Now that Republicans have made progress in their efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, health insurance regulations are back in the forefront of public debate. A notable component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was the creation of essential health benefits, the law’s primary insurance regulation mandating what all policies must cover. This rule has been hotly debated and is something that the Republican replacement bill, the American Health Care Act, would allow states to seek waivers to define at the state level. While there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate when it comes to mandating high standards for health insurance plans, it may be helpful to look at how certain standards work in practice, and in certain cases, how their benefits can spill over into other public good.

The Role of Regulations

A new working paper by three economists, Ioana Popovici, Johanna Maclean, and Michael French, illustrate how state-level insurance regulations can have interesting spillover effects. They find that state laws that mandate insurance coverage for substance abuse treatment may have actually had a measurable effect on traffic deaths, decreasing fatalities by 4.1 to 5.4 percent. This is particularly important given that nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-involved car accidents each year. While their research is designed to focus on the effects of state laws passed before the Affordable Care Act, their findings help show how improving access to services like substance abuse treatment can have larger societal benefits beyond those who are directly affected.

The researchers looked at what are known as state parity laws, which involve requiring insurance plans to cover substance abuse treatment like they cover medical and surgical services in terms of the costs to consumers. Between 1988 and 2010–before the ACA started mandating this parity for all insurance plans sold on exchanges–27 states passed their own parity laws requiring substance abuse treatment to be covered to some degree. The researchers look at states that passed these laws to see what their effects on traffic deaths might be. In the process, they identified and controlled for a range of variables that would otherwise affect traffic fatalities–from alcohol tax rates to population demographics–in order to find the direct consequences of parity laws.

While the study does have some limitations–data on the use of drugs that impair driving as well as data on accidents that didn’t result in death are unavailable–they build on a considerable body of research showing both that health parity laws increase use of substance abuse treatment and that such increase is associated with fewer traffic deaths. They also find that these laws correspond with a decrease in fatal weekend crashes–which is when alcohol-related accidents are particularly likely–and that the decrease was particularly large, 8.7 percent, in states that mandated full parity. They also find that parity laws are associated with a small decline in both heavy and binge drinking; however, that is based on self-reported survey responses, not clinical diagnoses of alcohol dependence.

This study isn’t necessarily groundbreaking–it does make sense to think that expanding access to substance abuse would lower substance-related traffic fatalities–but it provides an interesting look at the consequences of health insurance regulations in general. The study looks specifically at spillover effects, setting aside the direct and obvious benefits to individuals who gain access to addiction treatment, to show that high-quality insurance can have meaningful consequences beyond those who directly benefit. While it’s important not to overstate these findings, identifying additional benefits to regulations should be a part of the discussion as we evaluate new policies.

The Current Health Insurance Debate

The Affordable Care Act did a number of things to increase people’s access to health care–including expanding Medicaid to nearly 15 million people and providing subsidies to individuals below 400 percent of the federal poverty line–but it also included a number of regulations to make sure people’s insurance covered important services. These 10 essential benefits include things like prescription drugs, emergency care, maternity care, and, notably, substance abuse treatment. While it’s fair to say that requiring these services, and rules that prevent insurance companies from capping annual or lifetime spending on them, have increased the cost of health insurance for everyone, they are also the services that most people expect their health insurance to cover in the first place.

While the Republican bill largely focuses on health care access for low-income families and those who buy their insurance individually, allowing states to set their own essential health benefits could actually have ripple effects for the entire country, including the majority of Americans who get their health care from their employer. While employer plans are not required to cover the essential health benefits in the same way that individual plans sold on the federal and state exchanges are, they do apply to bans on annual and lifetime limits as well as yearly caps for out-of-pocket costs. And large employer plans are able to use any state’s definition of essential health benefits to determine those caps. If one state were to decide that substance abuse treatment is no longer an essential benefit, there could be an erosion in coverage for residents of that state and people across the country.

There are always trade-offs involved in setting health care regulations, but it’s important to understand the potential benefits involved as we debate major policy changes. Substance abuse treatment has proven to be an important and effective way to dramatically improve people’s lives, and based on recent research, mandating it can have additional societal benefits as well.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Did Health Insurance Regulations Reduce Traffic Deaths? appeared first on Law Street.

In an America where marijuana laws are being liberalized and the drug itself de-stigmatized, drivers who are found with traces of a cannabinoid in their blood can incur similar punishments in some states to those who drive under the influence of alcohol, a much deadlier exercise.

Marijuana researchers have been publishing studies over the past few years that have found marijuana to be a less dangerous substance than alcohol, and a recent study by the AAA Foundation for Public Safety appears to substantiate those claims when it comes to criminalizing drivers: “Legal limits, also known as per se limits, for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science.”

At the moment, drivers in Montana, Washington, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado are convicted of a DUI if they are found with a certain amount of a cannabinoid–THC, hydroxy-THC or carboy-THC–in their bloodstream. And similar to a DUI involving alcohol, this can result in hefty fines or even a lengthy prison stay. The problem is that THC can linger in a user’s bloodstream for days after actively ingesting the drug, whether for recreation or medical purposes, so a driver can be perfectly safe and sober while driving yet convicted of a crime because of an action taken a day or more prior. 

Michael L. Becker of the Las Vegas Defense Group and one of Nevada’s top criminal defense lawyers called the law “hypocritical”; that in a state where medical marijuana is legal it is possible for someone who uses the drug as a medicine one day and then is found with it in his or her bloodstream days later can be found guilty of a DUI offense.

“I’ve had cases where prosecutors have said to me ‘I know your client wasn’t under the influence, but I can prove he has metabolized marijuana in his system’,” Becker said in a phone interview with Law Street, pointing to cases in which a client’s body is still processing marijuana from a dose taken a day or more prior to when an arrest is made. “People are literally being prosecuted where everybody knows they weren’t even high.”

The current threshold for what is considered above the legal limit in Nevada is two nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood, lower than the five milliliter threshold in Colorado and Washington, both of which have legalized marijuana completely. The new study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety used psychophysical tests (walk-and-turn, finger-to-nose) and physical indicators (bloodshot eyes, pupil dilation) on drivers who had consumed marijuana and those who had not, and determined quantifiable thresholds for THC “cannot be scientifically supported.”

That’s not to say driving high poses no danger whatsoever. Being under the influence of marijuana while driving doubles the chances of a crash, a figure most researchers accept. But according to a study from 2014, 20-year-olds who drive with an illegal amount of alcohol in their system (above 0.08 percent) are twenty times as likely to crash. The researcher who conducted that study, Eduardo Romano, told The New York Times, “Despite our results, I still think that marijuana contributes to crash risk, only that its contribution is not as important as it was expected.”

So how can THC levels be accurately quantified in determining whether a driver is under the influence of cannabis, and above the legal threshold, if not by blood-THC content?

There is hardly a consensus among researchers, partially because they are limited in their research since cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug in the U.S., meaning any research into it requires a special permit. Experts see saliva sampling as a promising alternative to blood testing, but the jury is out until more research is conducted.

While scientists try to figure out more reasonable ways of measuring the dangers of driving stoned, Becker, the lawyer in Las Vegas, continues to help his clients navigate the ironic situation of being legally allowed to use a drug that could put them in jail days after using it, if it’s in their system while they’re later behind the wheel. Becker wasn’t able to give an exact number of clients he represents who find themselves in this quandary, but he said it does happen.

And as marijuana is decriminalized and used more frequently, “[the law] is going to impact more people,” he said. Nevada’s law–drafted at a time when “communities were fearful and anti-marijuana”–has been examined for a repeal, but according to Becker, real change has been resisted because it’s not a “politically expedient” issue.

Becker hopes change is on the horizon: “The Nevada legislature is finally deciding to have an honest look at things. That’s the bright side,” he said.

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 Cannabis DUI Laws Unsupported by Science, New Study Suggests appeared first on Law Street.

Since the advent of cellphones we’ve all heard the warnings: don’t text and drive. The National Security Council estimated that 1.1 million vehicle crashes in 2013 involved drivers using their phones while driving. As a result, many states have made laws forbidding texting and driving. But New York is now looking into a device that would allow police officers to determine if a driver involved in a crash was texting and driving, or otherwise distracted by a phone. It’s called the “textalyzer,” and while its still in developmental phases, the state of New York is currently debating whether or not it should be implemented.

The device has the name “textalyzer” because it would be sort of a phone-testing equivalent of a breathalyzer. Police who arrive at a crash could require drivers to hand over their phones, and then tap the device against the phone. The device would be able to determine if the drivers were using the phones in a way that would lead to distracted driving, such as texting, sending an email, or (the new go-to) Snapchatting.

New York legislators have introduced a bipartisan bill that would grant police officers the ability to use a device like the “textalyzer.” A press release by an advocacy group called the Distracted Operators Risk Casualties, which has been a big backer of the bill explains that the “textalyzer” is still a work in progress. According to the press release:

Cellebrite, the leader in mobile device forensics solutions, is developing this capability for officers to detect device usage in the field while maintaining the privacy of data stored on the device. ‘Cellebrite has been leading the adoption of field mobile forensics solutions by law enforcement for years, culminating in the formal introduction of our UFED FIELD series product line a year ago,’ said Jim Grady, CEO, Cellebrite, Inc. ‘We look forward to supporting DORCs and law enforcement—both in New York and nationally—to curb distracted driving.’

There are plenty of concerns about the potential power of the “textalyzer,” including privacy issues. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that police officers can’t conduct warrantless cell phone searches–so the question becomes whether or not the “textalyzer” (which doesn’t allow officers to look at any messages) is similar enough to be a problem. While both the law and the device itself are in somewhat of beginning stages, these legal and logistical concerns will be sure to take center stage moving forward.

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 In New York, “Textalyzer” Device Would Treat Distracted Driving More Like Drunk Driving appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to Law Street Media’s rundown of the best stories of last week. ICYMI, check out the top three below:

#1 Top Five Reasons Young Law and Policy Minds Should Check Out Portland, Oregon

Portland, Oregon, has long been heralded as one of the hottest cities for millennials. Home to Lewis & Clark Law School, it’s also a great city for young lawyers, as well as young aspiring lawyers. If you fit into one of those categories, and are considering a move, check out some of the top reasons to give Portland a look. Read the full story here.

#2 Drunk Driving on Trial at the Supreme Court

Drunk driving has left parents childless, spouses widowed, and siblings as only children. In 2013 alone, 10,076 people were killed in drunk driving crashes. It has claimed the lives of thousands of people over the years and sparked lobbyist action, which has forced stricter regulation of drunk driving on both the federal and state levels. Most recently, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a group of three cases, a sequel per se to its 2013 drunk driving decision, in an effort to review warrantless drunk driving tests as a violation of Fourth Amendment rights and the criminalization of a refusal to take a drunk driving test. Click here to learn more about the development of drunk driving as a crime and what the new cases hold for the future.

#3 Bill Cosby Countersues Seven Rape Accusers For Defamation

Bill Cosby.

You used to be able to say that name and conjure up happy memories of family-friendly sitcom episodes, flamboyant knitted sweaters, or pudding pops. But not anymore.

Now America’s former “favorite dad” has become synonymous with drugging women with quaaludes and raping them, after more than 50 women came forward to accuse the comedian of sexual assault. As a result, Cosby is lashing out by filing a defamation lawsuit against seven of his accusers, claiming they ruined his reputation for “financial gain.” Read the full story 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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Drunk driving has left parents childless, spouses widowed, and siblings as only children. In 2013 alone, 10,076 people were killed in drunk driving crashes. It has claimed the lives of thousands of people over the years and sparked lobbyist action, which has forced stricter regulation of drunk driving on both the federal and state levels. Most recently, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a group of three cases, a sequel per se to its 2013 drunk driving decision, in an effort to review warrantless drunk driving tests as a violation of Fourth Amendment rights and the criminalization of a refusal to take a drunk driving test. Read on to learn more about the development of drunk driving as a crime and what the new cases hold for the future.

History of Regulating Alcohol Consumption

Despite its widely accepted consumption, alcohol is still a drug and one that not only endangers the drinker, but in some cases the lives of others. The federal government and state governments have long been involved with the regulation of alcohol. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, or MADD, incorporated in September 1980, has been a forefront lobbyist in terms of pressuring the government for stricter and more consequential laws for drunk drivers. Following MADD’s influence, the federal government signed into law the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984, which established a uniform drinking age of 21 in the United States and governed state implementation of the Act through apportionment of funding for highway construction, repair, and maintenance. While states have flexibility and control over alcohol policy development and enforcement, the federal government maintains regulation over whether alcohol is sold in the state, whether it can be imported into the state, its distribution, and its possession.

Furthermore, states control the laws pertaining to drunk drivers and the potential consequences and punishment suffered by those charged with drinking and driving. In a breaking development on Friday, December 11, the Supreme Court agreed to review three cases all dealing with the same ultimate issue–“whether a blood or breath test for drunk driving can be made without a search warrant and whether, if there is no warrant, an individual can be charged with a crime for refusing to take such a test.” The upcoming Supreme Court decision will have a nationwide effect regarding drunk driving roadside manner as 13 states make it a crime to refuse to take a drunk driving test. The three cases chosen for review were picked out of 13 submitted because they involved 3 different scenarios regarding drunk testing and hail from both North Dakota and Minnesota.

The Important Legalities of Drunk Driving

While the evolution of drunk driving policy and law-making has a rich history on both a state and federal level, we will focus on post-2000 development. One of the most noteworthy nationwide implementations was finalized in 2004 with the adoption, by all 50 states, of the .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) standard and implementation of the per se laws. Such laws establish that if an individual is tested and their BAC is .08 or over, no additional evidence of intoxication is required–that individual is considered intoxicated by law.

Image courtesy of [Ashleigh Jackson/KOMUnews via Flickr]

However, in 2013, the Supreme Court reviewed Missouri v. McNeely which found that in a routine drunk driving investigation where no additional factors existed which created a special circumstance, exception, or emergency situation, save for the natural dissipation of alcohol within one’s body, a non-consensual and warrantless forced blood test violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of one’s person. The facts of McNeely were straightforward–Tyler McNeely was stopped shortly after 2AM, had admitted to having a few beers, failed a field sobriety test, smelled of alcohol, declined to take a breathalyzer test, and was placed under arrest. The officer did not secure a search warrant prior to taking McNeely to the local hospital where he asked for signed consent for a blood test, which McNeely denied. A lab technician, under the direction of the officer, was told to collect a blood sample from McNeely despite not obtaining consent to do so. McNeely’s BAC was 0.154, almost double the legal limit, and he was subsequently charged with driving while intoxicated.

The Court in McNeely recognized that Fourth Amendment precedent allows for warrantless searches of a person only if the search falls within a recognized exception. A number of exceptions give rise to an exigent circumstance including an emergent need to provide assistance to someone in a home, chasing and pursuing a fleeing suspect, to enter a burning building or investigate a fire, or to prevent the destruction of evidence, among other factors. While the time restraint on testing a blood alcohol level could present an exigent circumstance not only because of the natural dissipation of alcohol, but also for the time required to obtain a warrant, the Court had to analyze the full picture regarding McNeely’s specific situation. They ultimately decided that the State’s argument–that the natural dissipation of alcohol from a driver’s body is considered an exigent circumstance in every case–was unsupported and unfounded on a Fourth Amendment basis. Essentially, the fact that the test may not be accurate hours later after the alcohol wore off was not a good enough reason to perform a warrantless test.

The Statistics of Drunk Driving 

Despite the legal disputes around drunk driving policies, statistics have come to show a significant decline in the number of drunk driving deaths from 1982 to 2014. The rate of drunk driving is highest among individuals between the ages of 21-25 with drunk driving costs reaching an upward of $199 billion a year. Furthermore, over 1.2 million people were arrested in 2011 for driving drunk and approximately one-third of those arrested or convicted of drunk driving were repeat offenders. Needless to say, there is work to be done to further drop those statistical reports.

The Supreme Court’s Upcoming Drunk Driving Review

Despite the ruling in Missouri v. McNeely, the Supreme Court is tackling the warrantless blood or breathalyzer test again in addition to assessing the constitutionality of criminalizing the refusal of a driver to submit or consent to a test. Of the three cases taken up for review, two come from North Dakota where it is a crime to refuse a blood, breath, or urine test, one punishable to the same extent as a conviction for drunk driving.  The lead appeal comes from Danny Birchfield, who in 2013, drove his car off the road, failed a breathalyzer test, and subsequently refused to take a blood test. Birchfield pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge, but reserved his right to appeal.

The third case operates under Minnesota law, which makes it a crime to refuse an officer’s request to take a blood test, if a valid arrest has been made for drunk driving. William Bernard Jr. was arrested and charged with two felony counts of refusing to submit to a sobriety field test, blood, or breath test. Witnesses reported Mr. Bernard after his truck was struck trying to pull a boat out of the water. Police requested he submit to a test because he smelled strongly of alcohol and was driving the truck–he denied the test and was arrested under Minnesota’s “implied consent law,” agreed to when a driver obtains his or her drivers license and criminalizes a refusal to take a test. Ultimately, Bernard was convicted–a conviction that is in conflict with Missouri v. McNeely because it allowed for warrantless drunk testing and an arrest without the presence of additional factors or emergent circumstances.

Image Courtesy Of [grendelkhan via Flickr]

Conclusion

The Supreme Court review of the upcoming cases is expected to clarify the issues that McNeely did not, such a bright line rule pertaining to warrantless demands for drunk testing and exigent circumstances, as well as addressing the criminalization of refusal through implied consent laws. Although the Supreme Court may be wary of completely controlling process and punishment of drunk driving, a long-term power of the states, it will have to develop a more clear requirement since the number of cases challenging drunk driving test procedures under Fourth Amendment claims continues to grow, particularly in the 13 states with implied consent laws. Many state rulings allowing for warrantless testing are in direct conflict with McNeely–it is therefore imperative, for continuity and consistency, that the Court create a bright line rule for drunk driving test procedures. Whether it will or not in the upcoming case review is to be determined.

Resources

Primary

98th Congress: Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984

FindLaw: Per Se DUI Laws

Justia: Missouri v. McNeely

Additional

SCOTUSblog: Court to Rule on Drunk-Driving Tests

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Alcohol Policy

Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility: .08 BAC Legal Limit

Mothers Against Drunk Drivers

 Mothers Against Drunk Drivers: Drunk Driving Deaths 1982-2014

Mothers Against Drunk Drivers: Drunk Driving Statistics

 Bring Me the News: No Warrant Needed: Ruling OKs Arrest if You Refuse Drunk Driving Test

The Chicago Tribune: Supreme Court to Review Blood-Test Requirement for DWI Cases

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drunk Driving on Trial at the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Whitney Marie Beall, 23, from Lakeland, Florida, was arrested after she live-streamed video of herself driving drunk this weekend. She used Periscope, a relatively new app that allows users to live stream videos. In the video, she narrates her predicament–she’s lost, has a flat tire, and is most importantly, incredibly intoxicated. Other Periscope users began reporting her to the police, and she was quickly arrested for drunk driving.

The videos of Beall are upsetting–she’s clearly drunk, and she’s reporting her state to her followers. She tells viewers she’s running a red light, says “driving drunk is not cool,” doesn’t appear to know where she is at various points and asks viewers for directions, and talks about driving over the speed limit. At one point she also wonders aloud if she’ll get a DUI, and says that she doesn’t think she will. Most of the video is dominated by Beall’s whiny musings about what direction she’s supposed to be driving in, and talking about how drunk she is. Many other Periscope users also implored Beall to stop driving, although it’s clear from the video that she’s not paying attention and isn’t listening to those pleas.

Check out some the videos below–each are about 10 minutes long and do contain NSFW language:

But the most important part of the videos ended up being the fact that she showed viewers shots from outside her windshield. Those looks, as blurry as they were, allowed people who were watching Beall’s streaming to get an approximate read on where she was, and call the police to stop her before she seriously injured herself or others.

Although the police in Lakeland don’t have access to an official Periscope account,  Sergeant Gary Gross, spokesperson for the department explained: “Luckily, one of our younger officers was able to figure it out.”

When police found her, she drove over a curb. Then she (very unsurprisingly) completely failed her sobriety test. She was arrested and booked with a very much deserved DUI.

Given Periscopes relative newness–it was only released about six months ago–it’s understandable that the Lakeland Police Department didn’t know what it was. But Beall’s case is just one example of the ways in which social media is changing law enforcement practices. After all, there have by now been plenty of cases of people being arrested based on their social media use. For example, Nicholas Wig, 26, of St. Paul, Minnesota, made headlines last year when he forgot to log off Facebook after breaking into a home and was subsequently arrested. There have also been many incidences of thieves being apprehended after taking pictures on a stolen phone, tablet, or computer. As the relationship that technology has with law enforcement continues to evolve, Periscope is just another new tool.

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 Drunk Driver in Florida Caught via Periscope App appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Friday, which means it’s time for a new installation of weird arrests of the week. Go ahead and check them out in the slideshow below.

A Very Long Distance Call

Image courtesy of Vienze Ziction via Flickr

A man in Lincoln County, KY, was arrested after he was caught digging up his father’s grave. Michael May, whose father died decades ago, was trying to have an argument with his old man. He was charged with violating a grave, possession of marijuana, and public intoxication.

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 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Perhaps no modern advancement in transportation has been so divisive as Uber. Some cities, states, and countries have welcomed the popular ride-sharing app with open arms, while others have demonized the company and tried to block its implementation. However, Uber may now have a new bargaining chip when it comes to convincing its critics that it’s actually a good thing. A study conducted in California recently found that the use of Uber helped to reduce drunk driving fatalities in the state.

Uber has actually been claiming that it can reduce drunk driving deaths for a while. For example, earlier this year, it sent out an email stating:

Since we launched uberX in California, drunk-driving crashes decreased by 60 per month for drivers under 30. That’s 1,800 crashes likely prevented over the past 2 ½ years.

The study on which it based that claim was co-authored with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and showed that drunk driving incidences have fallen in the California cities where Uber operates. However, critics claimed that the study only showed correlation, not necessarily causation, and claimed that Uber didn’t have enough evidence to make the claim.

However, the new study, conducted independently by researchers led by Brad Greenwood from Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, might get more credence. Essentially the findings of the paper were that cheap ride-sharing apps (not just Uber, but also its competitors like Lyft) lowered drunk driving incidences. This study may be better received because it attempted to show a causation rather than just a correlation. The researchers were able to test the impact that Uber had when it entered various markets, and estimate its potential future effects.

The conclusion about its future effects was interesting, and bodes well for Uber. The report stated:

Economically, results indicate that the entrance of Uber X results in a 3.6 percent – 5.6 percent decrease in the rate of motor vehicle homicides per quarter in the state of California. With more than 13k deaths occurring nationally each year due to alcohol related car crashes at a cost of 37 billion dollars, results indicate that a complete implementation of Uber X would create a public welfare net of over 1.3 billion to American taxpayers and save roughly 500 lives annually

Another interesting aspect of the study was that it discovered that only the cheap models of the apps seem to be successful at lowering the drunk driving rate. More expensive models like Uber Black don’t appear to make much of a difference.

Given some of the struggles that Uber–particularly the crowd sourced and cheaper UberX–has had getting into various markets, this promises to be a decent bargaining point. While Uber is obviously very far from being perfect, and still has some serious regulatory issues to work with, this could be a big plus in the argument to introduce Uber to new locales.

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 Can Uber Lower the Number of Drunk Driving Deaths? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Sunday, which means it’s time for another round-up of the weird arrests last week. Read on to check out the oddest things that led to a trip downtown last week.

Food Coma

Image courtesy of John Keogh via Flickr

A family in Lake Worth, Florida came home to find a burglary gone wrong. The intruder, 22-year-old Jacob Miller, broke in, enjoyed some beer and chicken, and then passed out on the family’s couch. He was still asleep when the police arrived.

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 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a long, hot week in many parts of the country, but that still hasn’t stopped criminals from doing stupid things. Check out the slideshow of the weirdest arrests below.

Always Be Realistic About Your Skills

Courtesy of Willem van de Kerkhof via Flickr

Alexander Katz, of Logan, Utah, was arrested after he stole a car this week. Unfortunately, the heist didn’t quite go as planned–the car Katz stole was a manual, and he didn’t know how to drive it. His girlfriend, who was underage, was also arrested after the couple ditched the car and ran to gas station to call a cab.

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 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

This week’s weird arrests involve some misbehaving adults, and a few misbehaving young people as well. Check out the slideshow below:

[SlideDeck2 id=37708 ress=1]

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 Weird Arrests of the Week 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.

Jordan Meir of Nebraska thought he found the perfect way to disguise his stash–just mark it up as ‘not weed.’ After all, labeling it as weed is a sure fire way to get caught, so the opposite must be the solution, right? Maybe in the rest of the world, but the cops in Nebraska must be extra smart because this ingenious scheme actually did not end up working in their neck of the woods.

Twenty-one-year-old Meir was cruising around town one night when he was pulled over for suspected drunk driving. He was not worried. Sure, he was riding dirty, but in such a way that he knew he could not be caught. So when the officer saw a sour cream container labeled ‘not weed,’ Meir was probably as surprised as everyone reading his story that, in the words of the cop, containers labeled ‘not weed’ are what they in Nebraska call “a clue.”

Courtesy of Giphy.

When the cop opened it up, it turned out that the container had indeed accidently been mislabeled. Inside was 11 ounces of marijuana. (This really could have been an innocent mistake, by the way. If Meir is anything like me, he probably just reuses containers when he is done with them. When this specific container was first labeled, it probably was not stashing weed, and he just forgot to re-label when he was done.)

Courtesy of Giphy.

Meir admitted that it was his–are you surprised that he was so honest? Whatever gave you the impression that he was a liar?–and was fined $100 and arrested on suspicion of drunken driving.

It is a pity that the world has become so dishonest that nobody can trust anybody anymore. I dream of a day when we can see someone’s sour cream tub labeled “not weed,” and just take it for a tub of pot-free sour cream instead of being suspicious and untrusting. I want to live in a world where we can rely on others and take what they tell at face value. I want honesty and trust to be our guiding forces.

But until that day, I probably need to go re-label some sour cream jars…

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man’s ‘Not Weed’ Label Does Not Fool Nebraska Cops appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As most of you know, I hail from the great state of Texas! I wasn’t born here but my parents made sure I got here as fast as possible. I’ve been here long enough to experience both governors George W. Bush and Rick Perry, two men I have a great amount of respect for.

I was flabbergasted the moment I read that Governor Rick Perry is being indicted for alleged abuse of power in a veto dispute. First, I must have been hiding under a rock for a few weeks because I had no idea that they were even considering indicting Governor Perry. But let’s be really honest, someone is always trying to sue or indict a lawmaker, even the President. We do live in a world of frivolous lawsuits so I really shouldn’t be surprised.

Let’s jump in to the most ridiculous of the ridiculous: The person who made the decision to convene a grand jury to indict Governor Perry is Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. The same woman who was arrested for drunk driving. No one is above the law, but she clearly thought she was. The cops even had to put a spit guard on her and strap her to a chair. What does that say about her decisionmaking skills? I find her almost as laughable as the crack-smoking Toronto Mayor.

To make things even worse, after Lehmberg plead guilty to drunk driving, she refused to leave her position as District Attorney. How shocking, one poor choice on top of another. It puts the whole Perry indictment into question. Actually, for me it makes me question her whole career. Forget her political affiliation, consider the decisions she has made and think, how that one decision ruined her life, and think about how many other decisions that she has made that have had the same impact on others. You have to question her ability to reason — or at least I do.

An indictment would kill a presidential bid for most political careers of this magnitude, but it seems to be making Perry’s stronger. So many people have come out in support of him it is like a blessing of endorsements for the future run.

Part of what Perry is being indicted for is “misusing government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.” Perry threatened to veto funding for the state’s public integrity unit last summer. This veto threat is more specifically about $7.5 million in funding for the state’s public integrity unit, the ethics watchdog unit housed under Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s office.

I think that this whole thing is a game of cat and mouse. It also seems to me that today’s government officials are more stubborn and selfish than ever. What about that is good for the people? Rosemary Lehmberg is a joke and has turned the Travis County District Office into a joke as well. Governor Perry may not be perfect but at least he knows how to conduct himself in a manner that doesn’t lead to a spit mask, being arrested, putting people’s lives at risk, and being strapped to a chair.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote a really great piece about the Rick Perry indictment with a bit different point of view that you should check out!

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 The Rick Perry Indictment is a Joke appeared first on Law Street.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed in 1984, is turning 30 this year. The law, meant to curb teen drunk driving, has been the topic of debate since it was passed. Read on to learn more about what inspired the law, whether or not it works, and a few unintended consequences.

What is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the drinking age of every state at 21.

Well, not exactly– congress is not allowed to tell states that they have to make their drinking age a certain number. However, Congress does have power to control spending, including the allocations of funds to states. That’s why this act threatened to cut ten percent of federal highway funding to any state that did not change their drinking age to 21. By 1988, every state had changed their drinking age to 21.

Critics of the law had two main arguments. Some complained that the law was was an intrusion on states’ rights. Others argued that it was not fair that the federal government could call 18 year olds adults when they fight for their country, but not when they want a beer.

Watch the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), author of the National Minimum Wage Drinking Age Act Late, respond to these criticisms on PBS NewsHour.

Why was it passed?

This bill was the end result of a massive campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to lower the drinking age.

MADD was started in 1980 by Candy Lightner when her daughter was killed by a repeat drunk driver. The group aggressively lobbied President Reagan and Congress to combat the issue of drunk driving, in part by increasing the drinking age to 21. The problem, in MADD’s eyes, had started a decade earlier. In the 1970s, as a result of the Vietnam War drafting 18-year-olds, some states decided to lower their drinking ages to 18. It only seemed fair; if you could be forced to fight, you should be allowed to drink. However, this led to a sharp spike in drunk driving fatalities.

One major cause was the phenomenon of “blood borders.” These were the borders between states with high drinking ages and states with low drinking ages. Historically, 18 years olds would drive to neighboring states to drink, then while driving back, crash and die. The hope was that raising the drinking age to 21 would lower drunk driving rates.

Has it worked?

Sort of — a Boston University study has shown that, since the drinking age was raised, there have been significantly fewer drunk driving accidents, and a strong majority, 89 percent, of drunk drivers today are between the ages of 21 and 44.

But, lower drunk driving rates are not just limited to those who are banned from drinking. Drunk driving in general has reduced across almost every age group.

Courtesy of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

As you can see, the most dramatic drop was in the 21-29 age group. The minimum drinking age did not impact them. Admittedly, there was also a notable drop in the 16-20 age group.

This decrease in drunk driving rates for all ages could still be the result of a lower drinking age if young people had stopped drinking. However, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 39 percent of high school students still say they drink. The statistics from the National Institute of Health are even more eye-opening. It states 72 percent of 12 graders have tried alcohol and 85 percent of college students drink, even though they are not 21.

So, if young people are still drinking, why did drunk driving decrease so dramatically? Choose Responsibly, an organization that sparks debate about alcohol laws and supports lowering the drinking age, argues that a mix of seatbelt laws, a lower legal BAC, and public awareness all explain the drop in drunk driving fatalities. They also argue that the drop in alcohol-related fatalities actually started in the 1970s, well before the drinking age was raised to 21.

Have there been any unintended consequences?

Different sources have come to different conclusions. While some say that the higher drinking age has definitely saved lives, others argue that unintended consequences have led to a binge drinking crisis.

According to the earlier mentioned NIH report, “underage drinkers consume, on average, four to five drinks per occasion about five times a month. By comparison, drinkers age 26 and older consume two to three drinks per occasion, about nine times a month.” So, while an adult might have a couple glasses of wine a few times a week, a young person will instead have double that amount once a week. Young people are drinking more alcohol in a shorter timeframe.

Watch this clip to learn about why this trend is so dangerous:

Binge drinking can also indirectly cause dangerous behavior in college students. This includes violence, unprotected sex, and even sexual assault. Choose Responsibly argues that this is a consequence of a high drinking age. If these young people were allowed to drink with adult supervision, they would learn how to drink safely and responsibly. Since drinking is illegal, they have been pushed into the shadows. It’s a lot easier to get dangerously drunk in your friend’s basement than it is at a bar.

The binge drinking trend has led some to call for a repeal, or at least a discussion, of the minimum drinking age. A 137 college presidents are signatories on a statement from the Amethyst Initiative, a group dedicated to lowering the drinking age. The presidents argue that they have seen the negative impact of a high drinking age on their own campuses, including high amount of binge drinking amongst their students.

On this point, the presidents are wrong and right. For one, Americans are binge drinking less than they used to as a whole. However, college students are the only group of Americans that are binge drinking as much as they used to. With this in mind, it makes sense the college presidents would be so concerned about this issue. Their point of view is shaped by their experience with a group that represents an outlier in drinking attitudes nationwide. College students are still binge drinking at higher rates than the rest of the country, but raising the drinking age to 21 seems to have lowered the amount of binge drinking amongst young people who are not in college.

Still, Amethyst presidents are concerned about a culture where college drinkers move from bars, where someone can cut them off, to basements and pre-games that are unregulated and unchecked.

Signatories to the Amethyst Initiative have other reasons to lower the drinking age, mostly philosophical. For one, they believe that forcing young people to drink in secret and violate the law fosters a disrespect for all laws. They also believe that a person who can vote, smoke, marry, and fight for their country should be given all of the responsibilities of adulthood, including drinking.

Conclusion

It’s been 30 years since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act became a law, and it is still hard to measure the act’s impact. It’s difficult to tell how many lives it saved from drunk driving accidents because there are so many other factors. It’s also challenging to figure out if it has really curbed underage and binge drinking. More research needs to be done on the issue before the act can be defined as a success or failure.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

Additional

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Impaired Driving: Get the Facts

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Epidemiology and Consequences of Drinking and Driving

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: No More Victims

Fox News: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Mental Floss: Why is the Drinking Age 21?

CNN: Drinking Age of 21 Does Not Work

Amethyst Initative: Rethink the Drinking Age

Washington Post: Drinking Age Paradox

Washington University in St. Louis: Higher Drinking Age Linked to Less Binge Drinking…Except in College Students

Boston University: New Report on Minimum Drinking Age Makes Strong Case for Existing Laws

National Institutes of Health: Underage Drinking Fact Sheet

Choose Responibility: Those Who Choose to Drink Are Drinking More

Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Binge Drinking Fact Sheet

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 Turn Down for What: Does the Minimum Drinking Age Act Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever woken up after a night of drinks and fun, reached for your phone, and were mortified by some of the messages and emails you don’t remember sending?  If you have a phone and are at least twenty-one years old, it’s safe to assume this has happened to you at least once.  After recalling some of my own less than flattering moments, my mind shifts to one of my favorite television shows, GIRLS.

While I was catching up on the show I remembered an amazing invention one of the characters created. Last season Marnie’s ex-boyfriend Charlie, distraught over their breakup, couldn’t resist the urge to drunk dial her. Luckily he happened to be an app developer, so he created one for his phone that wouldn’t allow him to dial his ex while drinking.

I remember watching the episode and thinking, “if only it were real.” Although my days of partying and waking up to embarrassing messages are behind me, I did a bit of research and found out that there actually are apps that can prevent us from drunk dialing.

Drunk Dial No! allows its users to input contact information prior to drinking, and disable their ability to contact the designated person until the following day. This may seem silly to some, but I’m sure this technology has prevented many people from embarrassing themselves in front of exes, from giving their bosses a piece of their mind, and from sending inappropriate messages to mom when they really meant to text Tom. Even if this app isn’t appealing to the masses, we can all agree that this technology prevents people from making bad decisions.

While drunk dialing, messaging, and emailing are potentially embarrassing, there are fewer things more devastating than the loss of lives as a result of a drunk driver. Drunk driving is one hundred percent avoidable; however, when senses are impaired and the beer muscles are on, many people don’t realize the danger they are to themselves and others while driving. In 2011 alcohol related driving fatalities had declined about 69 percent since 1982. The improvements can be credited to increased penalties for driving under the influence as well as more attention focused on informing the public of its dangers. According to a study by the Century Council, 66 percent of people killed in alcohol-related car accidents were drivers. Considering these statistics, it makes sense to support alcohol-sensor technology with laws to further reduce the amount of drunk driving offenses. Just like Drunk Dial No!, these technologies would prevent bad decisions from being made in the first place, as opposed to dealing with the consequences of bad decisions.

Several States have adopted legislation that requires individuals convicted of a DUI to have alcohol-sensor devices, known as interlock systems, installed into their cars. These devices require drivers to take a Breathalyzer test before being able to operate their vehicle. In fact, a company known as Smart Start boasts more than 200,000 alcohol-sensor installations, from which there have been more than 700 million alcohol-free starts, as well as the prevention of more than seven million alcohol starts.

In 2011 Senators Tom Udall and Bob Corker introduced the ROADS SAFE Act which would have authorized $12 million for five years toward the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety program. According to the legislation, the funds would be used to explore the feasibility of vehicle interlock systems and some of the policy challenges they may face in Congress. Unfortunately, this bill, which I believe would be a step in the right direction, was lost in committee and never received the attention it deserved.

The technology to save lives exists, and car manufacturers could choose to equip cars with it. However,  I have not found any information on companies considering installing the technology, and  I find it highly unlikely that it will happen without government regulation.
—
Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Robert Lachenman for the Work Projects Administration Federal Art Project via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alcohol Apps Can Save Your Rep & Your Life appeared first on Law Street.

Matt Cordle created a stir on the internet when he posted a video to Youtube entitled “I Killed a man.”  In the video, Cordle admits to driving extremely intoxicated down the wrong side of the highway, hitting a car and eventually killing Vincent Canzani. Cordle also said that he would plead guilty to whatever crime he is charged with in relation to Mr. Canzani’s death, and that his reason for making the video was essentially to put a real face to the serious implications of drinking and driving.  He ended the video by imploring viewers to not make the same mistake he did.

On September 11, 2013, Cordle plead not guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide. This was considered legal maneuvering by his counsel, and Cordle eventually plead guilty.  On October 23, Cordle was sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison and the permanent suspension of his driver’s license, pursuant to Ohio law.

There is a lot to discuss here.  The first is the criminal law aspect of Cordle’s Youtube confession.  Cordle makes a point to say that he will “take full responsibility for everything he’s done to Vincent and his family…by releasing this video, [he knows] exactly what it means, and hand the prosecution everything they need to put me away for a very long time.” This is especially true in light of the fact that in criminal trials, it is the both the judge’s and defense counsel’s legal and ethical duty to make sure that the defendant knows the consequences of a guilty plea.  To that extent, it is clear that Cordle received legal advice in making the Youtube confession, as well as his actions in court.

Second, how much did the court of public opinion factor into the outcome of this case?  As of September 12, 2011, the video has been viewed over two million times.  There is a public investment in the judicial response to Cordle’s case.  The outrage that will result would be massive, especially since judgeships are elected positions in Ohio. Though this internet confession was not the sole reason that Cordle received his conviction, this unprecedented move surely played a larger role.

During the sentencing, various parties spoke on behalf of and against Cordle.  Those who supported him throughout the trial argued that he has made such an impact with his video, and acknowledgement of the severity of his actions, that the maximum sentence of eight-and-a-half years was unnecessary.  They argued that by putting a face to drunk driving, he has effectively “scared straight” those that would consider putting themselves in a similar position. Among those who took this position were Mr. Canzani’s widow and Cordle’s attorney.

Conversely, there were arguments in court that the maximum sentence was deserved because of the heinous nature of the crime, and because a viral video does not negate the loss of life that occurred at Cordle’s hands. This position was most effectively elucidated by Mr. Canzani’s daughter, Angela, who said “my father got a death sentence and did nothing wrong.  After eight and half years, Matthew Cordle will still have his whole life ahead of him, my father is never coming back.”

This case is so interesting, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.  Was Cordle’s sentence fair? Should the video have resulted in an even shorter sentence?  Should he have received the maximum?

[Daily News] [CNN] 

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 “I Killed a Man” Driver Sentenced to Six and a Half Years appeared first on Law Street.