Over the past couple of years, America has been engaged in a public conversation about policing. After the scores of deaths at the hands of police officers, many people called on police departments to install body cameras on officers. Technology is changing policing in a number of other ways, including in how officers enforce minor infractions–like speeding.

With the advent of more sophisticated cameras, traffic enforcement officials have been relying on red light cameras to catch drivers who speed, run red lights, or break other traffic laws. There is some debate over whether or not a camera can be used to accuse someone of running a red light, and a general confusion about the effectiveness of such cameras. Despite the inconveniences these measures may cause drivers, their purpose is to keep drivers, pedestrians, bikers, and road workers safe.

Read on to learn more about the red light cameras, and the legislative battles they have led to.

History of the Red Light Camera

In 1993 New York City signed the first bill to install red light cameras, along with other so-called “automated enforcement” measures. The new technology only grew from there. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 421 communities in 23 states and the District of Columbia use red light cameras as of July 2017.

Red light cameras were introduced with the intention of making intersections safer. The thinking is that if someone sees a sign that says they will be photographed, they would be deterred from speeding.

How a Red Light Camera Operates

In certain places, there are cameras installed that trigger when a driver breaks certain rules, whether it is speeding or running a red light. Then a few weeks later they receive a letter in the mail that includes their picture and how much they owe. Drivers have three options when they receive one of these letters. First, they can say that they were guilty. Second, they can say that there is no contest. Regardless, the driver would mail in a check for the amount owed. The third option is to plead not guilty.

A Second Tool: Speeding Cameras

Another tool police departments are relying on to deter dangerous driving behavior: speeding cameras. There is evidence that speeding cameras in work zones can decrease accidents. The Illinois Center for Transportation released a report on the positive results of speed photo-radar enforcement (SPE) vans. The state of Illinois was seeing between 6,000 and 7,000 crashes a year in work zones. In crashes where there was an injury or fatality, 85 percent of the time it was the motorist, not the road worker, who suffered the injury or fatality. These staggering statistics prompted the state to begin using SPE vans in 2004.

The vans have a radar to monitor drivers’ speeds, which is shown on a monitor on top of the van. “If the driver does not reduce his or her speed, a camera captures the face of the driver and the front license plate. The SPE also records the speed of the violator, date, location, and time of the violation,” the report said.

Police officers stationed in the vans determine whether the vehicle was posing a serious threat. They then compare the photo that was taken of the speeding driver to the driver’s license database. If the cop sees that the pictures match, he or she may send out a ticket to the driver.

UIUC Professor Ray Benekohal, who conducted experiments on vehicles’ behavior in the presence of SPE vans, found promising results. In an interview with the Illinois Center for Transportation, Benekohal said:

SPE was very effective in reducing the average speed of cars and trucks, thus calming traffic and improving safety in work zones. The research found the reductions to be significant. When the SPE was present, on average, cars traveled 5.1-8.0 mph slower in the median lane and 4.3-7.7 mph slower in the shoulder lane.

Traffic vehicles, or SPE vans, are an effective option for increasing safety, for drivers, pedestrians, and anyone else on the roads.

Red Light Cameras and Public Safety

Red light cameras are also showing positive effects for public safety. Data compiled by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) has found a negative trend in deaths resulting from automobile accidents after red light cameras were installed.

The group’s data found that in areas where red camera lights had not been installed, there was an average of two deaths a day in 2015. Between 2011 and 2015, an average of 719 people died every year from an accident caused by someone running a red light. These crashes resulted in 126,000 injuries in 2014, and $390 million in damages was lost each month between 2011 and 2015.

When compared with cities that installed red light cameras, the results were very encouraging. Researchers saw a 21 percent decrease in crashes that resulted from a car running a red light. Conversely, in cities that eliminated their red light camera programs, the data found a 30 percent increase in fatal red light crashes.

Contested Tickets

While many states vary in terms of how their red light camera laws are worded, there are some common issues that arise. For one, if the ticket was mailed more than 30 days after the infraction took place, the ticket is invalid. In addition, if the camera or the camera’s warning sign were installed less than 60 days prior to the incident, the ticket is invalid. Sometimes the warning sign is not sufficiently clear or visible, and drivers are unaware the traffic stop has a camera installed. 

Different states have different standards for allowing drivers to contest a ticket that was issued as the result of a red light camera. For example, Delaware’s law allows for very few drivers to get out of paying their ticket or getting their charges dropped. The law states:

For a violation to occur, the front of a vehicle must be behind the stop line marked on the pavement at the time the traffic light signal turns red and must then continue into the intersection while the traffic light signal is red.

In an article in Delaware Online, Judge Susan Cline said, “The city does not have to prove intent, or even that you were the driver of the vehicle.” In Prices Corner, an unincorporated town near Wilmington where Cline works, in 63 out of 850 cases in 2013 involving red light cameras, the ticket was dismissed. The reasons that cases were dismissed included people running a red to avoid funeral processions or emergency vehicles, and being directed by road crews around traffic.

Baltimore officials recently said the city could expand its current red light traffic camera program. The city recently installed speed enforcement cameras near school zones and are planning to install red light cameras throughout the city. Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh said the cameras will generate more revenue for the city.

State-Level Legal Battles

Some states have debated the usefulness and legality of red light cameras altogether. In May 2017, the Florida Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case on whether or not the state should ban red light cameras altogether. The Tampa Bay Times reported:

The move comes after two appellate courts ruled that cameras in Oldsmar and the city of Aventura in Miami-Dade County can be used to ticket drivers. Those rulings, however, conflicted with one from the 4th District Court of Appeal, which shut down the city of Hollywood’s program in 2014.

Florida’s legislature is also trying to tackle the problem. In March 2017 the Florida House passed a bill to outlaw red light cameras. The bill is currently under consideration in the Florida Senate. The case for eliminating the cameras altogether lies in the cameras themselves. Usually when a cop sees someone speeding they pull them over and write them a ticket. Now it’s not the cop seeing people speed, it’s the cameras. When violators go to court, there is no one to confront in court because the “defendant” is the camera. 

Traffic attorneys have filed approximately 65 lawsuits against Florida communities that use cameras because of what many drivers feel are unfair practices. Essentially, many of the traffic attorneys have alleged that because many of the red light cameras are owned by third-party operatives, it is illegal to use them to issue someone a ticket. Law enforcement cannot be delegated to a third party under Florida Law. The court defined this in the 2014 case, City of Hollywood v. Arem:

In sum, Florida law does not grant the City any authority to delegate to a private third-party vendor the ability to issue uniform traffic citations. Only the City’s law enforcement officers and [traffic infraction enforcement officers] have the authority to issue such citations. The City also lacks the lawful authority to outsource to a third-party vendor the ability to make the initial review of the computer images of purported violations and then use its unfettered discretion to decide which images are sent to the TIEO, and which ones are not.

If Florida were to ban red light cameras, it would not be the first state to do so. In 2014, South Dakota passed House Bill 1100 which outlawed red light cameras in the state. The bill stated that it “prohibits the use of certain photo monitoring devices to detect red light violations. This bill prohibits the use of red light cameras.” Furthermore, House Bill 1122 protects South Dakotans from being charged by a red light camera in any state. House Bill 1122 reads:

No collection agency or company may contact a South Dakota resident by telephone, mail, electronic means, or any other manner, nor utilize the court system of South Dakota, in an effort to collect a fine derived from a speed camera or red light camera civil violation, or file a report with any credit bureau regarding the unpaid civil fine. No court of the State has jurisdiction to enforce a speeding camera or red light camera civil judgment against a resident.

South Dakota’s problems with red light cameras started in 2006, when a driver was ticketed $86 for allegedly running a red light. The driver, I.L. Weidermann, challenged the ticket, leading to four years of legal battles. The judge eventually agreed with Wiedermann, saying that Sioux Falls (the city in which he was ticketed) was imposing its own laws that were “less stringent” than the state laws regarding traffic by using the red light cameras. The judge also found that Weidermann was not given an opportunity to be heard, which was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This was the beginning of the end for red light cameras in South Dakota.

Conclusion

Despite the legal battles and contested tickets, red light cameras do not appear as if they will be going away anytime soon. The tickets themselves are difficult to fight and, perhaps most importantly, red light cameras appear to have positive effects on driver safety. They discourage drivers from running red lights, and thus causing accidents that result in death or injury.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Red Light Cameras: Saving Lives or Infringing on Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

The internet is a powerful tool. It can be used to spread information quickly, to answer any question instantly, and to share photos of vacations. 

But the internet can also be a powerful platform where unsavory things can flourish. All the benefits of being able to spread information quickly and share photos can be used negatively. When these sorts of things are directed at a specific person or group, it is called “cyberbullying.”

Stop Bullying, a website dedicated to spreading awareness about bullying, defines cyberbullying as:

bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites. Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.

“Troll-in-Chief”

Recently, President Donald Trump attacked “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Twitter, saying:

I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

…to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

This raised a lot of eyebrows and questions. One of the most serious questions raised was if Trump could be banned from Twitter for his behavior. John Cassidy of The New Yorker said that Trump will go down in history as the “Troll-in-Chief” because of his online behavior.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s spokeswoman, brushed off the criticism her boss was receiving. “This is a president who fights fire with fire,” Sanders explained. But where does self-defense end and cyberbullying begin?

Trump is the face of America to the rest of the world and his actions reflect on the entire country. More than that, as such a public and powerful figure, he is someone children will undoubtedly look up to. So with cyberbullying increasing in schools, it’s dangerous to have the commander-in-chief setting such a poor example for children.

Harmful Effects

The effects of cyberbullying can be serious. According to Stop Bullying, some of the effects cyberbullying can have on a victim include: alcohol and drug use, lower self-esteem, and health problems. 

Cyberbullying happens a lot more frequently than you might think. In a 2016 report by the Department of Education, 20.8 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported being bullied in the 2014-15 school year. The study found that 6.1 percent of male students experienced bullying online or through text message. 15.9 percent of females reported being bullied online or via text. The disparity between male and female is bad enough. But the numbers themselves show a growing problem.

Cyberbullying is different than other forms of bullying for a few reasons. First, it can occur at any time. A bully no longer needs a face-to-face interaction to inflict harm. Through the wonders of the internet, someone can be reached at any hour of the day via text, social media, email, or other channels on the internet. Next, the layer of anonymity can invite more bullying in perpetrators who normally would not have engaged in the act. An article Psychology Today published in 2013 said,

The ability to be anonymous might increase the likelihood that youths will engage in the behavior. Furthermore, a cyberbully does not necessarily see the reaction of the victim, making it easier to engage in mean behaviors.

Those who engage in cyberbullying are subject to certain anti-bullying laws. See how your state stacks up here. In 2012, Delaware became the first state to introduce a comprehensive cyberbullying policy to be adopted by public schools in the state.

via GIPHY

As of 2017 every state has laws regarding cyberbullying, with most having both a policy and laws. Delaware’s policy was drafted by then-Lieutenant Governor Matt Denn and the late Attorney General Beau Biden. Here’s what Delaware’s policy says:

Incidents of cyberbullying shall be treated by each school district and charter school in the same manner as incidents of bullying, and notice of each school district’s and charter school’s policy against cyberbullying shall be provided to students, staff, and faculty in the same manner as notice of the school district’s and charter school’s policy against bullying.

This specific cyberbullying policy is intended for schools and how they can take action. But what about when cyberbullying takes place outside of a school setting?  

Many websites have anti-harassment rules, though they can get tricky to enforce. Take the President of the United States, for example. On July 2, only a few days after the Morning Joe attack, he tweeted:

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

Many people have suggested that Twitter ban Trump for this behavior. Twitter’s rules explicitly say “You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.”

But the social media giant has not banned the president. Yet. Banning the president is a big deal, but cyberbullying is a pretty big deal, too.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Twitter Ban Donald Trump for Cyberbullying? appeared first on Law Street.

As of April 11, Alabama no longer grants state judges the authority to override jury recommendations in capital cases. As one of her first acts as governor, Kay Ivey signed the SB16 bill into law and put an end to judicial override in capital cases in Alabama. The move was likely a preemptive response to shifting legal tides. Had Alabama not revised its laws, it would likely have faced fierce and ongoing battles in court.

Alabama, Florida, and Delaware are the only states to have ever allowed judicial override in capital cases. In the 2016 case Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court found Florida’s sentencing scheme in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. In response to the high court’s ruling, Delaware’s Supreme Court ruled its state’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional a few months later.

In the wake of Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal by an Alabama death row inmate who claimed he was sentenced under a scheme similar to Florida’s. Alabama’s Supreme Court upheld judicial override nine months later. In spite of these victories, it seems that Alabama was no longer willing to put resources toward defending judicial override in court.

Following Hurst v. Florida, the Florida legislature amended its sentencing practices to reinstate capital punishment. However, Delaware’s General Assembly has yet to pass any such legislation, meaning there is an effective halt on the death penalty in the state. By amending its sentencing laws, Alabama has put an end to a recurrent legal battle and ensured the perpetuity of capital punishment in the state.

While Alabama has removed judicial override, its new sentencing practices could still face legal challenges. Following the chain of events set in motion by Hurst v. Florida, Alabama is now the only state that allows a jury to non-unanimously recommend the death penalty.

Before the Hurst v. Florida ruling, Alabama, Florida, and Delaware allowed a jury to recommend the death penalty with 10 of 12 votes. In the same ruling that banned judicial override, Delaware’s Supreme Court deemed non-unanimous recommendations unconstitutional. While Florida’s initial legislation preserved the practice, the Florida Supreme Court later found non-unanimous recommendations constitutional.

Alabama’s Supreme Court would almost certainly uphold non-unanimous death penalty recommendations, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the matter. The overwhelming consensus against the practice suggests Alabama could once again find itself in court.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Banning Judicial Override for Capital Cases Keep Alabama Out of Court? appeared first on Law Street.

All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

STATE OF WEED: WATCH

Delaware Could Legalize Recreational Marijuana Too!

November’s impressive marijuana victories seem to have lit a fire under many pro-pot lawmakers across the country. In recent months, we’ve seen more and more states draft legislation to legalize marijuana in some form. Last week, Delaware lawmakers announced they wanted in on the action, unveiling a new bill that would legalize the drug recreationally for adults 21 years and older. Lawmakers said they hope House Bill 110 will attract east coast “marijuana tourists” to the state, boosting Delaware’s economy in the process.

West Virginia Finally Warms Up to Marijuana

West Virginia, one of the few remaining states yet to legalize marijuana in any form, could soon get its toes wet with medical marijuana. After being fast-tracked to the House floor for a vote, Senate Bill 386 is scheduled for a second reading during Monday’s House session. The bill, which already passed the state’s Senate, would establish a 16-member commission to oversee production, distribution, and regulation of a state medical marijuana program. Members will need to decide on any amendments and vote quickly before the session adjourns on April 8.

Researchers Unlock Marijuana Genome

Attention cannabis aficionados: some experts believe that the marijuana industry could one day be able to emulate the wine industry. Researchers from the University of British Columbia published new findings online at PLOS One, in an article titled “Terpene Synthases from Cannabis sativa,” in which they identify 30 terpene synthase genes that contribute to diverse flavors. This could allow marijuana growers to produce more standardized products much like wine, which would allow buyers to know exactly what they are getting in terms of flavor and strength. Does this mean we can expect weed tastings in the near future?

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

LAW STREET CANNABIS COVERAGE

Oregon Lawmakers Introduce Ambitious Marijuana Reform Bills

By Alexis Evans

Two Oregon lawmakers introduced an ambitious trio of bills in the U.S. Senate and House Thursday that would drastically revolutionize marijuana reform and help legitimize the cannabis industry. Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, both Democrats, are calling the project the “Path to Marijuana Reform,” and it almost seems too good to be true (keep reading to check out Law Street’s exclusive interview with Rep. Blumenauer below).

Legalizing Marijuana Hasn’t Led to More Teen Use in Washington

By Alexis Evans

Marijuana opponents frequently argue that legalizing weed would encourage underage kids to try it, which they use as a justification for why states shouldn’t adopt recreational use laws. However, a new survey from the state of Washington shows that simply isn’t the case. According to a Youth Health Survey from the state of Washington, which legalized recreational marijuana in 2012 and established dispensaries in 2014, results indicated that teen cannabis consumption hasn’t changed over the past decade.

SWAT Raids Can be Deadly, Even for People With Small Amounts of Marijuana

By Alec Siegel

Though marijuana use is rarely–if ever–fatal, possession and trafficking can be deadly. A New York Times investigation into the aggressive tactics used by SWAT teams across the U.S. revealed that a startling number of people have been killed as the result of a SWAT raid.

THREE QUESTIONS: EXCLUSIVE Q&A

Each month, the Cannabis in America team interviews influencers in the cannabis industry and gives you an exclusive look into their work, motivations, and predictions for the marijuana marketplace.

U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has been an advocate of marijuana legalization for decades. In 1998, Oregon became the second state to legalize medical marijuana, and in 2015, it became one of the first states to legalize the drug recreationally. Now, Blumenauer is taking his fight to the federal level. In an exclusive interview with Law Street’s Alec Siegel, the congressman talks about the bipartisan Congressional Cannabis Caucus, and much more.

AS: What do you hope to achieve with the Congressional Cannabis Caucus?

EB: For the last four years we’ve steadily expanded involvement of people in Congress on a series of legislative actions designed to bring a little rationality to this equation. What we’ve tried to do is spread this out to involve more and more members. We’ve had an informal marijuana working group. By formalizing the Cannabis Caucus with bipartisan leadership and bipartisan membership, it’s another step toward normalizing the way this is treated by Congress.

AS:  What will it take to change the federal marijuana ban?

EB: Public acceptance is broad and accelerating. Ten years ago a majority of the American public did not support legal adult use. There was growing support but not as strong as one would like for medical marijuana. What’s happened in recent years is that the public has figured it out. Some have had actual experience with medical marijuana. I think this decade we’re going to see some pretty profound changes because [the ban] doesn’t work, it’s expensive, and it’s unfair.

AS: Are you concerned with how the Trump Administration will enforce the federal ban?

EB: They have not yet become allies, but I don’t think they’re going to rekindle this war against marijuana. First of all, in the nine states that voted on marijuana legalization in some form last fall, marijuana got more votes than Donald Trump. And there were millions of people who voted for both Donald Trump and marijuana. I’ll say flatly that there will never be an anti-marijuana candidate for president who will be successfully elected. It’s not good politics and it’s not good policy to try to reverse what has occurred across the country as a result of what the citizens wanted.

CANNABIS CULTURE

UK Mom Credits Marijuana With Saving Son From Cancer

By Alec Siegel

As Deryn Blackwell was dying of cancer, his mother, Callie, sought out something, anything, that could relieve his pain. Finally, after three excruciating years of watching Deryn suffer, she found a potential aid: marijuana. Find out more here.

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 Cannabis in America April 2017: Meet a Lawmaker Advocating for Marijuana Reform appeared first on Law Street.

East Coast states may be small, but that doesn’t mean they have fewer dumb laws than their larger counterparts. In Cumberland, Maryland, if you fall while playing games on a playground, you had better control your sailor mouth. In that city, using profane language on a playground is illegal. Speaking of parks, it is also illegal to knock stones into a public park in Cumberland.

Maryland as a state seems strongly opposed to swearing in general. In Rockville, swearing while on the highway, no matter how much other drivers piss you off, is illegal. And even If it is a sweltering hot day in Rockville, swimming in public fountains is not permitted.

As far as statewide Maryland laws go, there were many listed online, for example that oral sex cannot be given or received anywhere, but these laws lacked the proper citation, thus were omitted from my piece. Gotta have those references!

View post on imgur.com

The same was the case in Pennsylvania. A few of the statewide laws that I encountered lacking the proper citation to back them up stated that ministers cannot perform marriages while either the bride or groom is drunk, and that you may not sing in the bathtub. The latter law, which I cannot prove to be valid, still made me wonder about a couple of things, like if it would be legal to sing in one of those bathtubs that can also be used as a shower as long as you were to use it as the shower.

I was able to find proof of the existence of two stupid laws in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, however. Both of the laws pertain to the game Bingo. First, those in charge of operating the game may not advertise the prizes offered. I mean, why even play unless you know the lucky card? Furthermore, one may not operate a game of Bingo if he or she was charged with a felony.

Delaware is a beautiful and proud state with some rather entertaining stupid laws. Movie-goers wanting to see their favorite R-rated movie won’t be able to from the comfort of their vehicle, as such questionable films cannot be shown in Delaware drive-ins. Rehoboth Beach is an intensely strict place in Delaware that prevents such heinous acts as changing your clothes in your car. On the note of changing clothes, you are also banned from changing into or out of a swimsuit in a public restroom. Seriously, this city is obsessed with clothing. It specifically bans any girl over the age of five from being in public without being fully clothed.

Children must adhere to strict laws on Halloween in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. There, they may only trick-or-treat from six to eight in the evening, and if Halloween happens to fall on a Sunday, they must go door to door asking for candy on October 30 instead. And don’t even think about whispering in church or serving alcohol in nightclubs if people are dancing on the same premises simultaneously.

Thus concludes another exciting blog making us all wonder why so many strange and stupid laws exist.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: MD, DE, & PA appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Just last week a fellow Law Streeter, Ashley Shaw, wrote a really great piece about animal rights in our judicial system. It was fun and informative so you all should definitely go check it out! Just a few days ago I came across an article about abused pit bulls in Delaware getting second chance thanks to a recent law signed by Governor Jack Markell.

I am a serious animal lover. I have four dogs and a fifth has stolen my heart (the boyfriend’s dog). One of my four dogs is a Pit Bull and Border Collie mix named Melou. She is a happy-go-lucky dog that likes to play in the yard and bark at everything that walks past our house. She can also be very territorial but in a good way, just like any other dog she is protecting her home. She has the aggressiveness of a Pit Bull and the herding skills of a Border Collie. Though she may have the not-so-great characteristics of both breeds, she also has a mixture of the great things. She is extremely playful and loving, and she can be overly aggressive when it comes to play time with other larger dogs, but it’s just because she loves to play. I have a friend who has a Pit Bull and Weimaraner mix, Dexter, that is massive and several years younger than Melou but they play well together.

It was heartwarming to read that Governor Jack Markell (D) signed Senate Bill 245 into law last week. This new law will allow seized dogs from fighting situations, mostly Pit Bulls, to be individually evaluated to see if they have a chance at being adoptable pets. Before Senate Bill 245 was enacted all dogs that were seized from fighting situations were deemed dangerous and immediately euthanized, including puppies and pregnant females.

It is unfair to classify all Pit Bulls as scary, aggressive dogs. Did you know it is actually illegal to own a Pit Bull in Miami-Dade County? Miami-Dade can actually fine the owner and forcibly remove the dog from his home. How unfair is that? I understand that Pit Bulls have a reputation of being overly aggressive and all-around scary, but anyone who has ever encountered or owned a Pit Bull knows that it is simply not universally true. Yes, these dogs can be trained to kill one another and to attack anyone but so can any other dog. Mind you it would be hard for a Chihuahua to kill a person because of how tiny it is, but any dog can be trained to do harm. It all depends on how it is raised.

Pit Bulls are very loyal, friendly, and full of energy — the best kind of family dog to have! Melou is sweeter to people who come over to my house than my little Chihuahua who gets overly aggressive, barks, and growls at everyone except certain family members.

There are only 13 states left that still support euthanizing all fighting dogs without really taking a look at them. The state of Michigan recently introduced Senate Bill 990, which calls for a change similar to the one made in Delaware. Even in 2011 the American Bar Association called for legislative and governmental bodies to “ensure the humane treatment and disposition of seized dogs.”

Thanks to Michael Vick and his pals, the American people were able to get a better understanding of the horrific side of dog fighting and take a stand against something so heinous. Vick’s situation also opened the door of rehabilitating used and abused dogs, which showed the world that even damaged Pit Bulls can become loving animals.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Dru Kelly via Flickr].

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 Abused Pit Bulls in Delaware Get a Second Chance Thanks to Governor Markell appeared first on Law Street.