and has changed numerous times, but at the end of the day, Congress usually has final say.

Many Republicans, as well as some others in Congress, were unhappy with the idea of the nation’s capitol legalizing marijuana, so when Congress made a funding bill, it included wording that pretty much blocked D.C. from moving forward with the initiative. It stated that no funds could be used to enact the legalized marijuana initiative in the District of Columbia. Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz explained the logic behind the block, saying:

Looking at the Constitution, Washington, D.C. is different. They are not a state and we have a role to play and the Congress passed this. I respect the people who live here and most everything passes through without a problem. But the idea that this is going to be a haven for pot smoking, I can’t support that

But Obama’s budget deviated from that slightly with the use of that one word: “federal.” Obama’s budget states that no federal funds can be used to implement the law. The distinction there is it doesn’t preclude D.C. from using local funds to do so.

There’s obviously no guarantee that the changed language will end up having any effect on whether or not legalized recreational marijuana actually happens in Washington D.C. However, it does show Obama’s continued support for the autonomy of Washington residents. This last July, Obama became the first sitting president to endorse D.C. statehood, saying:

I think I’ve long believed that D.C. pays — folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else. They should be represented [in Congress] like everybody else. And it’s not as if Washington, D.C., is not big enough compared to other states. There has been a long movement to get D.C. statehood, and I’ve been for it for quite some time.

While there are a lot of debates over D.C. statehood, and the exact rights that should be afforded to the city, the fact that Obama supports the ability for the city to do as its residents please has been made pretty crystal clear. The insertion of the word “federal” in the budget as it relates to the legalization of marijuana in D.C., as small as it may seem, is just the most recent example.

There’s no way to make any sort of clear prediction what will happen with the D.C. effort to legalize recreational marijuana–there are just too many moving parts right now. If Obama’s budget remains as is, and prohibits federal but not local funds from being used, recreational marijuana could soon be a fixture in D.C. The ball is now in Congress’s court.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Budget Could Help D.C. Implement Legalized Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

For those of you keeping track, Chris Brown has landed himself in legal trouble for at least the third time since his assault of then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009. This time the R&B singer found himself in court because of a recent performance he gave at the Fiesta Nightclub in San Jose, California. The terms of Brown’s probation require him to get permission before leaving Los Angeles County; however, he didn’t do that, and instead traveled over 300 miles outside of the county for the January 11 show.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James R. Brandlin revoked Brown’s probation yesterday in light of the unapproved travel, as well as the fact that Brown is still 200 hours short of completing the required community service component of his plea agreement. Probation revocation isn’t necessarily a go-directly-to-jail card; judges have several different options at their disposal in this type of situation, including requiring entry into some type of treatment program or adding additional time onto the length of probation, among other things. In Brown’s case, Brandlin is allowing the singer to remain free at least until March when another hearing in the matter is scheduled.

Brown’s attorney Mark Geragos–known for representing celebrity defendants, including Michael Jackson and notorious wife-killer Scott Peterson–claimed that Brown’s unauthorized travel was not in fact the singer’s fault, but rather that Geragos’ office provided him with bad information on this particular term of his probation.

Brown’s probation dates back to the infamous incident with Rihanna following the Grammys in 2009, when he choked, punched, and bit her. Since his arrest and subsequent plea agreement in that case, Brown has not stayed out of legal trouble. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault last year after being arrested for punching a man outside his Washington, DC hotel. He was sentenced to time already served after spending two days in jail; however, because he was already on probation for assaulting Rihanna he received 131 days in jail as a result of the new guilty plea. He was also ordered to enter rehab as a result of this incident, but he was kicked out for violating the center’s rules before finishing the four-month program. He was also charged in a hit-and-run incident in early 2013, but the charges were later dropped.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chris Brown is Back in Court…Again appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As you probably know, marijuana is now legal for recreational use in Colorado and Washington, and soon it will be legal in Alaska and Oregon, along with possibly Washington, D.C. pending Congressional approval.

I was surprised to see recently that the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law will be offering a class on the laws of marijuana beginning in January 2015. Created by professor Sam Kamin, the course is called “Representing the Marijuana Client” and it intended to instruct law students on how to represent parties in cases involving marijuana as a result of the wave of state legalizations. According to Kamin, “topics covered will include regulatory compliance, criminal defense, contract, banking, tax, real estate, and multidisciplinary practice. It’s not going to be a joke.”

I don’t think that this class is a joke at all. In fact, I love the idea! Obviously it is legal now in several places and people will need to know their rights–or really their lawyers will need to know their rights. It’s what they are paid to do!

I am in the process of applying to law schools, and before applying I took a very long time to see what various schools had to offer. I love a program that can separate itself from others and really show that it cares about the future lawyers it’s teaching. The University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law is able to recognize times are changing and so should some of its courses. Taking a class on the legalization of marijuana is vital to the lawyers and citizens of the states where it is legalized. Knowing your rights is the best way to stay out of trouble!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sturm College of Law Changes With Times, Offers Marijuana Class appeared first on Law Street.

The midterms are finally over (thank God/the universe/Oprah) so now we can all go back to real life. Just kidding — it’s practically presidential election time. Your attention span and patience are ready for that, right? Well before you get into that, take a look at some of the top stores from Law Street last week that you might have missed in all the excitement. It was a clean sweep for writer Anneliese Mahoney who wrote all three of the top articles on Law Street last week. Number one is Mahoney’s take on Taylor Swift’s latest album and her decision to pull all her work from popular streaming music site Spotify; number two is an in-depth look at the three states with major marijuana legislation on last Tuesday’s ballots; and number three was a shout out who is generally accepted as the country’s youngest new elected official, Saira Blair of West Virginia. ICYMI, take a look at Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1: Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together?

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there. Read full article here.

#2: States to Watch Today: Marijuana on the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, and DC

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Read full article here.

#3: Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States. At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official. Two more states — Oregon and Alaska — have joined Colorado and Washington in legalizing marijuana.

Oregon’s Measure 91 had a convincing victory, winning approximately 54 percent of the vote. Like Washington and Colorado, Oregon will now allow regulated and taxed sales of marijuana to adults. Stores will probably come sometime in 2016, a timeline consistent with those that Colorado and Washington set for themselves previously.

Ballot Measure 2 passed in Alaska by a margin of roughly 52-48 percent. In 90 days it will become the law of the state, and the state will create mechanisms to regulate the use and sale of legalized recreational marijuana. Alaska has long had a lax view on marijuana laws — a 1975 court decision legalized very small amounts in the home, although it was incredibly narrow and not really followed. In addition, Alaskans have tried a few times to get legal marijuana on the ballot, voting on the issue in 2000 and 2004. While both measures obviously failed, Alaska has certainly had a storied and complicated history with marijuana legalization.

And then, of course, there’s D.C. Our nation’s capital legalized recreational marijuana use, although not the sale of marijuana. There’s confusion over what this actually means, though. Congress technically has oversight over the District, and it can take measures to basically make sure that nothing ever comes out of the passage of this initiative. D.C.’s ability to actually govern itself and the people who live within its borders is notoriously limited. No one can do anything to stop the 735,000 people who live in Alaska from legalizing marijuana, but D.C.’s 650,000 are prohibited by officials they didn’t even elect. That’s why there’s a big question mark next to D.C. — no one really knows what will happen here.

As fascinating as the wins were for the future of marijuana legalization, it’s also interesting to look at what they mean for the overall scheme of American politics. Democrats lost last night on pretty much every level. Some marijuana legalization was one of the very few things that Democrats support that made it through. But what’s important to remember about marijuana legalization is that it’s not so much a Democratic value, it’s also a very Libertarian issue. There are reasons for both Democrats and Libertarians to support marijuana legalization, which may have been one of the reasons that it passed. It’s a strange phenomenon, as 538‘s Ben Casselman tweeted:

So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.

— Ben Casselman (@bencasselman) November 5, 2014

So, the success of marijuana legalization in an election where so many other Democratic measures failed could mean a few things. It could mean that the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is really becoming sort of a dark horse among Millennials who are frustrated with the way that Democrats have been running the country, but aren’t willing to align with the Republican base or the Tea Party on most social issues. Or it could just mean that Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia really enjoy getting high and don’t mind the increase in taxes that comes with the legalization of marijuana. Either way, it will be interesting to see if anything at all comes of the measure in D.C., as well as which states will be next to hop on the marijuana legalization bus.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oregon and Alaska Legalize Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Check out the infographic below, based on information from Measure 91 in Oregon, Ballot Measure 2 in Alaska, and Ballot Initiative 71 in DC.

Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia aren’t the only places considering marijuana legalization today. The cities of Lewistown and South Portland, Maine, are going to vote on whether or not to legalize it — Portland, Maine has already made it legal for adults to own less than an ounce of the substance. In addition, votes continue on legalizing medical marijuana. If the initiative currently up for a vote in Florida passes, it would make the Sunshine State the twenty-fourth to legalize marijuana, as well as the first southern state.

Regardless of how these particular measures do, there’s a good chance that we’ll see more states starting to legalize marijuana in the very near future. The national opinion on marijuana has changed rapidly. Polls fluctuate, but the amount of Americans who believe legalizing marijuana would be in the best interest of the nation hovers around 50 percent. In addition, most Americans don’t think that jail time should be served for small amounts of marijuana, which is now very much a “soft” drug; it doesn’t receive the same kind of punishment as more addictive and harmful drugs.

The progress in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia might not mean that we suddenly see a large wave of marijuana legalization across the country — it will still be illegal under federal law. But it will be interesting to see if any other states join Colorado and Washington this year.

Editor’s note: The infographic in this article was updated November 5, 2014 to reflect each vote’s outcome.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States to Watch Today: Marijuana Laws On the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, DC appeared first on Law Street.

I walked off the Woodley Metro yesterday at 5:30 pm and was kind of surprised to see Connecticut Avenue completely deserted at the height of rush hour.  All cars had been cleared from the street. No traffic. No parked cars. Completely quiet.

What in the world was happening?

Word soon was out: President Obama would be passing through.

Last summer, President Obama exulted in his ideal-for-the-evening-newscasts forays beyond the White House. Ice cream. Starbucks. “The Bear is loose!” But things are different now. Fence jumpers. Ottawa shootings. This is what it looks like when The Bear is loose today. Clear the streets. Eerie quiet at the height of rush hour. Nobody moves.

The President drove up and back yesterday afternoon to a private $32,400-a-seat fundraiser at the estate of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and his wife, Sharon. The Rockefeller estate is a little bit north of Woodley, at 2121 Park Road adjacent to Rock Creek Park. Press was excluded from this event, and no info was listed on the official White House daily schedule.

I decided to stay put and wait to see how the Presidential motorcade was rolling now, a day after the killings in Ottawa and the ongoing White House fence jumpings.

The answer: These days the Bear rolls very quietly, in a traffic-free bubble.

I took this cell-phone video:

Here is the order of the motorcade:
9 DC cops on motorcycles.  Followed by…
1 DC cop car.  Followed by…
1 Secret Service SUV…
The Presidential limo, aka “Cadillac One”…
1 back-up limo traveling alongside Cadillac One…
3 more Secret Service SUVs…
The Secret Service “War Wagon” housing a counter-assault SWAT team…
2 more Secret Service Vans…
Another Secret Service SUV
1 DC Fire Department ambulance (only Obama gets this; not Biden)…
And finally…
2 more DC cop cars.

About 10 minutes after the motorcade passed, presumably after the Bear was back at the White House, ordinary citizens were once again allowed on Connecticut Avenue.
—

John A. Jenkins (@JenkinsAuthor) is Founder and CEO of Law Street Media.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Crimmings via Flickr]

John A. Jenkins

John A. Jenkins is Founder & CEO of Law Street Media. Contact John at jjenkins@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the Bear Rolls Now appeared first on Law Street.

For the last few days a video has been making its way through certain circles of the internet. One of our bloggers, the awesome Allison Dawson, even wrote a piece about it entitled, “9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly for These GW Students.” The video is a handful of students from The George Washington University here in D.C. answering a few questions on current events. The interviewer is Ashley Pratte, a spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s right here:

Now before I continue, full disclosure here. I’m a recent GW alum. I still have some school spirit. I had a great time at GW, made some of my best friends there, and will always be thankful for the opportunities I was offered. That being said, there are plenty of things that I will always slam GW for — looking at you former GW President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg for making offensive comments about rape into a particularly lurid art form. When it comes to this video though, I’m going to stand with my alma mater.

The tactics that YAF used were cheap, gotcha journalism. It seems like they came in with a hypothesis — students at a mostly liberal university that’s often named one of the most politically active schools in the country are a shining example of how today’s young people are ignorant about world events. I mean come on, the video started with the interviewer standing in front of kegs being unloaded. I’m sure that was just the most convenient place to stand, and not at all an entirely unsubtle reference to the fact that occasionally college kids drink rather than watch CNN.

And then let’s think about the questions they asked: 9/11, ISIS, and the celebrity nude photo leak. The phrasing of the 9/11 question was vague at best: “Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?” I was an international affairs major, so I’m just going to need you guys to believe me when I say I know a fair bit about 9/11. But to be honest, I don’t know I would have gotten that question right. I am a self-sufficient adult, yet I came really damn close to not realizing my birthday was coming up a few weeks ago. That’s not a fair question — ask me what major national event is coming up next week and I’m pretty sure my response is going to be “remind me what dates are next week?” A fairer question would have included at least an attempt at context, for example, “What major national event falls in the second week of September?” or an actually substantive question, such as “What happened on September 11, 2001?” or “Who committed the acts of terror against the U.S.?” Should more students have gotten the question right as it was? Probably. But is it fair to conclude from a vaguely worded question that those students don’t know what 9/11 is, or remember it? Hardly.

And let’s talk about the sample size used in this “study.” Thirty students who were put completely on the spot while cameras were rolling…out of a population of roughly 24,000, including grad students… who were randomly found on campus. Congrats, that’s a statistically negligible sample size of .00125 percent! Listen, if YAF had gone ahead and conducted a legitimate survey of a real sample size and gotten the same results, I’d be embarrassed on behalf of my alma mater. But this is just silly. Grabbing students on their way home from class or work, asking them poorly contextualized questions, and then watching your hypothesis come true is hardly good journalism.

What this was was a poorly laid trap.

Out of curiosity, I actually tracked down one of the students in the video. Noah Katz, a freshman in GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs, told me that while Pratte was very polite, he though the question about 9/11 was weirdly phrased. Katz told me, “they asked what landmark United States event is having its anniversary in the next coming weeks. I immediately thought about things like Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education.” 

Finally, let’s stop and think for a minute here. Even if some students don’t know the names of the journalists beheaded by ISIS, but do know that Jennifer Lawrence had her nude photos leaked, does that really tell us anything about them as people? You could play this game with anything. If you tracked me down on the street and asked me about music or physics, my answers would probably be pretty embarrassing. One of the greatest things about my college experience was that i was exposed to people from different backgrounds, different political affiliations, and with different interests, hobbies, and priorities than myself. That’s how real life is, that’s how America is, and that’s OK.

Yes, we should all strive our best to be informed, but a three-minute video on the street with 30 students and blatantly biased techniques doesn’t do much to convince me that we’re doing a bad job of that. Instead of tearing each other down for some gaps in knowledge, let’s celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we have the freedom to have those kinds of differences.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Response: Stupid GW Students or Gotcha Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to alcohol, the laws regulating when someone is “over the limit” are pretty easy to remember. For drivers over 21, the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit in all 50 states is .08. For most of us, that means roughly one drink per hour. But as some states legalize recreational use of marijuana, and others allow its use for medical purposes, defining driving under the influence is becoming increasingly difficult.

One of the big problems is that we don’t quite know how badly marijuana affects driving. Experts point out that it’s obviously bad to drive when any senses are impaired — but we still allow people to have a drink before they drive, because a safe threshold has been determined. That threshold hasn’t really been identified for marijuana use yet.

Marijuana users are definitely impaired. Reaction times for example, are usually slower. But unlike those who have had alcohol, people under the influence of marijuana are usually more aware of that impairment. They are more likely to be cautious and compensate for their dulled senses. Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is working on a study to figure out how exactly smoking marijuana can affect driving. In states that do allow marijuana, whether or not the legalization has led to more fatal crashes is virtually impossible to determine. Some studies claim that it has, others say that there’s no correlation. With such a small sample population, as well as so many other contributing factors to automobile accidents, it’s just too soon to tell what effect marijuana use has on driving conditions as a whole.

The states that have legalized marijuana, or allow it for medical purposes, have attempted to institute some parameters. For example, Colorado has set the DUI limit for marijuana intoxication at 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. Some people worry, however, that it’s too early to appropriately determine such limits, and that until we can do so, a limit like Colorado’s is arbitrary. The Marijuana Policy Project stated:

The inability to accurately measure marijuana impairment is why both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have stated that marijuana impairment testing via blood sampling is unreliable.

The main complaint stems from the fact that there’s no good way to easily test marijuana intoxication. When someone is pulled over and suspected of driving while drunk, there are small breathalyzers that can be used to determine BAC. No comparative tool has been invented for marijuana intoxication at this point. There is apparently a very preliminary marijuana breathalyzer being created by a Canadian police officer; he has named it the “Cannabix.” It’s still in the very preliminary stages, and scientists aren’t sure about the efficiency or accuracy of a breath-based marijuana test.

As more states move toward the legalization of marijuana — currently there are serious pushes in Alaska, Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, and Washington D.C. — the question of marijuana DUIs needs an answer. Zero tolerance policies seem tough, especially with the now relatively common use of medical marijuana. But how much marijuana in your blood is too much? Scientists will have to tell us — hopefully the new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study will provide us with some answers.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana DUIs: How Much Weed is Too Much to Drive? appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Environmental and Energy Law: #4 Georgetown University Law Center appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Ingfbruno via WikiMedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Environmental and Energy Law: #5 The George Washington University Law School appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama stirred up an old debate recently by becoming the first sitting president to endorse statehood for the District of Columbia. Obama expressed his full support: “I’m in DC, so I’m for it…Folks in DC pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well being of the country like everybody else. There has been a long movement to get DC statehood, and I’ve been for it for quite some time.”

Here’s what you need to know about Washington DC’s contentious battle for statehood, what it would mean for District residents, and what impact it would have on the country.

Why was the District of Columbia created?

To understand the arguments for statehood, you have to understand the history of Washington, DC. The District of Columbia was specifically created to house the federal government. The authors of the Constitution wanted to house the federal government in its own jurisdiction after witnessing the problems of having the nation’s temporary capital in Philadelphia. The decision was made in 1787 following an incident in which the governor of Pennsylvania refused to disperse rioters threatening Congress in Philadelphia. The framers did not want the federal government to be subject to any decisions of a specific state or governor. So, the delegates wrote Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to outline Congress’ control over the district:

“[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.”

Congress moved to a new federal capital in 1800, and the District still stands today on land ceded by Maryland. Residents of the District face a number of unique circumstances because it is not a state.

Originally, DC residents were barred from voting for president. It was not until 1961 that the passage of the 23rd Amendment finally secured three electoral votes for the District. DC residents also elect one non-voting member to the House of Representatives.

The District of Columbia has operated under a system of Home Rule since 1973 as a way to better govern local affairs. Home rule means that DC is allowed a local government, including a directly elected mayor and city council. Still, Congress has the ultimate authority and the power to overturn any laws passed by the local government.

Why do people push for DC statehood?

Right to Vote

Residents of DC express outrage that they pay federal and local taxes, are subject to the same laws as everyone else, fight in wars, and serve on juries, yet they lack the same Congressional representation. The argument is also made that this disenfranchisement comes from a legacy of racism aimed at the District’s majority African-American population. Those in favor of statehood want the full rights of being an American citizen, which includes full representation in Congress as well as full control over local affairs. In addition to lacking voting power, DC’s representative in Congress is denied a federal salary and an office. License plates in DC decry residents’ lack of status with the slogan “Taxation without Representation.” Watch President Obama’s remarks on DC statehood below:

Local Control

Many citizens are fed up with the limitations of DC’s Home Rule. Since Congress can overturn any law, it has exerted its power on a number of issues passed by DC residents. Congress has intervened to restrict abortions, to prevent restrictions on firearm ownership, and even to control marijuana issues. Congress has also barred DC from using local tax dollars on specific things, such as statehood advocacy and needle exchange programs.

Taxes

Citizens claim they do not have enough financial resources to pay for high-quality public services. Although DC is not a state, it has all the financial burdens of one. It provides local services, like public schools and a police force, but it also provides services typically dealt with at the state level, like mental health and Medicaid. DC has limited taxing powers. The District cannot tax income earned within its borders by non-residents, even though all other states have that power. Two-thirds of income in the District is made by people who do not live in the District, yet they pay no income tax.  Additionally, the federal government, embassies, and non-profits that occupy most of DC pay no property, sales, or income taxes. The small size of the city and disproportionate number of low-income workers with higher needs for public services strain the District financially. Still, DC residents pay the highest federal taxes per capita.

Growing Population

Washington DC’s fast-growing population of approximately 650,000 — larger than Wyoming or Vermont — is large enough to make it a state. According to the Washington Peace Center, DC as a state could bring in more than $2 billion a year in additional revenue. This would allow the local government to cut taxes and better fund schools and services. Freeing itself from Congressional oversight would also make the district more efficient. Watch more about the DC statehood movement below.

Shutdowns

The 16-day federal government shutdown during Fall 2013 illustrated issues with DC dependency on federal funds and approval. DC Mayor Grey did not shut down local services but suspended some payments so the city could remain operational. Mayor Grey warned that vital city services were dangerously close to ending as the city’s emergency funds were depleted. Allowing DC the autonomy of statehood would prevent these issues in the event of a federal government shutdown.

Legally, how would statehood be achieved?

Despite President Obama’s supportive statement, making DC a state is unfortunately not within his power. There are a couple of avenues that the District of Columbia could take to obtain statehood.

Constitutional Amendment

There is some debate as to whether an amendment could make DC an official state, but it could definitely give DC’s residents much greater rights and further define the area of the federal district. Two-thirds of Congress would have to approve a matching constitutional amendment. Alternately, two-thirds of state legislatures could call a Constitutional Convention. The amendment would then be sent to the states for ratification by three-fourths. Naturally this process would be very difficult. A proposed amendment in 1985 to give DC more voting power was only ratified by 16 states in the allotted seven-year span. Further, critics point out that any constitutional amendment could later be repealed.

Law

Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution outlines the creation of new states.

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Under this section, an act of Congress could make DC its own state with a simple majority vote and signature from the President. This was the same process followed by Hawaii and Alaska as recently as 1959. There is some question as to whether Maryland would need to approve statehood, since DC was formed on land from Maryland. Still, bills are introduced to Congress nearly every year, but none has been brought to a vote since 1993. Most Congressional leaders like the idea of admitting states as pairs, so there is a good chance any vote to make DC a state would also include a bid of statehood for Puerto Rico.

Proposals for giving DC Congressional representation are much more common than bills for complete statehood. These bills have not been met with success. Some contend that giving District residents the right to vote may not even be within Congress’ power.

What are the current proposals?

Previous campaigns for statehood have referred to the new state as “New Columbia,” and the name is still associated with the movement today. The New Columbia Admissions Act was introduced in 2013 before failing to make it out of committee. The Act closely follows the proposed constitution ratified by DC voters in 1982. The plan would create a new state while still keeping a much smaller area of DC a federal district. The area of the federal district would shrink substantially, but would include all important federal buildings like the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court. The Constitution sets an upper limit on the size of the District at 10 square miles, but no lower limit is set. All of the other residential land currently in DC would then become the 51st state. New Columbia would be granted the same rights as any other state in the Union.

To advance its agenda, the District of Columbia still selects members to a shadow congressional delegation that lobbies Congress to grant statehood and voting rights. The positions were authorized by a “state” constitution in 1982 authorized by voters, but this delegation is still not recognized by Congress. Numerous groups in DC continue to lobby for statehood. Watch DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton speak on statehood below.

What are the arguments against statehood?

In Federalist No. 43, James Madison argued that the District of Columbia needed to be independent for maintenance and safety concerns. Madison wrote,

“A dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Arguments against statehood today follow similar lines. Americans are concerned that the federal government would be dependent on a single state to cover its security and general operations. With such great power, a state could restrict the federal government in ways that would not be beneficial to the rest of the nation. However, the plan to keep important governmental buildings as a federal district largely mitigates these concerns.

The uniqueness of the DC area makes statehood very difficult politically. Some of the arguments opponents have:

• Similar to all states with relatively small populations, DC’s small size and population would give it an unfair influence in politics.
• The liberal area would be a stronghold for Democrats, and DC would always send Democrats to Congress.
• The interests of the District would be dominated by the federal government, since it would be the state’s largest employer by far.
• The state would be the only one without rural residents. This means the representatives would share none of the interests held by non-urban areas.
• A state could enact a commuter tax on non-residents who come to the state to work. Such a tax is currently banned under Home Rule.
• The constitutional question of whether the state of Maryland would have to consent to the new state, since the district was formed on land granted by Maryland.
• Some people flat out do not want to witness a strange-looking flag with 51 stars. But not to worry, numerous 51-star flags have already been designed, and they don’t look too bad.

Courtesy of jacobolus via Wikipedia

Are there any other alternatives to statehood?

Most citizens in favor of DC statehood oppose settling for anything less. Some propose bills to grant voting representation to members of DC, such as simply allowing DC’s representative in the House of Representatives the power to vote. Others worry these laws could be undone by the next Congress — and Congress may not even have the authority to make such a law.

Others propose some sort of tie with Maryland. This could mean parts of DC being given back to Maryland. However, neither Maryland nor DC really want to merge. A less drastic solution is Congress restoring the voting rights of District residents by allowing them to vote as a part of Maryland while maintaining the integrity of the District. Still, residents want voting as well as increased autonomy over local affairs.

Issues over DC statehood will not soon be resolved unless residents can be better provided some method of true representation. Most recently in the never-ending saga of DC residents, issues arose with DC driver’s licenses not being considered a valid form of ID by uninformed TSA agents. The good news is DC statehood would likely make the lives of TSA agents much easier.

Resources

Primary

Senate: New Columbia Admission Act

The District of Columbia: Statehood

Additional

Week: Obama Endorses Statehood for Washington, DC

Daily Caller: Obama Endorses DC Statehood

Huffington Post: Let’s Settle This Once and for All: DC Statehood is Constitutional

New Columbia: Vision

Brookings: If the District of Columbia Becomes a State: Fiscal Implications

Neighbors United for DC Statehood: FAQs

Mother Jones: DC: The 51st State?

Washington Post: Budget Deal Reminds DC That Congress is Still in Charge

Washington Peace Center: DC Statehood: A Primer

Brookings: A Sound Fiscal Footing for the Nation’s Capital

Hill: Denying DC Statehood Continues Federal Overreach

Smithsonian Magazine: Designing a 51-State Flag

Hill: DC Delegate to Meet with TSA

Leadership Coalition: Why DC Voting Rights Matter

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 51st State: What DC Statehood Would Mean for the Country appeared first on Law Street.

The nation’s capital is not having a good summer.

Just weeks after Congress tried to overturn a few of D.C.’s laws, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled that the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public is unconstitutional.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because this is the second time that a court has overturned a D.C. gun law in the past six years. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the district’s 32-year-old ban on private handgun ownership was unconstitutional in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. This was the first time that the Supreme Court had ever stated that the Second Amendment guaranteed gun ownership for every American. For D.C., it meant the city had to rewrite their gun laws.

These new laws allowed residents to keep registered handguns in their home and required gun owners to obtain a permit before carrying in public. However, the city had a policy of refusing to issue any of these permits. This amounted to a de facto ban on handguns in public. Authors of the law argued that D.C.’s status as the nation’s capital gave it reason enough to ban handguns, since they would put the many federal buildings, government officials, and memorials at risk. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier put it this way at a hearing in January:

The District of Columbia, as the seat of the Federal government, with its multitude of critical official and symbolic buildings, monuments, and events, and high-profile public officials traversing the streets every day, is a city filled with ‘sensitive’ places. Our laws should reflect that reality.

This reasoning did not fly with Senior District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. Heller and a similar ruling in Chicago gave Scullin enough precedent to strike down the ban. Chicago attempted to ban the sale of firearms within city limits. U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang found this law to be unconstitutional. Chang was not convinced that banning the sale of firearms would reduce gun violence.

What’s next?

D.C. will appeal this ruling, and they have reason to be confident. In 2012, a U.S. District Court struck down a Maryland law which only issued carry permits to individuals who could provide a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a firearm outside of the home. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling one year later. This provides an important precedent for proponents of the D.C. ban. There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed on an American’s right to carry a firearm in public. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said as much in his majority opinion in Heller:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

While the court ruled in 2008 that citizens are allowed to own firearms, it added that restrictions on such ownership were not unconstitutional. Specifically, Scalia’s majority opinion argued that “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places” can be forbidden. It might be a stretch to claim that the entire District of Columbia is a “sensitive place,” but at least D.C. has a leg to stand on.

In the meantime, how will this ruling impact D.C. residents?

The D.C. Attorney General has requested a stay, but one has not yet been granted. This means that, for now, it is legal to carry a handgun in the nation’s capital. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier has instructed officers to not arrest anyone holding a registered handgun. Those visiting D.C. who have a carry permit from another state will also be allowed to carry their handgun.

As frustrating and frightening as it is to see a judge allow any Joe Schmo to carry a gun in a city that is home to so many important people and high-profile targets, the city should have seen this coming, especially in the wake of Heller. To respond to a court’s rejection of your strict gun ban with another strict gun ban is foolish, and claiming that an entire city is a “sensitive place” is laughable. Yes, many parts of D.C. are home to federal buildings, but there are large areas of D.C. that look like any other city. There are shopping centers, grocery stores, apartment complexes, and everything else that makes a city a city. There are also threats to the safety of the average citizen, and D.C. residents have the constitutional right to defend themselves from those threats with a gun.

For the safety of D.C. residents, Mayor Vincent Gray and the city council need to approve new and sensible gun laws that balance the need to protect our government officials with the right of all D.C. residents to defend themselves. Banning or allowing guns everywhere in the city are not viable options.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Robert Nelson via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post D.C. Gun Laws Ruled Unconstitutional, Again appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #7 Georgetown University Law Center appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Healthcare Law: #2 Georgetown University Law Center appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to “Life of a Legal Post Grad,” a column which will quite soon be serving its initial purpose: describing the life of a young legal professional navigating his way through this crazy world of the law.

By “quite soon” I mean in a couple of days. I’ve been at my job for two weeks now and I already have (awesome) stories. Stay tuned. This week, though, let’s talk about this crazy-fast transition that I’m going through in my life. Mmmmmk?

To recap: 2013 was dark. Like…Disney dark. (P.S., if you don’t get the dark undertones in most Disney movies, you should set aside a few hours this weekend and rewatch your childhood favorites, because…whoa). The lone highlight of 2013 was seeing Rihanna in concert. I kept saying, “2014 has to be better.”

Well, here we are, and 2014 is covered in light, roses, bunnies, and all other things good and cute.  I may be the happiest that I’ve ever been in my adult life. Why, you ask? Because of all the ch-ch-ch-changes!

First of all, I have a legal job that I love.  It’s only been a week and a half, but everything is coming up roses so far. I work for a really cool company, I do dynamic legal work, and I work with awesome and intelligent people. Every day I’m challenged and pushed to be better, which is what I had in mind when I first entered law school. This job actually makes me want to be a lawyer, which is new and unexpected. BUT ENOUGH ABOUT THAT!

Second, the weather: let’s talk about wearing shorts and flip-flops in January. Or we can discuss reviewing contracts poolside. Entertain the notion of shifting the liability to a third party on the beach, even. All of these are now my options! Two weeks ago I lived in D.C.; the same D.C. that was shut down for two days last week because of the resurgence of the polar vortex (speaking of, that weather pattern really sucks).

The “downside” to life (just kidding! there is none!) is driving everywhere. I’m a walker. I’ve previously lived in Washington, D.C., Boston, and New York: all of these are major cities with wide-ranging public transportation systems and a walkable urban plan that renders ownership of a car unnecessary and burdensome. Friends, Florida is not like that; a car is a necessary part of life. Now I’m a commuter! Every morning I wake up, start my car, drive to Starbucks, and sit in highway traffic on my way to work (if you care, I take 95 to 195). This may seem normal to some, but I have literally never had to be so alert before 9:00 a.m. In fact, for the first few days of commuting, I drove in absolute silence with my hands resolutely placed at the 10:00 and 2:00 positions. Every five minutes I’d say out loud: “Don’t kill yourself or anyone else.” Luckily I’m more comfortable now, and it’s become less of a burden. Sometimes I even get a bit of road rage, and then I’m all:

All in all, I’m having an amazing time. I have a newfound admiration for the law — so much so that I plan on taking the Florida Bar exam this summer. I never thought I would voluntarily sit for the bar exam, but I figure if I want to make a life and career here, it’s the next logical step. More importantly, it’s what my instincts are telling me to do, and I’m still inclined to follow them. It’s worked out so far!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [Sandra Cohen-Rose and Colin Rose via Flickr]

Featured .gifs courtesy of [RealityTVgifs]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Times They Are a-Changin’ appeared first on Law Street.

With the widespread use of cell phones, it has become easier and easier to capture pictures of everyday life. Unfortunately, that also means that it has become easier to take photos of unsuspecting and unwilling subjects for fetishistic purposes. Doing so is called “voyeur photography”, and one popular use is referred to as “upskirting.” Upskirting is pretty much exactly what it sounds like, taking a photo up a woman’s skirt, usually while she is walking up a set of stairs or on an escalator. Over the past few years, there have been a handful of men found committing such behavior, such as Christopher Hunt Cleveland, who was arrested this September for taking approximately 4,500 upskirt photos on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Convictions can result in jail time and registration as a sex-offender.

In 2010, a Massachusetts man by the name of Michael Robertson was arrested for trying to take upskirt pictures on the T (the subway system in Boston).  He was charged with two counts of photographing a nude or partially nude person without her knowledge. Mr. Robertson’s case is now in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and he and his lawyer, Michelle Menken, are arguing that it his constitutional right as protected by the First Amendment to take these pictures. Furthermore, they are arguing that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy afforded to women who are in public dressed in such as a manner that would allow upskirting to be possible.

Upskirting is a behavior that is made possible by camera phone technology, and therefore is relatively new. Just nine years ago, in 2004, Congress passed the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. A summary of the law provided by the Library of Congress states:

Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual’s consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Defines a “private area” as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.) Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

Various states also have instituted their own voyeurism laws. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, a law enacted in 2004 states essentially the same thing as the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, but also outlines appropriate punishments. Any laws along this line are usually referred to colloquially as “Peeping Tom Laws.” Menken has argued that regardless of what these laws state, they simply do not apply in this case, pointing out that, “Peeping Tom laws protect women and men from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms who are nude or partially nude. However, the way the law is written right now, it does not protect clothed people in public areas.” She has also taken issue with the characterization of these women as “partially nude”, stating that every picture that Robertson took showed private parts that were covered by underwear. She said, “women in the photographs can not be considered partially nude because their underwear covered everything and no private parts could be seen in the pictures taken.”

It is pretty clear that both the state in which Robertson resides as well as the United States have created laws that attempt to prevent behavior such as upskirting. But whether or not these laws violate Robertson’s First Amendment rights will be decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I would like to imagine that women who wear skirts and climb stairs do not have a reasonable expectation that their private parts may be photographed, but it is important to remember that similar arguments have been up held before—in 2008, charges were dropped under Oklahoma Peeping Tom laws against a man who upskirted a 16-year-old girl in a Super Target. It was determined that she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that public location. How Robertson’s case fares may have an important effect on similar laws across many states, and at the federal level.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Corey Seeman via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Peeping Toms, Cellphones, and Skirts appeared first on Law Street.

Beggars still can’t be choosers.

My first job after 1L year was for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I accepted the position knowing little to nothing about the role of the U.S. Attorney or the city of New York. All I knew was that, after two months of applying, I had the all-important first year internship. I had decided before law school that Washington, D.C. was where I would practice law after graduation, and this job in New York threw a wrench in my plans. The legal economy then, in the spring of 2011, was as tough as it is now. In light of that fact, I took the best job that I could get and accepted the USAO’s offer.

At the beginning of the summer, I moved all of my suits and summer clothes to a small studio in midtown east on 45th & Lexington. I arrived on a Sunday, and my first day with the USAO was the following week. In my eight days of downtime, I decided to explore New York City.

At first I didn’t really feel a need to take myself on a walking tour of a city that I already knew very well.  My mother is from Brooklyn, and I’ve been visiting my family members there and in the Bronx forever.  Additionally, friends from college and high school had all settled there.  I’d spent many drunken weekends causing a scene on side streets of the Lower East Side and Greenwich Village, but always as the annoying weekend visitor.  Now, as a resident, I felt I owed myself a different city experience.

And experience the city I did.  I walked across town via 45^th Street from Lexington to 8^th Avenue, and then I walked down 8^th Avenue to 12^th street before making my way back East.  In between, I probably said “I’ve got to check this place out,” over one hundred times.  That’s the thing about New York: it’s a city begging to be explored.  I spent three months exploring its sights and sounds, and I was hooked.  I knew that after law school I wanted to move there.

I took steps to further that goal.  During my 2L summer, I worked there again, this time in a different government office but one that furthered the legal goals I endeavored to achieve. Finally, in the first semester of my 3L year, through channels of networking and “people who know people who know people,” I was offered a full-time position with a small company.

“This,” I thought, “is it.”  I had my dream job in my dream city, which I knew I’d earned after the three-year circus of indignities that is law school.  I don’t need to get in to the specifics here, but it didn’t work out.  The job fell through, and I immediately redoubled my efforts to get back to New York.  I applied for countless jobs (chronicled here…it’s depressing) and nothing.

In the mean time, I took up side jobs of both the legal and non-legal varieties.  I was fortunate enough to find this blog, and I began to volunteer with a legal organization.  I was also a host at a restaurant and did temp work.  I went on a ton of interviews, but the “perfect New York City” job consistently evaded me.

And then the unthinkable happened.  A close friend referred me to an open position in D.C., and I was offered an interview.  I prepared for the interview, and it went really well.

And then they offered me the job.

The job I was offered is not a job that one declines.  After discussing my options with my parents and a few friends, I decided to accept the position.  My acceptance effectively derails my New York City dreams for the foreseeable future.  Initially I didn’t want to end my pursuit of a big city job, but I considered both the economy and the markets in which I looked for work, and both are difficult.  It would have been much more imprudent to turn down a position and assume that another one is going to come.

And so, in October 2013, I made the same decision that I made in February 2011.  Accept the best job that comes to you, even if it’s in a city that you weren’t planning to live, and make it work.

To everybody out there with a J.D. and a dream: the job is coming!  As Ted Kennedy said, “the dream will never die.”  He was obviously talking about searching for work in a down legal economy, right?

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Taellious via Flickr]

As always, all .gifs provided by T. Kyle MacMahon of RealityTVGifs!

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beggars (Still) Can’t be Choosers in Today’s Job Market appeared first on Law Street.