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.

ICYMI, Maryland became the first state to pass laws protecting Planned Parenthood. For that story and other trending news, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Cannabis Legalization in Colorado

Legalized cannabis. From California’s Proposition 215 in 1996 to West Virginia’s SB 386 in 2017, legalized cannabis is becoming the norm. And in Colorado, legalized cannabis is almost old news. But how did we get here? A mix of timing, trailblazers, economics, and politics.

NRA Video Sparks Reactions from Both Supporters and Opponents

The National Rifle Association (NRA) released a video on Thursday imploring its followers to stock up on firearms and “fight back” against liberals. But many Americans were horrified by the inflammatory message, fearing that it could spark violence. The lobbying group’s video claims that liberal Americans are indoctrinating children, “assassinating [the] real news,” and using Hollywood celebrities to further their narrative. Titled “The Violence of Lies,” the video claims that when police stop the demonstrators from protesting they will be accused of police brutality.

Maryland Becomes First State to Pass Law Protecting Planned Parenthood Funding

Maryland is officially the first state with a law in place to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law in April ensuring the organization’s continuity; the law went into effect on July 1. SB 1081 establishes the Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and provides that Maryland will pay for Planned Parenthood’s health care services in the state if Congress cuts off funding for the organization. The bill, which was backed by a veto-proof majority in Maryland’s House of Delegates and Senate, became law without Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s signature.

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

Maryland is officially the first state with a law in place to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law in April ensuring the organization’s continuity; the law went into effect on July 1.

SB 1081 establishes the Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and provides that Maryland will pay for Planned Parenthood’s health care services in the state if Congress cuts off funding for the organization. The bill, which was backed by a veto-proof majority in Maryland’s House of Delegates and Senate, became law without Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s signature.

Karen J. Nelson, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, applauded the law’s passage in April but also highlighted the continuing fight for health care nationwide.

“As Marylanders, we must remember that a state solution does not change the fact that politicians in Congress are trying to prohibit millions of people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood,” Nelson said. “It’s incumbent on all of us to keep up the fight for women. No state should have to step in to fulfill the federal government’s responsibility to ensure everyone has access to care.”

In addition to defunding Planned Parenthood for one year, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate health care bills include sweeping cuts to Medicaid spending. Supporters of Planned Parenthood joined other protesters on June 27 to specifically protest the Senate’s health care bill, including a group of activists dressed as women from “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

There are nine Planned Parenthood locations in Maryland, and their funding will be protected by the legislation. However, the future for Planned Parenthood is less promising in other states. Take Iowa for example–four of its Planned Parenthood clinics have recently closed. Iowa has approved a state budget that cut off the organization’s funding. Some Iowans fear that more closures could be on the horizon if the Senate’s health bill passes.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards condemned Iowa’s defunding of Planned Parenthood on social media.

Today, a devastating “defunding” law in Iowa is forcing 1/3 of our health centers in the state to close.

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

Here’s what that means: nearly 15,000 people will lose access to the doctors and nurses they trust. https://t.co/DMQ6NAUzwf pic.twitter.com/dwCDSuZ9Cd

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

If other states follow in Iowa’s footsteps instead of Maryland’s, health care services could be in jeopardy for those states’ citizens who rely on Planned Parenthood.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland Becomes First State to Pass Law Protecting Planned Parenthood Funding appeared first on Law Street.

The attorneys general for Maryland and Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump, alleging that he violated the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses by accepting payments from foreign governments since taking office.

This is the first time a state has filed a lawsuit against a president for violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. While Trump has said that he would transfer his business assets to a blind trust, the lawsuit is centered on the claim that Trump has continued to retain ownership of his vast business portfolio while getting updates from his two sons.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, will require the court to answer whether Trump has violated either the domestic or foreign emoluments clauses.

Both clauses ban any “person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from receiving any payment from foreign countries or from any of the 50 states without approval from Congress. The founding fathers set up the clauses to limit the influence a foreign country or an individual state could wield over the president.

In a copy of the lawsuit provided to the Washington Post, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh claim that Trump’s global business has him “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors.”

The suit also alleges that businesses in both Maryland and D.C. have been harmed by Trump’s tendency to utilize his own convention centers and properties, such as the Trump International Hotel in D.C. The suit says that hotel payments, tax breaks, and permits all count as domestic emoluments received by Trump, according to CNN Money.

If the lawsuit progresses, the two officials say their first step will be to demand Trump’s personal tax returns in order to gauge the severity of his behavior.

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits attempting to test Trump’s conflicts of interest. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a D.C.-based group, and Cork Wine Bar had previously filed lawsuits against the president.

The Trump Organization, though, argues that everything is perfectly legal. In a response to CREW, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Trump may legally accept “market-rate payments” for Trump’s real estate, hotel, and golf companies. They even cited George Washington selling farm produce as a previous example in their 70-page response.

Disappointed with the lack of inquiry from Congress, Racine and Frosh felt compelled to file their own lawsuit.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

The attorneys general feel confident that they have the standing to sue because Maryland and D.C. entered a contract, the Constitution, that Trump has violated by accepting gifts.

So while Trump faced plenty of lawsuits before his presidency and a handful since, this lawsuit represents a big moment in the early months of his administration. Trump’s foreign business dealings and potential conflicts of interest have been controversial since the campaign, but now D.C. and Maryland are demanding transparency within the Trump Administration to ease citizens’ concerns.

“This case represents another storm, not just a dusting of snow, but a blizzard of trouble for Trump,” Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said. “Who better than governmental actors to say our deal was, our fundamental democratic bargain was, we would get a president who would follow the Constitution.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump, Alleging He Violated Constitution’s Anti-Corruption Clauses appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Maryland and D.C. Sue the President

The Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia have said they will file a lawsuit against President Donald Trump today, citing violations of the Constitution. They will focus on Trump’s continued involvement with his family business. The plaintiffs are also asking for those tax returns he never released. The lawsuit calls the alleged constitutional violations “unprecedented.”

AG Karl A. Racine of D.C. and AG Brian E. Frosh of Maryland said that they felt obligated to sue, as the Republican-led Congress doesn’t seem to take Trump’s conflicts of interest seriously. “We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

Maryland and DC’s attorneys general just sued Trumphttps://t.co/qcuXoVLGiI pic.twitter.com/fid3cnxz40

— jordan (@JordanUhl) June 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Woman on Trial for Laughing During Jeff Sessions’ Confirmation Hearing

A female activist who was arrested back in January during Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing will stand trial. Desiree Fairooz laughed at one point during the hearing and was subsequently arrested. Prosecutors decided to pursue charges this week. Officer Katherine Coronado arrested Fairooz, 61, for laughing when Senator Richard Shelby said that Sessions’ record of treating all Americans equally is well-documented. According to Coronado, the laughter was loud enough to disrupt the hearing.

Another protester escorted out of Sessions hearing. Her original offense appeared to be simply laughing. pic.twitter.com/p6lWzBVFRW

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) January 10, 2017

Fairooz said her laughter was an involuntary reflex to what she heard. And many people expressed their support of Fairooz, saying it was understandable to laugh, as Shelby’s statement was not particularly accurate. In fact, Sessions was rejected as a federal judge in 1980 over his views on race. Fairooz is charged with “disorderly and disruptive conduct” and faces up to a $500 fine and six months in prison if convicted.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In a 10-4 decision on Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, concluding that military-style weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” wrote Judge Robert King, who noted that the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller excluded coverage of assault weapons.

The decision overturned a previous ruling that found Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013 unconstitutional because the weapons “are in common use by law-abiding citizens,” and therefore don’t fall under the exception that applies to “unusual” weapons–i.e. machine guns and hand grenades.

The law, which was introduced by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, prohibits the sale, possession, transfer, or purchase of 45 kinds of assault rifles and places a 10-round limit on detachable gun magazines.

In a scathing dissent, Judge William B. Traxler wrote that his colleagues did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

“[The majority] has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,” wrote Traxler.

King, however, pointed out that the same kinds of weapons were used in the shootings in Aurora, San Bernardino, and Orlando, adding that the names of those places “have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there.”

The decision is considered to be a major victory for gun safety advocates, but a serious setback for gun proponents who believe their right to bear arms should not be limited.

According to NBC News, the NRA estimates there are somewhere between 5 million to 10 million AR-15s–one of the banned weapons under Maryland’s law–in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes.

“It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected ‘arm’ under the Second Amendment,” said National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker. She added that the majority opinion “clearly ignores the Supreme Court’s guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are ‘in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'”

The plaintiffs could appeal to the Supreme Court, but Frosh says he’s confident that the law will stand.

“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said, noting that all of the court’s judges participated.

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 Federal Court Rules Assault Rifles Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment 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

Maryland Lawmakers Push For Recreational Marijuana 

During a news conference last week, a trio of Democratic Maryland lawmakers said they would introduce two pieces of legislation: one to tax recreational marijuana sales, and another to regulate a legal market. The bills would regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol: use would be permitted for adults 21 and up, and it would be illegal to consume marijuana in public. Cultivators would pay a $30 per ounce excise tax, and there would be a 9 percent sales tax levied on retail products.

Will Rhode Island Reject Recreational Weed…Again?

After multiple failed attempts, Rhode Island could finally legalize recreational marijuana. State Representatives Scott Slater (D-Providence) and Joshua Miller (D-Providence) have proposed a new measure to legalize recreational marijuana for those 21 years and older. The Cannabis Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act will include mandatory product testing and labeling, restrictions on advertising, funding to law enforcement, limits on THC quantity per product, and mandatory reviews for all sale products.

Hawaii Approves First Two Medical Dispensaries 

After two years of waiting, Maui Wellness Group, d.b.a. Maui Grown Therapies, and Aloha Green Holdings on Oahu have been given the green light from the Hawaii State Department of Health to begin growing medical marijuana. The state legalized dispensaries in 2015, and sales were originally set to begin in July 2016. However, growers were still waiting on a seed-to-sale tracking system to be implemented, which stalled the approval.

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

Recreational Marijuana is Officially Legal in Maine

By Alec Siegel

After nearly three months of being suspended in legislative limbo, Maine’s recreational marijuana bill officially went into effect on January 30. People 21 and older can now possess up to two and a half ounces of cannabis; they can also grow up to six mature plants, and 12 immature plants. But after Governor Paul LePage signed a moratorium on January 27, retail sales of marijuana will be frozen until February 2018, giving lawmakers time to close any loopholes that appeared in the original legalization measure.

Will New Mexico Legalize Recreational Marijuana Next?

Israeli Government Will Pay $2 Million to Fund Medical Cannabis Research

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 February 2017: Which State Will Be Next to Legalize? appeared first on Law Street.

Maryland might be the next state to legalize recreational marijuana. During a news conference on Monday, a trio of Democratic lawmakers said they would introduce two pieces of legislation: one to tax recreational marijuana sales, and another to regulate a legal market. But some Maryland Democrats would like to see the state iron out its medical marijuana program before tackling recreational use.

The bills propose regulating and taxing marijuana like alcohol is regulated and taxed: use would be permitted for adults 21 and up, and it would be illegal to consume marijuana in public. Cultivators would pay a $30 per ounce excise tax, and there would be a nine percent sales tax levied on retail products.

“This legislation will effectively end the failed policy of cannabis prohibition in Maryland and replace it with a much more sensible system,” said Sen. Richard Madaleno (D-Montgomery), one of the sponsors of the bills. “It establishes a thoughtful regulatory scheme and tax structure based on best practices and lessons learned from other states.”

The proposed regulatory framework is modeled after Colorado, which legalized recreational marijuana in 2012. Revenue from the taxes would funnel into community school programs, substance abuse treatment and prevention programs, and workforce development programs. Maryland has been slowly creeping toward full legalization since 2013, when the state legalized medical marijuana.

The state’s medical program was deliberated on for nearly three years: permits were finally issued to growers, processors, and dispensaries in 2016. But after lawsuits and complaints about how the permits were issued, medical marijuana patients in Maryland will not have access to the drug until sometime this year. Until the medical program is fully implemented, some lawmakers and activists say, recreational legislation should not be put forward.

“We need to get the medical marijuana program up and running before we move to full-blown legalization,” Del. Cheryl D. Glenn (D-Baltimore) told The Washington Post. But according to a poll from last fall, most Marylanders (61 percent) support legalizing recreational marijuana, up from 49 percent in 2014.

Del. David Moon (D-Montgomery) is introducing separate legislation that would allow voters in 2018 to determine if the state’s constitution should be changed to legalize marijuana. In order to end up on the 2018 ballot, a constitutional amendment would need to garner a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature. Moon is confident that, somehow, Maryland will legalize recreational marijuana. “You can smell the inevitability of this in the air,” 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 Will Maryland be the Next State to Legalize Recreational Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

Maryland officials announced the recipients of preliminary licenses to grow and process medical marijuana Monday, two years after then-Governor Martin O’Malley passed Maryland’s first workable medical marijuana law. The licenses are expected to be extremely lucrative in the state based on the limited number of businesses that can participate in the industry, as well as the few restrictions on who can buy the drug.

The Natalie M. LaPrade Medical Cannabis Commission was placed in charge of the selection process,  choosing 15 growers and 15 processors out of the more than 1,000 overall applicants.

According to Baltimore ABC affiliate, the selections for grower entities and locations are:

• Curio Cultivation LLC – Baltimore County
• Doctors Orders Maryland LLC – Dorchester County
• Forward Gro LLC – Anne Arundel County
• Freestate Wellness LLC – Howard County
• Green Leaf Medical LLC – Frederick County
• Grow West MD LLC – Garrett County
• Harvest of Maryland LLC – Washington County
• HMS Health LLC – Frederick County
• Holistic Industries LLC – Prince George’s County
• Kind Therapeutics USA LLC – Washington County
• Maryland Compassionate Care and Wellness LLC – Carroll County
• MaryMed LLC – Dorchester County
• Shore Natural Rx LLC – Worcester County
• SunMed Growers LLC – Cecil County
• Temescal Wellness of MD LLC – Baltimore City

The processor entities and locations are:

• AFS Maryland LLC – Wicomico County
• Blair Wellness Center LLC – Worcester County
• Chesapeake Alternatives LLC – Queen Anne’s County
• Curio Manufacturing LLC – Baltimore County
• Doctors Orders Maryland LLC – Dorchester County
• FGM Processing LLC – Charles County
• Holistic Industries LLC – Prince George’s County
• Kind Therapeutics USA LLC – Washington County
• Maryland Compassionate Care and Wellness – Carroll County
• MaryMed LLC – Dorchester County
• Pharmaculture Corporation – Alleghany County
• Pro Green Medical LLC – Frederick County
• Rosebud Organics LLC – Montgomery County
• Seven Points Agro-Therapeutics LLC – Prince George’s County
• Temescal Wellness of MD – Baltimore City

The top applicants were selected on August 5; however, the commission waited more than a week to release the names to the public. Some of the names on the list include companies with ties to politicians and law enforcement, as well as growers from other states including Colorado, New York, and Illinois.

The number of growers and processors was capped at 15 each due to a stipulation in Maryland’s medical marijuana law, but some applicants received licenses in both categories. Aside from the 30 winners, the panel also chose five applicants to be alternates in each category, in case any of the top 15 fail to be licensed after another round of inspections, reviews, and background checks.

In total, the commission received 145 grower applications and 124 processor applications. According to the Baltimore Sun, 800 applicants also applied for 94 dispensary licenses to sell the legalized cannabis product; however, medical cannabis won’t be available for purchase in dispensaries until 2017.

Patients suffering from medical conditions that cause severe or chronic pain, nausea, seizures, severe muscle spasms, and severe appetite loss, as well as people with glaucoma or post-traumatic stress disorder will have access to the medical marijuana cards once the program takes off. In the meantime, marijuana advocates frustrated with Maryland’s slower than average implementation of the law will have to wait just a little longer before they see the changes in full effect.

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 Preliminary Licenses to Grow and Process Marijuana Named in Maryland appeared first on Law Street.

A standoff with the police ended in the fatal shooting of a 23-year-old woman in Baltimore on Monday. Now authorities say she tried to live stream the event to Facebook and Instagram as it was happening. Her 5-year-old son was shot in the arm and is being treated at hospital.

Three police officers arrived at the apartment of Korryn Gaines and her boyfriend Kareem Courtney on Monday to serve them warrants–Gaines for failing to appear in court over a traffic violation, and Courtney for an assault case. But when the officers entered the apartment, Gaines threatened them with a shotgun while holding her son, Baltimore police Chief Jim Johnson told CNN on Tuesday.

What Happened

According to Johnson, the police retreated to the hallway. During the standoff, Courtney left the apartment with a 1-year-old toddler and was arrested. After that, the standoff with Gaines continued for a couple of hours, as Gaines captured and streamed the exchange on Facebook. She then said she would kill the police officers unless they left. Gunfire erupted between both sides and Gaines was fatally shot. It is unclear why the police fired the first shots instead of backing off or waiting for backup.

The question is why there is no body camera footage from the cops, since police officers in Baltimore have been equipped with body cams since May.

The Background

According to NBC, Gaines was pulled over in March for having a piece of cardboard fixated on her license plate that read: “Any government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be held criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right to freedom.”

She failed to appear in court for the March incident, which is why police came to her home on Monday. However, it is also questionable why three police officers would be required for a non-violent intervention like this.

Supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement reacted strongly on social media.

Police had at least 10 non lethal options they could've used with #KorrynGaines.

Guess how many they used before shooting her?

ZERO.

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) August 3, 2016

But critics have questioned why Gaines should be labeled a hero when she threatened police officers with a gun while having her 5-year-old by her side.

Black privilege: the ability to use a 5 year old as a human shield against the police and still be labeled a hero by CNN.#KorrynGaines

— Right Wing Raven (@KazeSkyz) August 3, 2016

For those of you who claim the police had no other choice, but to shoot. #KorrynGaines https://t.co/UAYuNICQoU

— Sharhonda Bossier (@BossierS) August 2, 2016

Police asked Facebook and Instagram to deactivate Gaines’s accounts during the standoff to facilitate the negotiating. Reportedly, her followers asked her to not comply with the officers. The Facebook video was removed, but the short videos she posted before that on her Instagram account are still online.

The spokeswoman for Baltimore County Police Elise Armacost told reporters that she didn’t think the shooting had anything to do with race.

“There was every attempt by the negotiators to calm her and encourage her to leave the apartment peacefully,” she said. “I think if the same situation evolved with a person of any race or ethnicity we would have the same outcome.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Standoff in Baltimore Kills Mother, Wounds 5-Year-Old Son appeared first on Law Street.

A Baltimore judge acquitted Officer Edward Nero of all charges for his role in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old black man who died a week after sustaining a severe spinal injury while in police custody on April 12, 2015.

Nero waived his right to a  jury trial, opting to argue his case before a circuit judge. After six days of hearings, Judge Barry Williams found him not guilty of second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and two counts of misconduct in office.

Nero is the first of the six officers charged to receive a verdict for his involvement in Gray’s death. However, he’s not the first officer to go to trial. In December, Officer William G. Porter was awarded a mistrial after a hung jury failed to deliver a unanimous verdict–they claimed they were deadlocked on every charge.

Following the verdict, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said in a statement,

This is our American system of justice and police officers must be afforded the same justice system as every other citizen in this city, state, and country. Now that the criminal case has come to an end, Officer Nero will face an administrative review by the Police Department. We once again ask the citizens to be patient and to allow the entire process to come to a conclusion.

But it’s hard for the citizens of Baltimore to remain patient, when so many of the details surrounding Gray’s death still remain unclear.

What we do know is that Gray took off running after making eye contact with police. After being chased on foot, Gray was caught and found with an illegal switchblade in his possession. Gray was then arrested and placed in the back of a police van without a seatbelt and with his legs shackled. At some point during the half-hour drive to the jail Gray suffered a spinal injury, which many attribute as the result of a “rough ride,” a form of police brutality. Gray died in a hospital a week later.

Gray’s death helped reignite the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and sparked legendary riots in the city of Baltimore that quickly escalated into violence.

After news of Nero’s acquittal went public, the hashtag #FreddieGray shot to the top of Twitter’s trending topics. And just like the Baltimore riots, frustration over Gray’s death began to bring out the worst in people on social media. Some people spoke of rioting and hurting cops, while others dolled out celebratory racial slurs and mocked Gray’s death.

But for the vast majority of hashtag users, it wasn’t violence or jubilation they wished to convey–it was outrage.

Video shared by @LarryCFOX45 shows protesters reacting to not guilty verdict in Edward Nero trial #FreddieGray pic.twitter.com/x6ABnVRmmk

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 23, 2016

I remember you today, #FreddieGray. I’m praying for your family. The pursuit of justice and peace continues. pic.twitter.com/3Uj653ibqx

— Be A King (@BerniceKing) May 23, 2016

1 Police kill someone 2 Police lie to the media 3 We talk about it 4 The media talk about it 5 System stays the same 6 Repeat #FreddieGray

— Lex Looper (@lex_looper) May 23, 2016

Still trying to figure out how #FreddieGray died a violent death while shackled and in police custody, and nobody is held accountable.

— JustCallMeHerb (@JusCallMeHerb) May 23, 2016

1 hung jury & 1 not guilty verdict but #FreddieGray dead from a severed spine after contact with said cops. #BlackLivesMatter? Clearly not.

— VanityByNature (@VanityByNature) May 23, 2016

#FreddieGray had his Constitutional rights completely & utterly violated. The use of lethal force by American police officers needs reform.

— سامر / סאמר (@MashriqLands) May 23, 2016

Twitter is an especially racist and ugly place today. All we want is justice. #FreddieGray #Baltimore #BlackLivesMatter

— kamau Waset (@KamauWaset) May 23, 2016

The four remaining officers still await individual trial in connection with Gray’s death, and Officer Porter also awaits a retrial. If these past trials are any indication of what is to come, it’s beginning to look doubtful that any of the officers will be found guilty.

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 Twitter Reacts: Baltimore Officer Acquitted in Freddie Gray Death appeared first on Law Street.

The trial of the first officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray has officially ended in indecision–a hung jury caused the judge to declare it a mistrial. The prosecutors have said they plan on retrying Officer William G. Porter, and given that there are five more officers to be tried after Porter, this saga is far from over.

Freddie Gray died while in police custody last April. He was arrested for possessing an illegal switchblade, and then while being transported via police van, fell into a coma and later passed away. It was later determined that his neck was broken while riding in the police van–while his ankles and wrists were restrained, he wasn’t strapped in. An autopsy determined his neck broke when he slammed into part of the van at some point during the ride. After Gray’s death, protests erupted in Baltimore, as well as in solidarity in other American cities.

Porter was the first of six officers to be tried for Gray’s death; according to the New York Times, he:

Was charged with manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment and misconduct in office; the state accused him of ‘callous indifference’ to Mr. Gray’s life for failing to call a medic after Mr. Gray asked for one, and for not buckling Mr. Gray into a police transport van, where he suffered a fatal injury to his spinal cord.

The jury deliberated three days, on a trial that began on December 2, but couldn’t come to a unanimous decision on any of the charges, which is required for conviction. According to Kalani Gordon, of the Baltimore Sun, there were multiple points of contention for the jury that kept them from coming to a final decision. Those included:

• Disagreements from expert witnesses about when Gray’s injury occurred;
• The rule that arrestees being transported must be seat-belted had recently been changed and the officers may not have known about the change;
• Disagreements in witness testimony over whether Porter knew Gray was badly hurt;
• Conflicting arguments from the Prosecution and Defense over the responsibilities of police officers;
• Maryland laws about manslaughter and depraved-heart murder are vague.

So, while Porter wasn’t found guilty, he wasn’t found not guilty either. The prosecutors will have to try again–we’ll have to see if this time they are successful.

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 Freddie Gray: First Officer’s Case Ends in Mistrial appeared first on Law Street.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is now worrying about how it will handle the newest influx of drugs on Baltimore streets. Following the death of Freddie Gray, some Baltimore citizens rioted the streets, attempting to loot as many stores as possible. Over thirty pharmacies and clinics were targeted during that time, and enough doses of Oxycodone, Suboxone, Morphine, Fentanyl and other drugs were taken to keep the city’s drug users high for a year.

In a city with a large population of heroin addicts, this increase of drugs on the street may add to the problems police and city officials face in dealing with the rise of shootings and murders. With more than 175,000 doses of opiates and other prescription drugs stolen, law enforcement officials believe the new flow of prescription pills will breed new addicts and more violence. They also believe that many of those addicts will turn to cheaper heroin once the prescription drugs dry up. 

In response to the city’s plea for help, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies are seeking to prosecute the leaders of gang and drug dealing organizations.

Gary Tuggle, former Assistant Special Agent in Charge of DEA Baltimore District and former Baltimore cop, led the DEA’s efforts in Baltimore in drawing up a list of potential suspects. The DEA is currently circulating photos of about 60 people they believe to have looted these drugs.

Tuggle recalls his time as a police officer and how the drug market has changed since that time:

The street purity of heroin was 2-5%. Today we are seeing purity levels up to 80-85% and then some cases, a kilo of heroin would cost $140-160,000. Today you can get it for between $65 and $70,000 so you see the economics of it when you have a level of supply and level of demand that uses that inventory its literally bringing the cost down and purity levels up.

According the DEA, the influx of drugs on the streets has created a series of turf wars between gangs and independent drug dealers who are competing for territory. Tuggle says:

In some cases you have the gangs taxing other gangs or independent drug dealers. Other times, gangs feel their territory is being threatened, which leads to a disruption in the balance of power and that’s only going to lead to violence.

Police say it is the violence inflicted by the influx of drugs that is partially responsible for the large spike of murders in May.

DEA agents claim to know which areas of town are best for heroin or other drugs. They identified specifically the Sandtown area of Baltimore as having an active heroin market, and the Lexington Market downtown as a location where a circulation of prescription opiates have recently developed. Those most affected by the drug dealing are victims of drug users who come from all over the city. Tuggle stated:

At the end of the day these communities have very, very decent people, hardworking people who want to work and educate their families and support their families […] But a lot of these people dealing in these neighborhoods are not from these neighborhoods. Some of them have nice homes in the suburbs or they live in high rise apartment sin downtown Baltimore. So they come into these communities to take advantage of these communities.

Police believe prescription drugs to be at least partially responsible for Baltimore’s deadliest month in decades–there were 43 murders in the month of May alone. Police are currently working to arrest potential suspects responsible for the recent violent streak, but do not believe the problem will be solved quickly. 

With a limited number of buyers on the street, drug dealers are competing for every dollar and creating turf wars. These turf wars are primarily between gangs and independent drug dealers; these groups are more likely to settle disputes with violence leading to that spike in shootings and murders.

“We’re talking about people. These are not numbers. These are human beings who’ve lost their lives in the streets of Baltimore,” said Police Commissioner Anthony Batts.

So, what does this mean for the residents of Baltimore? Even though the city has had a long history of drug abuse, it seems to recently be getting worse. Now community members that may not be associated with drugs are suddenly right in the middle of a turf war because the dealers have no concern for the lives they are putting at risk. You would think it would be easy to just encourage community members to reach out to police officers when they see suspicious activity, but with the tensions between police officers and minority communities, that’s a completely different battle. With these new drugs on the streets of Baltimore, it seems like they are in for a year of heartache unless the Baltimore Police Department can do something to change it.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prescription Drug Influx Doesn’t Bode Well for Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

Date rape, also known as “acquaintance rape” or “hidden rape,” has been increasingly recognized as a problem in our society. A shocking study shows that 82 percent of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone who is not a stranger, and 47 percent of rapes are by a friend or acquaintance. The tragic story of a woman in Montgomery County, Maryland who was recently raped and killed serves as a horrifying reminder of these statistics.

At 11:40 PM on Thursday, June 18th, a security guard at the Montgomery County Circuit Courthouse  in Rockville, Maryland witnessed a struggle between 16-year-old Marquiz Turner and a 19-year-old girl outside. The guard notified the sheriff’s deputies who went outside the building and allegedly saw Turner forcing sexual intercourse on the young woman. He was immediately taken into custody. According to court documents, the victim had gone to see a movie in downtown Rockville with her ex-boyfriend, Turner, on Friday night. When the film ended Turner expressed that he wanted to have sex with her and she told him she was not interested. As the two of them walked to the car, Turner allegedly ripped off her clothing, pushed her against the courthouse’s concrete wall, and proceeded to rape her. The charging documents stated, “when the Deputies rounded the corner and identified themselves, Turner jumped back and pulled his pants up.”

Detectives interviewed Turner, who did admit to forcing the victim to have sex with him. He stated that “he was unwilling to accept ‘no’ for an answer,” and that he was going to have intercourse regardless of her objections. According to the charging documents, he felt that she “owed him” sex. At the scene, the victim told police she had broken up with Turner previously because he kept pressuring her to have sex with him.

Paramedics transported the victim to Shady Grove Medical Center for a forensic rape exam. While en route, she stopped breathing and lost a pulse. Doctors pronounced her dead at 1 AM, less than 90 minutes after the alleged rape occurred. The official autopsy and toxicology results have not yet been released, leaving questions about the reason for her mysterious death. According to reports, Turner showed little to no emotion after hearing of the victim’s death.

Court documents show that Turner is a sophomore at Winston Churchill High School in Potomac, Maryland where he had a 3.7 GPA. He lived with his mother in a Silver Spring high-rise apartment building. Neighbor Felicia Charles expressed, “I’m very shocked. I think that’s disturbing. I would have never thought he would do something like that. He never gave off that vibe.” Jean Arthur, a counselor for victims of sexual abuse, said,

Unfortunately that thinking is pervasive. It’s just really sad that a person thinks they can do that to another person. The fact that a person at 16-years-old even thinks to do that, I mean it just boggles my mind. I completely don’t understand it.

Turner is currently being charged with second-degree rape, a felony that carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Prosecutors say there may be additional charges depending on the deceased victim’s autopsy and toxicology reports.

Unfortunately sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes, with an average of 39 percent being reported to the police each year. While this was a more high profile case, more attention does need to be brought to the pervasive issue of date rape.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland Woman’s Death Sheds Light on the Problem of Date Rape appeared first on Law Street.

As if Baltimore has not been in the news enough recently for civil and human rights abuses, yet another report of maltreatment surfaced today. The Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) came under fire after the American Civil Liberties Union, the Public Justice Center, and the law offices of Elizabeth Alexander filed a legal motion on behalf of detainees of the center to reopen a suit against BCDC, claiming that the terms of a 2009 settlement have not been met. The motion claims that seven preventable deaths of prisoners have occurred in the last two years due to the appalling living conditions of the center. The motion accuses state officials, who are supposed to oversee that the jail is being run appropriately, of violating the detainees’ Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

Medical neglect is reported to be rampant in the BCDC with prisoners housed in moldy, vermin-infested cells with flooding toilets, exposing inmates to bodily wastes that worsen existing health issues. The motion claims that inspections of the center revealed not only horrifying living conditions, health hazards, and a lack of basic medical care, but also that detainees were routinely denied life-saving medications. An examination of the BCDC’s medical records exposed several cases of HIV-positive inmates’ antiretroviral drugs being discontinued. Comparably detrimental were cases of diabetic detainees being denied insulin and having food restrictions ignored and mentally ill prisoners denied psychotropic drugs. The motion claims that a complete lack of medical documentation and health planning is the probable cause for the seven preventable deaths inside the center.

Debra Gardner, the Public Justice Center’s legal director, stated in a press release today, “…detainees in need of medical attention and treatment for infections, injuries, psychiatric conditions, and other urgent health concerns wait for days and weeks, their suffering prolonged to the point of cruelty.” The case’s lead counsel, Elizabeth Alexander, recently stated,

I was struck by the huge number of cells that couldn’t be occupied because they were not habitable. This is a facility that has outlived its physical life.

While all inmates morally deserve human rights and are supposed to legally be afforded them, 90 percent of BCDC inmates are awaiting trial and are therefore still innocent in the eyes of the law. Black Americans make up 62 percent of Baltimore’s population, yet they form about 80 percent of the BCDC population, and 95 percent of all juveniles detained there. Extreme racial issues have proven to be widespread in the city of Baltimore, and the case of the BCDC only continues to shed light on the severity of human rights abuses in the state.

Given that these allegations involve practices that occurred under Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley’s tenure as Governor of Maryland, it is unclear if this case will impact his bid for President in 2017. Either way, O’Malley’s inability to ensure that jails within his state provided proper medical care and basic human rights to its inmates should not be disregarded.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Horrifying Allegations Shed Light on Conditions of Baltimore Jail appeared first on Law Street.

At Governor Martin O’Malley’s announcement for the Democratic presidential candidacy this previous Saturday, there were numerous protesters carrying signs that read “NOMALLEY” and “Stop killer cops.” Instead of receiving Maryland’s support for the presidential bid, there were scant supporters and numerous protesters. Despite this lukewarm reaction, O’Malley laid bare his grand plans for immigration reform, the LGBT community, and leveling the economic playing field. But O’Malley has remained silent on one message that resonates with Baltimore in particular and with millennials everywhere–police brutality.

O’Malley looks pretty good on paper. He ended the death penalty, legalized same-sex marriage, and passed the Dream Act in Maryland. But his reaction to crime in Baltimore some 15 years ago as mayor has provoked mixed responses. On one hand, O’Malley dramatically reduced drug violence and homicide in Baltimore. But on the other, he adopted a zero tolerance approach to crime that some claim has sparked the protests resulting from Freddie Gray’s death.

One of the largest criticisms of O’Malley’s actions as mayor was the number of arrests sky-rocketing to 108,447 in 2005, amounting to about one sixth of the Baltimore population. The main reason these arrests were controversial is because many resulted from petty crimes. In addition to more arrests, O’Malley also implemented CitiStat, a data-tracking management tool that holds government employees accountable for their actions. CitiStat allows the government to gather data on an array of performance indicators, such as response time or employees who do not come into work. CitiStat was originally on track to monitor weekly issues, such as domestic violence and felony gun arrests. But this monitoring abruptly stopped and the employees working on these issues were sent a stream of meeting cancellations. This abrupt change has led some to claim that this tool disproportionately targets minorities and women.

O’Malley’s popularity among Marylanders varies; there are those outspoken enough who chose to protest his announcement and there are others who show their unrelenting support. In terms of approval ratings, O’Malley recently saw 47 percent approval, but also 47 percent who actively disapprove of him.

In the national playing field with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, O’Malley is clearly trailing behind. Clinton epitomizes traditional Democratic Party values and relies on old money and name recognition in order to garner support for her presidential bid while Sanders appeals to the liberal, left wing population vying for reform and dramatic change. O’Malley, however, falls somewhere in between. O’Malley seems to be anticipating an equivalent political field to the 2008 Democratic presidential race when Obama rose to the challenge in victory. O’Malley is hoping to fill the moderate vacuum between Clinton and Sanders by presenting himself as a liberal alternative to Clinton who is not quite as radical as Sanders.

But O’Malley has avoided taking any prominent stance on police reforms or police brutality, as seen on his website for his presidential campaign. He hits his major points regarding income inequality in America and touches on a few gender-related topics, but the closest he gets to police brutality is mentioning the need for accountability of our governments.

O’Malley’s rhetoric regarding Freddie Gray’s death is sympathetic, but he guides the discussion of police brutality away from race or policing by emphasizing “the scourge of hopelessness in America’s cities.” O’Malley resorts to numerous tactics to avoid the issue of institutionalizing police brutality and militarization, such as ignoring the problem in his presidential bid announcement and not featuring crime or violence on his website. This could ultimately lead to the downfall of his campaign.

When comparing O’Malley to Sanders, Sanders has already taken a firm position against police brutality. Sanders immediately recognized the problem within the United States when police departments are treated as militaries. Likewise, Clinton has taken a similar stand in calling for reforms in police departments so African Americans are not disproportionately targeted. Contrarily, O’Malley has said little to nothing.

O’Malley’s silence on police brutality speaks volumes to the actions he is willing to take in reforming the police system. His silence is blaring, especially considering his previous position as the mayor of Baltimore. This omission, in addition to his lack of support from Marylanders puts his entire presidential bid on shaky ground. His chances of winning over Sanders and Clinton seem almost nonexistent if he is not willing to speak out against police brutality as his opponents have done.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Martin O’Malley Misses the Mark on This Big Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Although the Republican field for 2016 presidential nominees is quickly becoming as crowded as a particularly small clown car, the Democratic field is starting to get some new contenders as well. As of today, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has just joined the crowd.

O’Malley went back to his roots for the announcement, to the city of Baltimore where he was once mayor. He in some ways embraced the controversy and violence that the city has been experiencing after the recent death of Freddie Gray, pointing out that it is a symptom of larger American problems. He stated:

What took place here was not only about race, not only about policing in America. It was about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American.

While that’s a compelling talking point, O’Malley’s strongest point to his campaign appeared to be his determination to set himself apart from the current Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. O’Malley appears to be positioning himself as left of Clinton (although of course not as far left as fellow candidate Senator Bernie Sanders) and a new voice in comparison to the Bush and Clinton families. One of the lines in his announcement took a shot at both Clinton and presumed Republican contender Jeb Bush. O’Malley stated:

Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he’d be just fine with either Bush or Clinton. Well, I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street—the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.

Yet O’Malley has an uphill battle–exactly because of that moderate, outsider status he purports to represent. Clinton has long been viewed as a strong leader who is inevitably going to win the Democratic nomination–according to Real Clear Politics she’s polling at an average of 63.6 percent. Based on the same polls at a distant second (12.5 percent) is Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has said multiple times that she’s not running. Vice President Joe Biden–also not declared–is polling at 10 percent. Sanders is just behind him at almost 9 percent. Next, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee have 2.6 and 1.8 percent respectively. O’Malley finally clocks in at just under one percent.

Those aren’t particularly good odds–and that’s probably because there’s been nothing particularly exciting about O’Malley yet. While he may be running as a more liberal counterpoint to Clinton, he’s not as liberal as Sanders. To position yourself between two more dynamic and beloved candidates isn’t really a winning strategy.

Whether or not O’Malley actually has a shot will probably depend on Clinton herself. At this point, the Democratic nomination is pretty much hers to lose–a big scandal or health scare could do her in, but it seems like a pretty long shot. While O’Malley joining the race has made it a bit more crowded, she’s still standing on a very pretty pedestal.

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 Does Martin O’Malley Actually Stand a Chance? appeared first on Law Street.

Chances are that if you buy merchandise online, you have probably made a PayPal account to streamline the process. Whether you just use it to pay for your iTunes purchases or to feed your late night Amazon habit, it can make your online shopping a little easier to handle.

PayPal is an online platform that allows users to connect their credit card or bank account information so that they don’t need to have their credit cards handy for purchases. Many online retailers allow users to sign in through PayPal. The online service also has its own credit card, which is at the center of a current controversy. Read on to learn about the controversy, what laws PayPal may have broken, and what’s next for the financial giant.

The Controversy

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently filed a $25 million lawsuit in a Maryland district court against PayPal for deceptive practices; in particular, deceptive practices relating to the PayPal credit card. This agency’s main purpose is to “make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans–whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products.”

What PayPal Did

Complaints against the company aren’t exactly new. In fact, there are multiple websites, such as aboutpaypal.org and paypalsucks.com, that detail many of the problems that people have with the company; however, many of those complaints have to do with customer service issues or confusion. The complaints at hand are a little more serious: as detailed in the CFPB suit, the complaint includes the following six counts:

1. PayPal enrolled customers in its credit card without their consent or authorization;
2. Customers who used account funds were billed through that credit card instead of having it taken out of their connected card or bank account;
3. PayPal did not accept, process, or post payments made to the PayPal card, resulting in late charges and changes in credit scores;
4. Paypal lied to customers about what they were receiving when they signed up for the card;
5. Paypal did not provide adequate information about the balances posted (deferred interest) and the information about promotional content–even for customers who did sign up for the credit card willingly;
6. Paypal employed unfair billing dispute practices.

You may not even be safe if you only used PayPal to pay for things online or have some funds in there from online payments. According to CBS Money Watch, PayPal actually signed up many users for credit cards without letting them know or sending them a physical card–meaning that many people didn’t even know that they were actually charging to a credit card, because they didn’t know they had one.

The result was an abundance of charges for users, particularly charges that were sometimes just taken out of the funds they had loaded into the website. Some consumers were also hit with overage fines and interest charges.

Why it Was Wrong

While all of the counts are bad enough to warrant a dispute, number five is particularly abhorrent. In fact, the CFPB described the conduct as “abusive” in its report. However there was some debate over that–the National Law Journal reports on the difficulty:

In its complaint, the agency listed six charges against PayPal, including one that details the conduct the CFPB said was ‘abusive.’ The agency has declined to define abusive conduct—a standard that’s apart from long-established consumer protection terms ‘unfair’ and ‘deceptive’—through any regulation.

Instead, the CFPB is laying out what it means one enforcement action at a time. For lawyers and their clients, and even members of Congress, understanding the parameters of abusive practices has been unsettling.

‘How can companies comply with this law?’ Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wisconsin, asked at a 2012 oversight hearing, calling it ‘a subjective standard with no bright line.’

What happened to customers really depended on when they signed up–or were signed up–for a credit card. A customer with a PayPal card could have two balances: one for the card that was free from interest and another that had an interest-accruing balance. Customers were told they could decide what payments went where, but that was not true. They were also lied to about the minimum payment due–and attempts to talk to customer service often resulted in the age old “we are experiencing an unusually large call volume” message.

What Rules Do Credit Card Companies Have to Follow?

There are several laws in place that help protect consumers from being taken advantage of with their credit cards. These laws are part of the reason that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even found the problem with PayPal. In 2010, President Obama signed something called the Credit CARD Act, also referred to as the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights. According to the CFPB, the law has two key purposes:

Fairness – Prohibit certain practices that are unfair or abusive such as hiking up the rate on an existing balance or allowing a consumer to go overlimit and then imposing an overlimit fee.

Transparency – Make the rates and fees on credit cards more transparent so consumers can understand how much they are paying for their credit card and can compare different cards.

That is the law that this particular case focused on, but there are a few other laws that credit card companies have to follow that illustrate the issues with PayPal’s deception.

Truth in Lending Act

When you go to get a credit card or a loan from your bank, you are immediately on an uneven playfield. The Truth in Lending Act is supposed to shield you from unfair lending practices. This means that a bank or credit card company has to tell you orally and in plain written language the terms, interest rate, and any other hidden fees.

Fair Credit Billing Act

This law kicks in once you have a credit card and protects you against inaccurate billing. If you meet predetermined guidelines, this act limits your financial responsibility for unauthorized charges up to $50. It also assures that you don’t have to pay for merchandise you ordered but never received, goods and services you didn’t accept, and double charges.

Fair Credit Reporting Act

Credit companies, lenders, and banks report your credit activity to the credit bureaus. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, most recently changed in 2003, ensures that your information is correct. It gives you the right to dispute inaccuracies and to access your credit score and file. This law also protects who can see your credit file. The only people who have access are those with need: a creditor, a landlord, an insurer, or a prospective employer.

What Can Those Affected Do Now?

For its part, PayPal (and parent company EBay) now seems to be remorseful over the situation, and in an email to Bloomberg, a spokesperson for the company seemed hopeful that it would take care of everything and make it right:

Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for PayPal, said the company ‘takes consumer protection very seriously.’

‘We continually improve our products and enhance our communications to ensure a superior customer experience,’ Miller said in an e-mail. ‘Our focus is on ease of use, clarity and providing high-quality products that are useful to consumers and are in compliance with applicable laws.’

As for those who have been affected, $15 million will go right back into their pockets. PayPal is said to be sending out emails in the coming weeks to customers who qualify for reimbursement. There is also going to be a $10 million fine against the company.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, we have all signed up for things and haven’t read the fine print. However, it is a lot more difficult to read something when you don’t even know it applies to you. PayPal received a pretty hefty slap on the wrist, and the hope is that other credit card companies and money lenders see this and change some of their shady business practices.

Resources

Primary

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The Credit CARD Act

Federal Trade Commission: Fair Credit Reporting Act

U.S. Department of the Treasury: Truth in Lending Act

Additional

Credit Cards: Obama Signs Credit Card Reforms Into Law

National Law Journal: Why the CFPB Found PayPal’s Conduct ‘Abusive’

Bloomberg Business: PayPal Will Pay $25 Million to Resolve CFPB Bill Me Later Claims

CBS Money Watch: Feds Say PayPal Illegally Signed Consumers up For Credit

USA Today: PayPal to Pay $25M in Refunds and Penalties

SlashGear: PayPal Ordered to Pay $25 Million over Deceptive Practices

Wall Street Journal: PayPal Says it May Face U.S. Lawsuit by June

Wall Street Journal: PayPal to Pay $25 Million to Settle Online Credit Claims

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Use PayPal’s Bill Me Later? You Might Get a Refund Due to Shady Practices appeared first on Law Street.

Toya Graham wasn’t looking to become famous when she grabbed her mask-wearing teenage son and slapped him in the middle of the Baltimore riots this Monday. Her main concern was ensuring that her only son would have no part in the violence sweeping through her community. Her actions, which were caught on tape by a news crew, have people all across the nation calling her “mother of the year.” But I find her public endorsement strange, since Americans haven’t been so approving of physically disciplining children in recent years. What many people applauding her actions are failing to point out is had Graham hit her son in a different context, onlookers wouldn’t be calling her a hero, they’d be calling Child Protective Services.

Warning: the video below contains explicit content.

This kind of hypocrisy immediately makes me think of the way Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was vilified by the media last year for whipping his four-year-old son using a tree branch commonly known as a “switch,” which left welts and cuts on the boy’s body. After the child abuse allegations broke, Peterson found himself in a back-and-forth with the league executives, who seemingly couldn’t make up their minds on how they would punish him. The former NFL MVP eventually accepted a plea deal with the courts and was suspended for the rest of the season without pay. However, in a statement to police, Peterson maintained that he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking had done for him in his life.

Now just to be clear, I’m not advocating the physical abuse of anyone, and Peterson’s form of discipline clearly went too far. But if Americans can support the “Baltimore mom” publicly beating her child, why have they tended to be so disapproving of a swift swat on a child’s behind to put them in check when necessary?

Spanking, or striking a child on the buttocks, is a form of corporal punishment, which is the umbrella term for any form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain in order to punish someone. The majority of Americans in previous decades supported the method as an acceptable disciplinary tool, but modern Americans’ opinions on spanking are different depending on party, race, region, and religion. Fivethirtyeight reports that spanking has become less and less popular over the past three decades, with the majority of its supporters consisting of Republicans, African-Americans, Christians, and Southerners.

This winter, NBC decided to broach the controversial topic of corporal punishment with a star-studded American remake of an Australian miniseries titled “The Slap,” which revolves around a group of people dealing with the repercussions of an adult male slapping someone else’s misbehaving child at a birthday party. Each episode is centered on a different character’s perspective, showing just how complex and different opinions on the matter can be.

But if trends show that people are less and less approving of parents putting their hands on their children, why is the Baltimore mother who publicly slapped and cursed at her son suddenly a hero? The answer–media hypocrisy.  Salon‘s Joan Walsh had an interesting take on the topic, writing:

The debate over the moment Graham says she ‘lost it’ is complex. There’s a parallel black debate going on that, as always when it comes to racial issues, is richer and more nuanced. But anyone white who’s applauding Graham’s moment of desperation, along with the white media figures who are hyping her ‘heroism,’ is essentially justifying police brutality, and saying the only way to control black kids is to beat the shit out of them.

I’m aware that a lot of African Americans are lauding Graham, too. This piece isn’t directed at them. Whether they applaud or critique Graham’s corporal punishment, most black people debating the issue acknowledge that the desperate public beating came from centuries of black parents knowing they have to discipline their children harshly, or else white society will do it for them – and they may not survive it.

I am all for how this mother chose to deal with her son’s participation in the riots in Baltimore; if that had been me I would have gotten much worse from my mother. My problem is with how fickle our society can be about the topic of corporal punishment depending on how it is portrayed in the media. A parent should be allowed to discipline their child in the way they see fit, within reason, but it shouldn’t take a black woman beating her black son during a city’s upheaval for the rest of America to suddenly get on board.

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 Baltimore “Hero Mom”: America’s Fickle Opinion on Corporal Punishment appeared first on Law Street.

Continuing protests over the death of Freddie Gray erupted into Ferguson-like riots yesterday evening following his funeral in Baltimore, Maryland, where cries of “black lives matter” have echoed since last year. But this time it was the city’s most notoriously violent groups who aligned for peace while groups of rioting Baltimoreans burned and looted the city against the Gray family’s wishes, even injuring officers and other protesters.

Incredibly powerful photos from the Baltimore riots http://t.co/Uex0La5QiY pic.twitter.com/x896Ubutme

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) April 28, 2015

Violent gang rivals the Crips and the Bloods–known for violent crime, drug dealing, and their murderous feud–issued a cease fire yesterday to form an unlikely alliance, condemning the violence that was sweeping through their community. According to CNN, Baltimore Sun reporter Justin Fenton wrote on his confirmed Twitter account that he witnessed gang members’ disapproval, writing:

The guys who pulled me aside are self-identifying as Crips and say they don’t approve of whats happening. “This is our community” — Justin Fenton (@justin_fenton) April 27, 2015

Gray sustained a deadly spinal cord injury sometime after being taken into police custody by Baltimore officers. An illegal switchblade knife was found on him after he reportedly “fled unprovoked.” Police have admitted that Gray should have received medical treatment immediately, but didn’t. Witnesses claim police had him “folded up like origami” on the street, but investigators are still in the process of recreating the events that led to Gray’s death.

According to CNN, members from both gangs joined community leaders and Gray’s family for a news conference Monday night on the stage at New Shiloh Baptist Church, which had held Gray’s funeral. At the news conference Reverend Jamal Bryant mentioned that the gangs had signed a peace treaty. Activists from the Nation of Islam claimed responsibility for the alliance, sharing approval for the demonstration of unity and telling reporters that they brokered a deal between the two enemies.

However, some members of the police force believe the gang partnership signaled ulterior motives. The Daily Beast is reporting that it obtained information from the Baltimore Police Department that  it had received a “credible threat” that gangs had formed the partnership “to take out law enforcement officers.”

While conflicting reports have the members being painted as either thugs or heroes, leaders from both gangs are currently reaching out to media outlets to share their reactions to the peace treaty and the riots. One photo has even surfaced showing several Crips members wearing blue bandannas over their faces posing next to a red-bandanna wearing Blood member while both groups throw up their respective gang signs.

It says a lot when things have gotten so bad in the city of Baltimore that rival gangs have allegedly laid down arms to support one another and their community. Additionally, many others have gotten involved in the calls for peace–including the creator of the violent Baltimore based gang drama “The Wire,” David Simon. Maryland’s Governor Larry Hogan has issued a state of emergency and a curfew has been issued in the city by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake in an effort to regain order in the city. But as the dust begins to settle in the streets of Baltimore, its citizens are left to clean up the wreckage.

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 Crips and Bloods: Unlikely Allies in Baltimore Riots appeared first on Law Street.

Freddie Gray was a Baltimore man who died after injuries he received while in the custody of the Baltimore police department. Multiple protests, some violent, have occurred against Gray’s treatment that Gray received in police custody on April 19. Although exact numbers appear unknown, reports cite that 34 people have been arrested as a result of the protests.

Arrests last night in Baltimore during a protest of the death of #FreddieGrayhttp://t.co/j5mU7B7Jfjpic.twitter.com/5JcRDP2vtg

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) April 26, 2015

Demonstrators in Baltimore continue protesting #FreddieGray‘s death. PHOTOS: http://t.co/FvUWbmnHi4pic.twitter.com/Dh9LGIJFPf

— 99.1 WNEW (@WNEW) April 23, 2015

#UPDATE: Crowd continues to grow. Protestors want officers suspended in death of #FreddieGray arrested. pic.twitter.com/XVRtcIZP55

— WJZ | CBS Baltimore (@cbsbaltimore) April 21, 2015

Gray was arrested after he saw a police officer and then started running. Regardless of that not being a reason to arrest someone,  police caught up to him. At this point it was discovered that Gray had a knife on him, and was brought into police custody. He sustained a spinal cord injury at some point during this incident, and desperately needed medical attention. It’s not clear how he got the injury–although hopefully that will eventually become clear as a few different investigations delve into the events. The bigger issue here, however, is that once officers caught up to Gray and arrested him, they should have sought medical help for him. Their failure to do so appears to have directly led to Gray’s death. The Baltimore police have even admitted that they should have gotten medical help for Gray. According to CNN:

Police Commissioner Anthony Batts told reporters there are no excuses for the fact that Gray was not buckled in as he was transported to a police station.

It’s in light of this news that protesters have taken to the streets in Baltimore. Some are calling for the arrest of the six officers involved in Gray’s case–they have already been suspended without pay. Last night an estimated 1,200 people gathered in protest at City Hall in Baltimore. This caused some problems for the city–thousands of fans were trapped inside the Baltimore Orioles’ Stadium last night after the game. Unfortunately, as protests continued, things did grow violent. Looters damaged a local convenience store, and at one point a protester “tossed a flaming metal garbage can toward police officers in riot gear trying to push back the crowd.”

After the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice in 2014, and the recent death of Walter Scott, the United States is still dealing with discontent over police violence and the treatment of black men by police officers. While Baltimore PD admitting that it should have sought treatment for Gray sooner certainly can be viewed as a step in the right direction when it comes to accountability, what exactly happened to Gray still needs to be determined. Until then, there will almost certainly still be protests and critics.

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 Protests Continue After Freddie Gray’s Death in Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

Here in the United States it’s easy to take the concept of Freedom of the Press for granted. The idea that someone would be jailed for the pieces he writes is almost unthinkable to us. Whether or not that’s actually the reality is a different matter–concerns over whistleblowers and journalists giving up their sources have increased in recent years–the concept of Freedom of Press still dominates American thought when it comes to journalistic rights. But it’s just as easy to forget that those principles don’t hold universal–in many parts of the world, imprisoning journalists for the simple facts of what they write is common practice. There are currently 221 journalists in prison worldwide. In 2014, 67 were killed, and just since the beginning of 2015, an additional 17 have been killed. That’s a problem, and it prompts the question: what can be done?

There are currently 31 nations that have at least one journalist in prison. The worst offenders are China, Iran, and Eritrea, at 44, 30, and 23, respectively. Other nations with a significant number of journalists in prison include Myanmar at ten, Egypt and Syria at 12 each, Vietnam at 16, and Ethiopia at 17.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)–the organization that conducted the research–more than half of the imprisoned journalists work on a web platform; the majority of the rest work in print. CPJ also explains why the journalists are imprisoned:the majority were accused of being “antistate,” many were arrested on “retaliatory charges,” a few were charged with false news or defamation, and some were arrested for unknown or undisclosed reasons.

In response to these statistics, students at the University of Maryland came up with a project called “Press Uncuffed” to attempt to bring attention to the plight of journalists imprisoned around the world, as well as to provide support to CPJ and support its mission to free these journalists. Here’s a video that outlines the students’ motivations.

The group, led by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dana Priest, will manufacture and sell Lucite bracelets, each of which will be engraved with the name of one of the imprisoned journalists; they are currently in the beginning stages of an indiegogo campaign to make that a reality. They aim to sell these bracelets on May 3, which is “World Press Freedom Day.” The bracelets are made of a see-through material to symbolize the need for transparency in global journalism.

The journalists being highlighted by Press Uncuffed include Reyoot Alemu, who has been imprisoned in Ethiopia on anti-state charges for nearly four years, accused of terrorism. She had written for an independent publication called Feteh, and was highly critical of the government.

There’s also Mahmoud Abou Zeid, nicknamed “Shawkan,” who is in prison in Egypt. He’s a freelance photographer who took pictures after Morsi was ousted. He was accused of many things, including weapons possession and murder, but up to this point it doesn’t appear that official charges were ever filed against him.

Also on the list is Yusuf Ruzimuradov of Uzbekistan. He’s been in prison for more than 16 years after being convicted of being “anti-state” in 1999. He’s one of the longest-imprisoned journalists in the world.

The aim of the Press Uncuffed movement is to bring attention to the plight of those brave journalists who aren’t as fortunate as we are to live in a nation where the press can be considered “free.” Various media companies and other members of the industry, such as HBO and the Knight Foundation, have lent their support. As Press Uncuffed described part of its aim:

We believe the link between information and a free and equitable society is vital and sometimes not fully understood. We hope Press Uncuffed humanizes the people who are risking their lives to give us information and creates a greater appreciation for the role of a free press.

It’s certainly a step in the right direction. While creating this kind of fundraiser won’t necessarily lead to immediate results, it will certainly increase awareness and accountability for  nations that decide to imprison journalists.

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 UMD Students’ Press Uncuffed Project Aims to Free Imprisoned Journalists appeared first on Law Street.

If he looks like a cop, talks like cop, and acts like a cop, he’s probably a cop right? Well, sort of. A growing trend shows civilians are forming private police forces of one to patrol our streets. Armed with a gun and a badge, they can write citations and make arrests. The kicker? The whole thing is completely legal.

According to the Washington Post, Virginia state records indicate the number of private police or “special conservators of the peace” (SCOPs) has doubled in Virginia over the last 10 years to number about 750, and consistent growth can been seen all over the nation.

But how is it that these “SCOPs” have any authority?

Well, a provision of state law allows private citizens to petition the court to become SCOPs. An individual petitions the court to be commissioned with the help of a sponsorship from an employer. After undergoing background checks, alcohol and drug tests, and completing required training hours, a circuit court judge will rule on the petition and designate their jurisdiction(s). If approved, a civilian can become a one man police force instantly. The majority of these private police officers are hired to patrol corporate campuses, work for neighborhood associations, or perform code enforcement for counties or cities.

The Virginia legislature just passed a bill that increased SCOPs’ required training hours from 40 to 130, but that is still drastically lower than the amount required of municipal officers–usually ranging from 580 to 1,200 hours. While SCOPs include some former cops, they also include some police academy rejects, which is cause for concern. The increase in training hours can be seen as a push from Virginia lawmakers to improve the legitimacy of these officers amidst complaints that they’re significantly under-trained and unregulated. According to the Post, Virginia isn’t the only state to have its issues with these private police:

In 2012, more than 20 residents of the Cherry Hill neighborhood of Baltimore filed a $25 million lawsuit against a Cleveland security company, claiming its guards had abused residents and violated their civil rights by stopping them illegally and making false arrests. Two of the three guards named in the suit were ‘special police,’ a designation similar to SCOPs in Virginia.

The exact duties, responsibilities and geographic limitations of these SCOPs vary depending on what was deemed appropriate by the court for the individual. Without a clear understanding of the duties that these pseudo cops are certified to perform, it can be hard for civilians to understand their rights when dealing with them.

That new Virginia bill sponsored by Senator Thomas Norment Jr is looking to up those requirements for the SCOPs, and it will probably be signed by Governor Terry McAuliffe. But Norment thinks more needs to be done, like making sure that SCOPs can’t call themselves cops. Taking away that title may end up taking away some of these officers legitimacy, but making the distinction that they’re “kinda cops” rather than real officers may be necessary.

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 Special Conservators of the Peace: Private Police Forces of One 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.

The podcast “Serial” took the world by storm this fall. Never had a podcast been so talked about, so obsessed over, or raised such fascinating questions about a 15-year-old murder conviction. The case involved a young man named Adnan Syed who was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend. Although he was convicted a decade and a half ago, Syed’s case will now be heard again in court.

For those of you who missed “Serial,” here are the CliffNotes. Don’t worry, I’ll stay away from too many spoilers. Essentially, in 1999, a Baltimore high school senior named Hae Min Lee went missing and was later found dead. After a police investigation, Syed, her ex-boyfriend who was also a high school senior, was found guilty of her murder.

Fast forward almost 15 years to present day. Journalist Sarah Koenig was approached by Syed’s friends with concerns about the way his case was handled, and all the inconsistencies in the evidence that was brought up in court. Koenig was intrigued, and started looking into the case. She ended up producing a podcast–a journalistic enterprise–exploring the facts of the case.

A Maryland court just ruled that it will hear arguments on Syed’s case, mostly based on the fact that his lawyer, Christina Guttierez, may not have done her job effectively. Syed and his lawyers are arguing that Guttierez didn’t follow up with a possible alibi witness whom Koenig spoke to in the “Serial” podcast. They also argue that Guttierez failed Syed by not exploring the possibility of a plea deal when she was given the option. Given that Guttierez has since died of a heart attack, it’s unclear why she made those choices. They could have been incompetence, like Syed’s attorneys are arguing, or they could have been a strategic move.

After a few different attempts at an appeal failed since Syed was convicted, this most recent appeal was brought to the Maryland Special Court of Appeals. It’s important to note that Syed hasn’t actually been granted an appeal–this is just a small step toward that. Basically, the Maryland Special Court of Appeals has agreed to listen to what Syed and the state have to say, and then decide whether or not to order a new trial, or send it back to the Circuit Court.

Koenig posted about the development on the “Serial” website, saying:

In Episode 10 of the podcast, I reported that this appeal was alive by a thread. Now, I’d say it’s more of a … well-made string, maybe. Like the nylon kind. Because it means that the Court of Special Appeals judges think the issues Adnan raised in his brief are worth considering. That’s a pretty big hurdle for any appellant to clear.

Whether or not Syed will actually end up getting a new trial is very uncertain at this point. That being said, it’s a case that touched a lot of people, or at the very least opened the doors to some unsettling realities of our justice system. I’m sure all “Serial” fans will be anxiously awaiting the next news in this saga.

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 Subject of Serial Podcast Gets Appeal Opportunity appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice has been removed from his team and suspended indefinitely by the NFL. The move came after a video surfaced of Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancee in an elevator. She was knocked unconscious in the February 15 incident, and then was dragged out of the elevator. She has since married Rice, but the video just made its way into the public consciousness.

The video is below, but I do have to warn you that it’s pretty disturbing.

Now when allegations of domestic abuse first surfaced against Rice, he was originally just suspended for two games. The NFL claims that they didn’t know the full extent of the incident between Rice and Janay, now his wife. “Claim” is the important phrase there. There’s some speculation that the NFL did have access to the damning video, but at this point it’s unknown whether that’s true or not. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King, one of the most well-known sports reporters around, claimed earlier that the NFL had seen the video; he has since recanted that statement. Chris Mortenson, from ESPN, references that this video existed back in July, although he doesn’t confirm whether or not NFL or Ravens officials had seen it.

So, to sum up, we’ve known this video existed for a while. The Ravens and/or NFL officials claim they didn’t see it, despite making inquiries to the police. However, a member of the Ravens’ PR team did send an email to Deadspin, saying:

Only thing we know for sure is that police who arrested Ray and Janay and then let them leave together that night saw the video.

The meaning behind that statement isn’t hard to figure out. The Ravens were essentially saying, “Well we have no idea what happened, but he was allowed to leave with her, right guys???”

That’s pretty crappy logic, and it’s especially bad logic on which to base a punishment. Before the outcry when this video was released, the NFL gave Rice a two-game suspension. They didn’t have all the facts, they didn’t have that video, but they clearly knew it existed. So instead of waiting for the evidence, and playing it safe in the meantime, they just went ahead and arbitrarily created a punishment for him. At least that’s what they expect us to believe, and I understand why, because its certainly better than the alternative — that they knew exactly what had happened in that elevator, gave him a measly two-game punishment, and then rolled it back after their PR nightmare.

No one should be applauding the Ravens for cutting Rice, or the NFL for suspending him indefinitely. They’re doing that to, for complete lack of a better term, cover their own asses. They’re trying to hide the fact that the they either a) didn’t do their jobs and look into the incident appropriately or b) suspended him for only two games despite having seen the evidence. Either way, they do not deserve our applause.

It shouldn’t be a surprise — the NFL is, after all, a business. They’re going to do what serves them the most profit, and avoids the most bad publicity. That’s profit driven too — the worse your publicity, the more you have to pay people to handle it, the more people complain, the less satisfied your customers are. It’s similar to Donald Sterling’s situation with the NBA — they didn’t do anything until the public outcry developed.

The NFL deserves no praise for the way they’ve handled this. They did their job belatedly and poorly. Instead of applauding them for their actions over the last year, we should demand that they do it right if there is, god forbid, another incident like this.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [m01229 via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Job Poorly Done: The NFL’s Handling of Ray Rice appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Frederic C. Chalfant via Wikimedia Commons]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Environmental & Energy Law: #8 University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Stories of vicious dog attacks capture the imagination of concerned citizens and instill fear in communities. While dog-bite attacks are relatively rare, the viciousness of some attacks is enough to cause anyone concern. Localities turn to Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) as a way to regulate aggressive dogs and prevent attacks. Here’s what you need to know about BSL, why groups increasingly oppose it, and what other alternatives exist to be proactive about dog attacks.

What Are Breed-Specific Laws?

Breed-Specific Legislation is a blanket term that refers to any type of law designed to regulate certain breeds with the goal of reducing dog attacks. These laws are typically instituted by city and municipal governments. In its most drastic form, BSL includes a complete ban on a specific type of dog. The laws typically target “pitbull” types and other dog breed that are considered aggressive. Pit bulls aren’t a specific breed, but are a set of dogs that can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and other breed mixes. Bans in cities may also include bulldogs, rottweilers, and wolf-hybrids.

Other BSL has lesser requirements, such as mandatory spaying or neutering, muzzling, confinement, a minimum insurance, or preventing the chaining of dogs. Most BSL requires owners of dangerous breeds to carry liability insurance with coverage up to $500,000. If an attack does occur, victims can then receive medical payment. This also acts as a type of ban, since owners unable to afford such exorbitant insurance would not be allowed to own targeted breeds.

What is the reason for BSL?

The basis for these laws can be traced to numerous studies concluding pit bulls were implicated in a disproportionate number of attacks. A 20-year study (1978-1998) by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) showed that pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in 67 percent of dog-bite related fatalities during that time period. Numerous studies reveal similar conclusions. Some of the grizzly statistics can be seen below:

BSL advocates point to features specific to certain dogs that make them prone to harmful attacks. Pit bulls derive their genes from “the Butcher’s Dog,” which was originally bred for bull-baiting before being used for dogfighting. The dogs were bred to be muscular, aggressive, and agile. Reports claim these dogs are unique since they give no warning signs before attacking and will not retreat from an attack even when considerable pain is inflicted. These dogs will attack deep muscles and then hold on with their teeth and shake, causing tissues to rip.

Attacks by aggressive dogs can pose a large threat to communities and are too expensive of an issue to ignore. The AVMA estimates hospital expenses for dog-bite related emergency visits to be $102.4 million. A 2010 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study showed that the number of Americans hospitalized for dog bites almost doubled over a 15-year period. The study also concluded the average cost of a dog-bite related hospital stay was $18,200, approximately 50 percent higher than the average injury-related hospital stay. In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

What arguments are made against BSL?

Numerous organizations, including the American Bar Association, American Humane Association, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publicly oppose BSL. Many opponents refer to the laws as “Breed Discriminatory Laws.”  In 2013 President Obama even issued an official response to the controversial laws:

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”

Listen to a discussion from the American Kennel Club below:

State bans

Seventeen states ban legislation against specific types of dogs, and other states are considering similar legislation. An interesting case was made in Denver after Colorado approved legislation banning BSL. Denver passed its pit bull ban in 1989, repealed the ban in 2004 to comply with state law, but then reinstated the ban in 2005. The city’s challenge to the state’s BSL prohibition was ultimately ruled in Denver’s favor as a home-rule exception. The court ruled a state ban on BSL could not infringe on Denver’s right to enforce ordinances on matters of local concern. Most court cases have upheld the laws because localities enjoy widespread police powers. As long as cities can prove a BSL is related to improving public safety, it will be upheld. Even following Denver’s BSL, the county has dog bite rates many times higher than other Colorado counties without similar laws.

Profiling

Many take issue with BSL because it is difficult to predict a dog’s breed or behavior based on outward appearance. According to the American Pet Products Association, 31 million of 73 million pet dogs are classified by their owners as “mutts,” which makes them hard to classify as a specific breed. Laws banning “pit bulls” target a loosely-defined class of dogs or dogs with a similar appearance. In many localities, the decision of whether a dog is one of the prohibited breeds is left to a city manager or police who lack sufficient expertise in the matter. Other times animal control or a veterinarian will make the decision. The only certain way to tell a dog’s breed is by way of DNA tests, which can be very expensive. This means BSL is often difficult to effectively enforce.

Expense

The laws are typically enforced by animal control agencies on tight budgets. Counties rack up costs from enforcement, kenneling, euthanasia, and litigation. In 2008, Omaha proposed a BSL that would cost half a million dollars to enforce. A Baltimore auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.

Nature v. Nurture

Owners of these “dangerous” breeds contend any dog can become vicious if it is not treated properly. Dog owners who do not appropriately care for their dog, abuse it, or treat it as a guard dog rather than a pet make the dog more prone to attacks. In contrast, a loving family training a pit bull would raise a well-behaved dog with no aggression problems.

Unintended effects

Others believe BSL has more dangerous effects. Owners intent on keeping the outlawed breeds may keep their dogs in hiding, meaning the dogs do not get proper socialization or visits to the veterinarian. Opponents also claim these laws encourage ownership by the most irresponsible people, who own pit bulls as a status symbol to show disregard for the law. If there is a ban on pit bulls or rottweilers, owners can still have other unregulated aggressive breeds. One dog owner created a video against BSL below:

Have these laws been effective?

One highly cited case study comes from Prince George’s County in Maryland, as it was one of the few places to examine BSL effectiveness. The county of more than 900,000 people banned pit bulls in 1996. Any pit bulls found in the county after the ban were either put down or sent to live with families in other areas. A 2003 task force found the 15-year pit bull ban cost the county more than $250,000 each year, with no measurable effect on safety. The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit-bull is roughly $68,000. In fiscal year 2001-2002, the county spent more than half a million dollars enforcing the ban. Due to ineffectiveness, the task force recommended repealing the ban and found that other, non-breed-specific laws already were in place to cover vicious animals, leash laws, and other public health and safety concerns.

In 2000, the CDC looked at 20 years of data regarding dog bites and fatalities in the United States. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of total dog bite injuries, and that it’s impossible to calculate the bite rates of specific breeds. No evidence supports the idea that a specific type of dog is more prone to attacks. Furthermore, breed specific laws have not succeeded in reducing overall bite-related injuries in any area where they were implemented.

The U.S. Military also has contentious BSL. The Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force all ban large dogs with a predisposition for aggressive behavior. Dogs such as pit bulls and rottweilers are not allowed to live at base housing, and families wishing to have these dogs may be moved off base. Many feel this treatment is unfair to those who are fighting for their country.

Are there other alternatives to BSL?

Organizations who oppose BSL advocate a number of solutions they feel are more effective. The CDC proposes a community-based approach. This approach includes:

• Public dialogue identifying community issues
• Developing an advisory council
• Monitoring bite response
• Data reporting
• Public education campaign
• Businesses addressing prevention techniques
• Effectively conveying information through local media

The CDC reports that aggression in dogs is tied to a number of factors beyond breed. These factors include sex, socialization, heredity, and treatment. More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog. Eighty-four percent of bite cases involved dogs who were maintained by reckless owners — the dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or allowed to interact with children unsupervised. Seventy-eight percent of the dogs in bite cases were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.

The statistics show that rather than outlawing specific breeds, campaigns to prevent dog-biting should focus on creating caring owners and encouraging the spaying and neutering of dogs. Further, children must be educated to understand how to play with dogs and when to leave them alone. Dogs themselves may not be dangerous, but a bad situation can make any dog more prone to aggressive behavior. While pit bulls and other “aggressive” breeds can pose threats to a community, outlawing these dogs through BSL is not a surefire solution.

Resources

Primary

ASPCA: Breed Specific Legislation

DogsBite.org: Military Breed-Specific Policies

DogsBite.org: BSL by State

Additional

TIME: Obama Blasts Legislation Targeting Specific Dog Breeds

StopBSL.org: Expense of BSL

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Challenging Denver’s Pit Bull Ban

American Veterinary Medical Association: Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation

National Canine Research Council: Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective

Animal Law Coalition: Denver’s Holocaust: Call For an End to the Pit Bull Ban

United Kennel Club: Punish the Deeds, Not the Breeds

Alexandra Stembaugh

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

The post Bullying Pit Bulls: Do Breed-Specific Laws Work? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Frederic C. Chalfant via Wikimedia Commons]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Healthcare Law: #3 University of Maryland Carey School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet allows us to take public shaming to a whole new level. It seems like every week we see a new trend in public shaming. My personal favorite has been, of course, dog shaming:

That’s a dog, and that’s adorable. I obviously don’t think anyone should ever shame their animal to the point of abuse, but stuff like this is pretty harmless. And adorable. Have I mentioned it’s adorable?

Moving quickly along to something a little more hard hitting, there’s also public shaming of people who post offensive things on the Internet. I frequent this blog because, personally, I feel like if you’re going to post something like you dressed up as Trayvon Martin for Halloween, complete with blackface, you’re an ass and deserve the ire.

Courtesy Public Shaming.

Ok so dog shaming and asshole shaming are okay-ish. We’re all in agreement here, right?

Ok, good. Now let’s move on to the latest iteration of public shaming — one that I have serious problems with. Police in Prince George’s County, Md., right outside of DC ,are going to be live-tweeting the names, charges, and possibly photos of men who are arrested on prostitution allegations.

This is a new level of public shaming, and I think it has the potential to be really harmful. Yes, arrests and mugshots are public information, but you have to seek them out. By tweeting out the pictures of men who are arrested, there is the possibility that they’ll broadcast and publicly shame men who are innocent. Sure, most of the them are probably guilty, but that’s not for the Twitter-sphere to decide. It’s for a trial of their peers to decide, without preconceived notions. Live-tweeting the suspects presumes that they have something to be shamed for before they’re even found guilty.

And as The Atlantic points out, this doesn’t just harm these men, it has the potential to harm people in their lives too. If a father makes a mistake and breaks the law, does that mean that his family should have to have the embarrassment broadcast to the world?

This is just flat out public shaming for the sake of publicity, nothing more. If you want to tweet out the faces of people who have been convicted, fine, but wait until their trials are over.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Grendelkhan via Wikimedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Live Tweeting Arrests is Public Shaming Gone Too Far appeared first on Law Street.