Michelle Carter, the Massachusetts woman who urged her boyfriend to commit suicide through text messages, was sentenced to two and half years in prison on Thursday. However, the now 20-year-old Carter won’t serve any time until her appeals are finished. If Carter still has to serve prison time after those appeals, she will only serve 15 months in prison at first, with the balance of that sentence suspended until August 1, 2022.

In June, Bristol County Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz found Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, 18-year-old Conrad Roy III. Carter, who was 17 at the time, repeatedly texted her boyfriend as he contemplated suicide. Initially, she urged Roy to seek medical help for his suicidal thoughts and discouraged him from harming himself. However, a couple weeks later, Carter began urging Roy to kill himself and actually discussed how to use carbon monoxide.

On the day of his suicide, when Roy expressed that he was scared to go through with it, Carter “told him to get back in” the truck. Roy was found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning in July 2014 after he filled his truck with the toxic gas. When delivering his verdict back in June, Moniz said that “instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct,” ABC News reported.

According to Buzzfeed, Moniz ordered Carter to abstain from any contact with Roy’s family and her friends who testified against her. He also ordered Carter not to try to profit off of the case, such as through movie or book deals, as part of her sentence.

Roy’s family members read statements in court before Moniz delivered his sentence.

“She exploited my son’s weaknesses and used him as a pawn in her own well-being,” Roy’s father said, according to Buzzfeed.

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 Michelle Carter Sentenced to 2.5 Years in Prison in Texting Suicide Case appeared first on Law Street.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on Monday that state law enforcement cannot hold undocumented immigrants just to buy time for federal authorities to take them into custody.

The ruling–seen as a victory for immigration advocates–is believed to be the first court decision in the country to forbid local authorities from enforcing federal immigration laws. The court ruled that such enforcement would result in a second detainment that state law does not authorize.

“Massachusetts law provides no authority for Massachusetts court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer, beyond the time that the individual would otherwise be entitled to be released from state custody,” the court wrote in its decision.

A “federal civil immigration detainer” is a written request from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) to a local jail or law enforcement agency to hold an arrested undocumented immigrant for up to 48 hours, until federal agents can retrieve the detainee. Police departments and court officers are usually given guidance by state officials on how to respond to these requests. Some end up complying. In Massachusetts, for example, state police have held 27 people on detainers as of June 2016.

Other departments, on the other hand, will ignore these requests and release undocumented immigrants before ICE can detain them. Some localities–commonly known as “sanctuary cities”–have faced scrutiny from the Trump Administration, which has threatened to block federal funding. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has claimed sanctuary cities make the country less safe. But now sanctuary cities have a legal basis for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials, as a result of this ruling.

The Massachusetts case revolved around Sreynuon Lunn, an immigrant from Cambodia. Boston Police arrested Lunn last year on larceny charges, and detained him until his trial. The case was dismissed in February after prosecutors were unable to get the alleged victim to come to court.

Lunn should have been freed, but was held for hours after his case was dismissed because of an ICE detainer issued against him. He was taken into custody by immigration authorities, but has since been released without being deported. Though Monday’s decision does not directly affect Lunn, the case persisted because prosecutors and the court knew it would set guidelines for similar situations in the future.

“This court decision sets an important precedent that we are a country that upholds the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. “At a time when the Trump Administration is pushing aggressive and discriminatory enforcement policies, Massachusetts is leading nationwide efforts by limiting how state and local law enforcement assist with federal immigration enforcement.”

Naturally, ICE was quick to speak out against the court’s decision. “While ICE is currently reviewing this decision to determine next steps, this ruling weakens local law enforcement agencies’ ability to protect their communities,” C.M. Cronen, the field office director for ICE in Boston, said in a statement.

Massachusetts is not the first state court system to rule on ICE detainers. Both California and Connecticut have statewide laws that limit who can be held at ICE’s request. Those laws also state that detainer requests are not binding for state and local officials. Boston and Cambridge each have similar citywide laws as well.

However, the state legislature could still undo this ruling if they choose to pass a law allowing Massachusetts state police to honor ICE detainers. Sheriff Thomas Hodgson of Bristol County–an outspoken critic of undocumented immigrants–is currently working on legislation with three Republican state lawmakers.

“It will make the Commonwealth safer if we can get this bill passed by the legislature, which authorizes court officers and law enforcement officers to honor ICE detainers,” Sheriff Hodgson said.

As comments on immigration policy begin to focus on safety, it should be worth noting the Cato Institute found in 2015 that immigrants as a whole–both legal and undocumented–commit less crimes than native-born Americans. Additionally, a University of California analysis of federal data found that sanctuary cities are often safer than non-sanctuary cities.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massachusetts Court Rules State Police Can’t Honor ICE Detainers 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

Nevada Prepares to Rake in the Dough Thanks to New Legal Weed Market

Starting July 1, Nevada began recreational marijuana sales. As a result, Las Vegas is expected to see a major tourism boom. An Economic and Fiscal Benefits Analysis prepared by Las Vegas-based RCG Economics in conjunction with the Marijuana Policy Group predicts that the state will actually rake in $393 million in annual sales of adult-use marijuana in 2018, and that the number will rise to a staggering $486 million by 2024. California, Maine, and Massachusetts are expected to begin recreational marijuana sales next year.

Denver Finalizes First Social Marijuana Use Program 

Denver’s top licensing official has unveiled final rules for the state’s pilot social-use program, which would allow some patrons to use marijuana in certain public settings. The four-year pilot program, the first of its kind in the nation, will allow businesses to apply for $2,000 social-use licenses to allow patrons the ability to BYOW (bring your own weed). According to the new rules, the licensing department will also no longer require businesses with consumption area permits to have customers sign waivers as they enter.

Arkansas is Now Accepting Medical Marijuana Applications

Arkansas is one step closer to offering medical marijuana to patients with select medical conditions. Prospective patients can now apply for medical marijuana cards on the state Department of Health site. Voters approved the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment last November. Applicants will need to have an email address, a written certification from their physician, and a state-issued ID to apply, and must pay a nonrefundable $50 fee. According to the Associated Press, the state Department of Health expects anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 people to apply to use the drug.

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

Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Says Smell of Marijuana Made Him Fear For His Life

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 July 2017: Sin City Welcomes Legal Weed appeared first on Law Street.

Still confused over the Bill Coby mistrial? ICYMI–read up on what possibly led to a hung jury and more with Law Street’s best of the week below!

New Texas Law Will Fine Police for Not Reporting Shootings

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Thursday that would fine state law enforcement agencies up to $1,000 a day for not reporting officer-involved shootings in a timely manner. The law, which will officially be enacted in September, was created with the intention of strengthening a current Texas law–passed in 2015–that requires departments to report to the attorney general’s office any time an officer firing their gun results in injury or death.

Massachusetts Marijuana: Voters Could See Huge Spike in Sales Tax

Massachusetts marijuana advocates are up in arms over a new House-backed proposal that could more than double the total sales taxes on recreational marijuana before the new industry is even up and running. The legislation is part of a proposed re-write of the state’s new recreational marijuana law approved by voters in a November referendum. According to a draft copy of the legislation, the new bill would raise the current total sales tax from 12 percent to 28 percent, the highest in the country.

Bill Cosby Mistrial: What Kept the Jury Deadlocked?

It was billed as the trial of the century–Bill Cosby, a national treasure and pioneer for black Americans, on trial for sexual assault. Most people expected a guilty verdict, convinced that Cosby was overwhelmingly guilty of sexually assaulting former Temple University basketball staffer Andrea Constand. But in the end, there was no verdict at all. After a week of deliberations, the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict and the judge was forced to declare a mistrial. Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele immediately vowed to retry Cosby, but the lack of verdict still left some legal experts surprised. Here are several key factors that could have led to a hung jury.

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.

Spectators let out audible gasps as Judge Lawrence Moniz announced the verdict for 20-year-old Michelle Carter, who was accused of encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself in 2014. On Friday, she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and could face up to 20 years in prison. The sentencing phase of her trial will begin on August 3.

It may have been the first trial of its kind–dealing with the question of whether someone can be guilty of another person’s suicide. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Robert Cordy said at the beginning of the trial that it was the first case where words alone were the evidence, at least in that court.

Audible gasps come from the gallery when Judge Moniz finds #MichelleCarter guilty.

— Bob McGovern (@BobMcGovernJr) June 16, 2017

Carter was 18 when she encouraged her 17-year-old boyfriend Conrad Roy III to kill himself. Reportedly she wanted attention as the “grieving girlfriend.” But their conversations all happened via text messages–they lived many miles apart–and Roy had been depressed and suicidal for some time. Roy took his own life by pumping carbon monoxide into his truck.

Despite many legal experts who expected Carter to be acquitted, the judge said that Carter’s behavior was both immoral and illegal. He pointed to the fact that Roy previously had tried to commit suicide, but reached out to his family for help. His family responded by getting him treatment.

The messages I’m getting from attorneys are ranging from “Holy crap” to “Told you so.” #MichelleCarter

— Bob McGovern (@BobMcGovernJr) June 16, 2017

On the day that Roy committed suicide, he texted Carter, explaining that he was having second thoughts. He called her, but she told him to get back in the truck. “He breaks that chain of self-causation by exiting the vehicle,” Moniz said. He added that by telling Roy to get back in, despite “his ambiguities, his fears, his concerns,” Carter created a situation that would most likely cause severe harm to Roy.

“She admits in subsequent texts that she did nothing, she did not call the police or Mr. Roy’s family. And finally, she did not issue a simple additional instruction: ‘Get out of the truck,’” Moniz said. According to legal experts, this case could encourage Massachusetts lawmakers to write laws that will hold people accountable for what they say to each other online.

The ACLU of Massachusetts issued a statement disagreeing with the verdict, saying it is a violation of free speech. Basically the organization said that it could lead to the criminalization of other conversations, like end-of-life care between family members.

Just in: @ACLU_Mass criticizes Michelle Carter guilty verdict as violation of First Amendment. pic.twitter.com/mgm14A5Yte

— Dan Glaun (@dglaun) June 16, 2017

Another facet of the case is that Carter has also struggled with mental illness herself. At the time of Roy’s suicide, she was on antidepressants that might have affected her actions. According to psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who testified in court on Monday, the medication Carter was taking could have affected her frontal lobe, impacting her ability to empathize with other people and make sound decisions.

“Someone who wouldn’t do anything outlandish or dangerous might when the frontal lobe is injured in some way,” Breggin said. He also claimed that Carter appeared supportive of Roy. He recounted that she tried to talk him out of committing suicide. But, when Roy claimed he didn’t want help, she supported him. “She’s not thinking she’s doing something criminal, she found a way to help her boyfriend,” he said.

No matter what, this is a tragic and complicated case. One young man lost his life, and one young woman could be facing a lengthy prison sentence. In the end, there is no winner.

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 Michelle Carter Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter in Texting Trial appeared first on Law Street.

Massachusetts marijuana advocates are up in arms over a new House-backed proposal that could more than double the total sales taxes on recreational marijuana before the new industry is even up and running.

The legislation is part of a proposed re-write of the state’s new recreational marijuana law approved by voters in a November referendum. According to a draft copy of the legislation, the new bill would raise the current total sales tax from 12 percent to 28 percent, the highest in the country.

However, marijuana advocates claim the actual tax rate could reach as high as 56 percent, and as high as 80 percent for some edibles, because the tax is compounded. A 21.75 percent tax from wholesaler to retailer would be added on top of the 28 percent from retailer to customer.

“This tax rate is directly contrary to the will of the voters and so is the lack of voter voice at the municipal level,” Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, cochair of the marijuana committee, told the Globe. “Both will preserve the illicit market.’’

The bill, drafted by the House chairman of the Legislature’s Marijuana Policy Committee, would also give municipal officials–instead of local voters–the power to ban cannabis shops and farms.

“Its removal of ban authority from local voters will give a handful of selectmen the ability to overrule the opinion of their own constituents,” said Jim Borghesani, who managed communications for the ballot measure and who represents the national pro-legalization group Marijuana Policy Project.

The law was originally slated for a House vote on Thursday, but the vote was postponed until next week. House Speaker Robert DeLeo said the hope is to get the final version of the bill to Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk before July.

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 Massachusetts Marijuana: Voters Could See Huge Spike in Sales Tax 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:

Britain Raises Threat Level, Anticipates More Attacks

British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the terror threat level in the country to its highest level yesterday evening, after ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in Manchester on Monday night. In a speech late last night, May declared that the government anticipates more attacks. She said the move to raise the threat level was based on “not only that an attack remains highly likely, but that a further attack may be imminent.” The heightened threat level, set to the maximum for the first time in 10 years, means as many as 5,000 troops could be soon patrolling the streets. Military personnel will assist police officers in “guarding duties at key fixed locations.”

UK prime minister says threat level has been raised from “severe to critical”; another attack “may be imminent.” https://t.co/A8P88DB3nl pic.twitter.com/0TgcSxkVzm

— ABC News (@ABC) May 24, 2017

May also said that the police are investigating whether the bomber, Salman Abedi, was acting alone. “The work undertaken throughout the day has revealed that it is a possibility that we cannot ignore, that there is a wider group of individuals linked to this attack,” she said. Some of the victims have now been identified, and one of them was only eight years old.

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 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Jan Polanik ordered bagels with butter at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Massachusetts and couldn’t believe it wasn’t actually butter. So in 2013, he sued two Dunkin’ franchise groups, which run more than 20 restaurants in Eastern and Central Massachusetts, claiming to represent all customers who “ordered a baked product, such as a bagel, with butter, but instead received margarine or butter substitute between June 24, 2012, and June 24, 2016.”

Amazingly he won–according to an attorney for one of the two franchise groups, Michael Marino, a settlement has now been reached. Marino didn’t reveal whether the company had paid up, but he did say that the 17 restaurants that he represents have made changes to how they manage the butter. Spokespeople for the other franchise group have not commented.

According to Dunkin’ Donuts, butter can’t be stored at room temperature for food safety reasons. It needs to be pretty soft to be spread smoothly onto the bagels, so the employees usually use margarine or some other butter substitute. But if the customer asks for it on the side, real butter comes in a package.

Dunkin’ Donuts #Settles Lawsuit for Putting Fake Butter on Bagels https://t.co/1Xpe5BQr6V by @FortuneMagazine pic.twitter.com/wkgaiUbWyt

— Thornton Law Firm (@ThorntonFirm) April 3, 2017

However, the employees normally don’t inform customers that they are receiving butter substitutes, which is what sparked a lawsuit from one particularly upset guest. Barbara Anthony, who leads the state Division of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, said in 2013, “This is an unfair practice and a misrepresentation–the consumer is in the dark.”

Polanik’s attorney Thomas Shapiro admitted that this is not a very pressing issue and that he thought it through a few times before deciding that bringing a lawsuit would actually make sense. “A lot of people prefer butter,” he explained. He added that the bigger picture is that companies shouldn’t promote that they’re selling one thing and then give the customer something else. “If somebody goes in and makes a point to order butter for the bagel… they don’t want margarine or some other kind of chemical substitute,” he said.

Butter lovers will now be able to get real butter on their Dunkin’ bagels, although details around the settlement or how the butter will be distributed have not yet been made public.

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 Good News for Bagel Lovers: Dunkin’ Donuts Settles Fake Butter Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

An annual local tradition has turned into a charged political topic, after an LGBTQ veterans organization has been excluded from participating in South Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade. The parade organizer, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, voted  9 to 4 on Tuesday to not allow OUTVETS to march in the parade this year, scheduled to take place on March 19. The action sparked bipartisan backlash from politicians, organizations, and sponsors.

In a Facebook post, the group wrote that the Veterans Council “did not give a clear reason” for rejection of the application, but they assumed it was because it was an LGBTQ organization. The group was able to march for the past two years, but they allege that they were put in the rear of the parade last year.

The New York Times reports that Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh (D) and Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker (R) will abstain from participating in the parade due to the exclusion.

I will not be marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade unless this is resolved. #OneBoston pic.twitter.com/OalXJfZTQR

— Marty Walsh (@MartyForBoston) March 8, 2017

On Thursday, Anheuser-Busch announced that it is “re-evaluating” its participation in the event, potentially leaving the parade without one of its major sponsors. The Teamsters Local 25 Union also declared that its members would not be marching in the parade if the ban was upheld, saying that it was “no longer representative” of its 11,000 members.

In a press release posted to its website, the Veterans Council defended the decision, saying that the parade’s Code of Conduct “prohibits the advertisement or display of one’s sexual orientation,” a rule which the group’s rainbow flag violated. The Council claimed that the policy is “neutral and not one-sided,” claiming that “the council routinely bars controversial groups from across the political spectrum.” The release also claimed that OUTVETS submitted its application after the deadline.

This is not the first time that the parade has clashed with LGBTQ organizations. In 1995, in a case that went to the Supreme Court, the Council was allowed to exclude certain groups based on First Amendment grounds after it refused to allow a gay veterans group to participate.

On Thursday afternoon, it was announced that there would be an emergency meeting on Friday to re-vote on the decision.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade Excludes LGBTQ Veterans, Prompting Backlash appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin signaled that his state’s recently passed recreational marijuana legalization ballot measure, Question 4, could miss its targeted implementation date of December 15. Massachusetts, and seven other states, passed some form of marijuana legalization measures on Election Day, with Bay State voters overwhelmingly in support of a recreational marijuana legalization framework.

The eight-member Governor’s Council needs to sign off on the ballot measure, which 1.7 million people (54 percent) voted for, before it can be implemented. Galvin said he expects the council’s votes to be tallied on December 14, and said it’s a “50-50 proposition” that the law will go into effect, meaning Massachusetts citizens 21 and over can legally possess and use small amounts of pot. Stores will be allowed to start selling marijuana on January 1, 2018, though that date might also get pushed back.

“All those tokers can hold their breath a little longer, but they’ll be able to exhale,” Galvin said, adding that if it’s not passed in two weeks, it will be at the beginning of next year. He said a later than usual election, and the results not being a lock until November 18 were the primary reasons for the potential delay. Confirming the presidential election results are his number one priority, he said, and the work put into that takes precedence over the marijuana measure. “No one is trying to delay the marijuana question deliberately,” he added. “It’s just the presidency of the United States is more important than legalizing marijuana.”

Michael Albano, one of the eight members of the Governor’s Council, told The Boston Globe that he would be surprised if the passed ballot measure does not go into effect on the targeted date. “We meet every week so if it’s not ready on the 30th, we’ll be there on December 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th,” he said. Home cultivation–of up to 12 marijuana plants–is also expected to start on December 15, though that too would be pushed back if the council delays the implementation.

Will Luzier, a lawyer and prominent backer of Question 4, told the Globe he is surprised that there could be a delay, saying: “I would hope that the secretary of state errs on the positive side of that 50-50, and that he and the Governor’s Council would be able to certify given the deadline date.”

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 Massachusetts Might Have to Wait a Little Longer for Legal Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

While people anxiously awaited the results of the 2016 presidential election, Marijuana legalization–one of the nation’s top categories of ballot measures–had a strong and decisive night. Four states joined Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia in legalizing recreational marijuana for adults 21 years and older. Find out how America voted below!

Arizona

“Arizona” courtesy of Gordon Wrigley; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Results: Rejected

Proposition 205 would have legalized recreational marijuana for those over 21. It would have also created a 15 percent sales tax on marijuana that would be distributed to public health and education services.

Analysis: Arizona rejected Prop 205 with 52 percent voting against the measure and 48 percent voting in favor, as of Wednesday morning with 98 percent of the votes reported.

Opponents took issues with the measure’s caveat that would have created a monopoly on the marijuana industry in Arizona. Others argued that the legalization would increase drug trafficking and cause an increase in teen use and deadly car crashes tied to marijuana.

For more information on marijuana legalization state by state, click here for “The State of Weed.”

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 Election Results: How Did States Vote on Recreational Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

The Boston Archdiocese gave an $850,000 donation toward the fight against legalizing marijuana in Massachusetts last Friday. On November 8, voters will weigh in on a ballot measure called Question 4, a proposal that would create a legal framework for recreational marijuana in the state. Massachusetts is one of nine states scheduled to vote on measures legalizing weed in some form, either medically or recreationally.

A spokesman for the archdiocese, Terry Donilon, said the chunk of change “reflects the fact that the archdiocese holds this matter as among the highest priorities,” along with social services like food pantries, health clinics, counseling programs, addiction treatment, housing assistance, and support for immigrants. The donation increased opposition funding by 40 percent, though it does not constitute the largest single donation to date. That honor goes to the billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who handed over $1 million to the opposition effort a few weeks ago.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley, a close friend of Pope Francis and the leader of the Boston Archdiocese, has repeatedly voiced his opposition to legalizing weed in the Bay State, saying pot “causes people to have problems with memory, problems with reasoning, and other health problems.” He also believes cannabis can be a gateway to more destructive drugs, saying people are “looking for a higher high, so they’ll go onto heroin or cocaine or some other drug that’s even more dangerous.” Many scientists say there is simply not enough evidence to support whether or not marijuana is a gateway drug.

Perhaps it comes as no surprise that the Catholic Church is opposing legalizing recreational marijuana. But what is unusual here is the extracurricular act of donating money to the opposition effort. According to The Atlantic, the Boston Archdiocese lost $20.5 million in operating income from 2014 to 2015. Donilon told The Atlantic that the $850,000 did not come from donations, but rather a “central ministry” fund.

O’Malley is not the only prominent public figure in Boston to oppose the ballot measure. Gov. Charlie Baker (R-MA), Attorney General Maura Healey, and Boston Mayor Martin Walsh wrote an op-ed in March for the Boston Globe, saying “marijuana is not safe.” They continued: “Regular use that starts in adolescence has been shown to impair brain development, shrink school and career outcomes, and even lower IQ.”  

But the latest polls suggest that voters will pass the measure on November 8 anyway. According to a recent Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll, 48.8 percent of respondents said they would vote to legalize recreational marijuana; 42.4 percent said they would not, and 7.8 percent said they were undecided.

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 Boston Archdiocese Donates $850,000 to Fight Weed Measure appeared first on Law Street.

A Massachusetts family is suing Panera after their daughter was served a grilled cheese sandwich that contained peanut butter. The parents, John and Elissa Russo, aren’t suing because the sandwich was a curious and gross gourmet choice; rather their six-year-old daughter is highly allergic to peanuts. The unfortunate incident led to an overnight hospital stay for the child.

The lawsuit states that the Russos placed an order online at their local Panera in Natick, Massachusetts in January. Elissa, who completed the form, wrote in two separate places that her daughter has a peanut allergy. To people who don’t have a food allergy, that may seem strange–after all, why would you warn about a peanut allergy on an order for a grilled cheese sandwich? But it’s a pretty automatic step for someone with a food allergy (or the parent of a child with a food allergy)–it helps avoid “cross-contamination”–which happens when someone preparing the food uses tools or surfaces that have touched nuts on a nut-free meal. Essentially the Russos were asking that the Panera worker making the sandwich take simple steps like changing his gloves, or wiping down the counter before preparing the food.

But in a strange turn of events, when the Russos’ daughter bit into her grilled cheese, there was a large dollop of peanut butter in it. After she began vomiting, they brought her to the hospital where she developed other symptoms and had to stay the night.

It’s unclear exactly how the peanut butter ended up on the sandwich. When John Russo called the Panera, it was explained as a “language” issue. According to the Boston Globe:

Conceivably, an employee with limited English could have seen the notation of ‘peanut’ as an instruction to add it to the grilled cheese rather than to keep it out of the sandwich.

But Russo said that explanation was ‘no excuse’ and didn’t even strike him as plausible. Since the online order twice said ‘peanut allergy,’ he asked, ‘Did they just see ‘peanut’ and not the ‘allergy’ part?’

The Russos’ lawsuit alleges that the franchise was “unfair and deceptive” when it put the peanut butter in the sandwich. They also are claiming “intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery.”

It’s tough to eat out when you have dietary restrictions–from nut allergies to celiac, food concerns are growing in the U.S. It’s important that restaurants put safeguards in place to ensure that allergens don’t make it into their customers’ orders–for some, it can be a fatal error.

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 Family Sues Panera After Allergic Child Served Sandwich with Peanut Butter appeared first on Law Street.

Uber recently reached a settlement with its drivers in California and Massachusetts in two lawsuits that could have derailed the company’s entire business model. While both sides gave important concessions in the settlement, Uber maintains the ability to classify its drivers as independent contractors in both states, a win that will prevent the company’s costs from skyrocketing.

If approved by a district court judge, the settlement will resolve two class action lawsuits against Uber that originated in California and Massachusetts. Drivers will remain independent contractors and Uber has agreed to pay the plaintiffs $84 million with an additional $16 million contingent upon the company going public and increasing significantly in value.

If Uber drivers were granted employee status, Uber would have been required to pay minimum wage, reimburse expenses, provide health benefits, and pay the employer portion of social security. A report from the National Employment Law Project estimates that classifying workers as contractors can save companies as much as 30 percent on payroll and related taxes and can significantly reduce the amount they are paid.

The settlement will also require Uber to change its driver deactivation policies. The issued a deactivation policy explaining what factors can lead to deactivation and will provide additional information to drivers in Massachusetts and California about their rating and how it compares to other drivers. With the settlement, Uber agreed to create and help fund a drivers association that will meet quarterly and function somewhat like a union. Drivers will also be allowed to put up signs asking riders for tips.

However, the court’s approval of the settlement is not guaranteed. In fact, a similar settlement involving the company’s competitor, Lyft, was recently rejected by a judge. That settlement was rejected because the proposed amount, $12.25 million, was based on an outdated expense reimbursement estimate. The judge argued that the settlement would need to increase significantly to meet estimates from more recent data. Underlying that case are similar questions: should drivers be considered employees and are they entitled to reimbursements?

Overall, the recent settlement appears to be a large victory for Uber. The company was valued at $62.5 billion in December, making the $100 million settlement relatively manageable in the context of the company’s size. Uber will also continue to keep its costs remarkably low as it continues to classify its drivers as independent contractors. Drivers will get some important concessions from the company and Uber is openly acknowledging that it needs to evolve in the way it manages its drivers as the company grows.

In a blog post after the settlement was reached, Uber CEO and Co-Founder Travis Kalanick wrote,

Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Kalanick also notes that the company now has over 450,000 drivers using the app each month. Given the dramatic increase in the company’s size, it is seeking to improve the way it receives and responds to feedback from drivers while clarifying its deactivation policies.

Despite the settlement, many questions remain about worker classification for so-called “gig economy” jobs. The settlement resolves a dispute between drivers in the two states, but it doesn’t answer the question altogether. Moreover, a settlement will not leave a precedent in the way a decision from a federal judge would. Regulators also retain the ability to change classification standards, which would have a dramatic impact on these businesses.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Uber Agrees to $100 Million Settlement With Drivers appeared first on Law Street.

ITT Educational Services–the company that operates ITT Technical Institute–is the latest for-profit education company to be sued for misleading its students. A new lawsuit has been filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, claiming that the company used deceptive information about employment rates post-graduation, as well as about some of the aspects of its computer science program. Additionally, the for-profit education company is under federal investigation based on suspicions it may have defrauded the federal government.

According to Boston.com, when it came to the Computer Network Systems program:

ITT’s admissions representatives allegedly told prospective students that anywhere from 80 percent to 100 percent of graduates obtained jobs in or related to their field of study, but real placement rates were actually 50 percent or less, according to the suit.

The suit argues that when ITT categorized jobs as “in or related to their field of study” it included positions like working customer service at a big-box retailer, internships or short-term positions involving computers, and working for an airline checking passengers in for flights. Essentially, if someone used a computer for their job (which is pretty much everyone in this day and age) they were counted as employed under ITT’s metric.

The lawsuit also claims that ITT didn’t provide the kind of in-classroom education that it advertised; the accompanying press release stated:

ITT also advertised and promoted hands-on training and personalized attention through its program, but students said their experience involved the use of outdated technology, absent teachers, or being told to ‘Google’ the answers to questions.

This certainly isn’t the first time that ITT has had its day in court. ITT, and in some cases its top officials, have been sued by the Securities Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Attorney General of New Mexico, and has gotten into multiple scuffles with shareholders. Its stock has fallen, and its reputation is presumably taking a hit as more controversies continue to pile up.

However, ITT has promised to fight Massachusetts on these particular allegations. Yesterday the company released a statement claiming that the lawsuit was just an example of: “Massachusetts’ woeful record of hostility toward career colleges that train non-traditional and underserved students.”

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post The Fight Against For-Profit Schools: ITT Sued by Massachusetts Attorney General appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

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 Hillary’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

Continuing down the northeast corridor this week, the dumbest laws continue to not disappoint.

Connecticut may be home to some of the most intelligent people in the world thanks to the presence of many Ivy League universities. This doesn’t stop it, however, from also being home to many stupid laws. Until recently, buying alcohol in Connecticut was a bit tricky. Although it was recently repealed, there was once a law that you could not buy alcohol after nine at night or on Sundays. And perhaps as a means of preventing road rage from getting out of hand, Connecticut lawmakers made it illegal to discharge a firearm from a highway.

In Rocky Hill you’ll find your selection of games a bit limited at the arcades, as only four amusement devices are permitted inside of them. Yes, some Connecticut cities just love raining on peoples’ parades. In Southington, silly string is banned. Yes, SILLY STRING! A staple of many a childhood, BANNED!

Many Massachusetts laws deemed stupid actually make sense to me. For example, it is illegal to give beer to hospital patients. I mean, I’d hope so! Speaking of alcohol, candy may not contain more than one percent of the stuff. This is also logical, if you ask me. We don’t need a bunch of kids (or adults, for that matter) bumbling around drunk after a mad candy binge. Halloween would be a nightmare otherwise!

Massachusetts doesn’t want to take any chances regarding gun users turning to killers. At shooting ranges in the state, targets may not resemble human beings. The state seems to be anti-violence in general as public boxing matches are illegal.

Considering its tiny size, I was blown away by the length of the list of dumb Rhode Island laws. Professional sports teams have a few hoops through which to jump in Rhode Island if they want to play on Sunday. There, every sport except ice polo and hockey must obtain a special license to play on that day. Also, business owners and sports coaches must be aware of a special law regarding the special day: “Exercising any labor, business, or work, or using any game, sport, play, or recreation, or causing any of the above to be done to or by your children, servants, or apprentices on the first day of the week results in a penalty of $5 for the first offense and $10 for the second.” With fines like that, you wouldn’t want to take any chances.

Seriously, Rhode Island. Chill.

If every Rhode Island driver adhered to the law the roads would be a loud mess, as one is required to make a loud noise prior to passing on the left. At least you won’t encounter any horse owners testing the speed of their steed on the highways. In Rhode Island, “riding a horse over any public highway for the purpose of racing, or testing the speed of the horse is illegal.”

I’ve heard of impersonating police officers, but impersonating an auctioneer? Well, it must have been a problem in Rhode Island at some point as it made it illegal to impersonate a town sealer, auctioneer, corder of wood, or a fence-viewer. And if you find yourself in some sort of quarrel with someone else, be aware that it is illegal to bite off his or her leg.

And be very careful in Scituate: you’ll need to transport beer from the liquor store or other place of purchase to your home in something other than your car because it is illegal to have it in your car even if it is unopened.

Phew, that was exhausting! So many dumb laws, so little time…

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 Dumbest Laws of the United States: Connecticut, Rhode Island, & Mass appeared first on Law Street.

The pageantry and anticipation surrounding the Olympic Games has subsided recently. The mismanagement by certain host countries (Greece and Russia among others) has had a sobering effect on future host-candidates. In other words, countries are still down to party at your place, they just don’t welcome you coming over and ruining their expensive city.

And no city makes headlines for being unwelcoming quite like Boston. Last Thursday, America’s bid city held its first community meeting on the 2024 Olympics at Suffolk Law School. The organization No Boston Olympics–a grassroots coalition that has seemingly summoned the hospitality of Louise Day Hicks–was a vocal participant at the meeting. Essentially, No Boston Olympics feels the cost of hosting the 2024 Games would financially cripple the city, and everyone within the blast radius would foot the bill via taxes. The group makes a strong point: spending lots of money often sucks. But like other groups of contrarian fiscal hawks (see: Tea Party), they don’t see the entire picture.

The truth is, the success of the Olympic Games usually depends on who’s hosting. Greece, a country whose debt is becoming as famous as its Baklava, has not rebounded from hosting the 2004 Olympic Games.  Russia, which is having difficulty financing its own imperialistic urges, is now also struggling to pay off the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games.

On the flip side, the 2008 Summer Olympics turned a profit in Beijing. The 2012 Games in London, which were not cheap, could generate up to £40 billion in economic growth for England by 2020. Are those examples too foreign for you? The good ol’ US of A turned a profit after the ’96 games in Atlanta. As we did for the ’84 games in Los Angeles and then again for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002.  Don’t we have faith that an Olympics in Boston would follow the lead of England or prior American Olympics rather than those games in Greece and Russia?

Here are a couple of reasons why Boston could be a good spot. The CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake games–Mitt Romney–lives in the area, and Boston is where his venture capital firm is headquartered. Not only is he local, but he also could have some free time on his hands! This is not a joke. Speaking of saviors for winter sports, do you know who else calls greater Boston home? Bob Kraft, the Patriots owner who privately financed his new stadium and turned a moribund afterthought into a four-time Super Bowl winning machine. He’s also been fingered as an adviser for the 2024 bid. Another big name is Red Sox owner John Henry, who was one of the few people who made millions during the 2008 recession and has already approved of Olympic use for Fenway Park.

This really isn’t a coincidence. There are many people in Boston who manage money well and who know the business of sports. It’s also densely populated, connected by a major subway system, and has vacant college housing during the summer. You get the point. Now let’s hear some counter-points courtesy of Boston.com’s coverage of the committee meeting.

1. “Members of Boston Homeless Solidarity Committee questioned why  . . . a cure for AIDS couldn’t get the resources and attention that an Olympic bid might.” (You can host the Olympics when you cure AIDS. Deal, fat cats?)
2. “At one point during Mandredi and Blauwet’s presentation, they showed a rendering of the proposed beach volleyball stadium on Boston Common. That idea drew hissing.” (Boston Common is for ice skating and for smoking pot in between Emerson classes. Not beach volleyball.  GAWT IT? If Boston wins the bid, don’t be surprised if there’s a spinoff protest for this particular issue. #NAWTOWAHCAWMIN)

Being frugal about local resources is understandable. People want the T (subway) fixed. People want better infrastructure. And people want these things completed quickly, without being too expensive. Well you know what could potentially make that happen? The Olympics. This isn’t that novel of an idea. If the International Olympic Committee and the United States are pushing for a smooth, seamless Olympics, you’ll probably get outside funding to fix some of your local problems. Romney got $3 million from the federal government specifically to help extend Salt Lake City’s light rail for its Olympics. In fact, for the last three American Olympics the federal government has spent $1.4 billion to improve the host cities’ transportation and infrastructure, a figure that will increase considering the government knows how inflation works. This money comes in addition to the millions that these cities receive from outside investors and through corporate sponsorship.

I realize many in Boston still suffer from a Big Dig hangover. That mega-engineering project spiraled out of control and the debt won’t be paid until 2038. But one bad investment–and its badness is debatable–shouldn’t stop the city from taking some financial risks in the future. The list of potential hosts is getting smaller, which means the IOC will soon be forced to scale down the costs involved in hosting the Olympics, which means the possibility of profit could be even greater. So while this may not be an obvious opportunity for Boston, maybe we should fully evaluate the idea[r] before calling in the militia. I mean, who doesn’t love a pahty, kid?

Andrew Blancato

The post Boston Olympics Backlash Filled With Cowardice and Stupidity appeared first on Law Street.

For the last couple of years, any discussion on sexual assault has required a discussion of the way colleges handle the issue, and the national consensus has been that they don’t handle it particularly well. There are dozens of universities currently under investigation by the Department of Education for their sexual assault policies. It is within this context that Harvard University, one of those schools under investigation, unveiled its new sexual misconduct policies.

The new policies have received significant backlash from parts of the Harvard community, particularly a group of Harvard Law professors. An open letter was released by the professors decrying the new policies.

They have many complaints with the policies, but overall they argue that the new policies are far too expansive and stack the deck against the accused. They claim that the policies do not allow due process or fairness. They are also concerned that only one office will be evaluating the complaints, and that that office cannot be guaranteed to be impartial because in addition to “trying” the cases, they are the ones who investigate the cases. Mainly they are worried about the fact the policies seemed to them, to be one-sided, saying:

Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.

The law professors also note the fact that many parts of the Harvard community were not consulted in the drafting of the new policies — including the faculty of the law school.

Concern has also been brought up over the fact that the policies changed the burden that needs to be met. There are varying degrees of burdens — “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the one we’re probably all the most familiar with from hearing it in the courtroom. There are lower burdens though, and Harvard’s sexual misconduct policies used to be based on one of them: “clear and persuasive.” The new rules have shifted the policies to an even lower burden: “preponderance of the evidence.” What preponderance means is really just more likely than not — more likely than not that someone broke a particular sexual misconduct policy.

To say I have incredibly mixed feelings about the entire thing would be an understatement. On one hand, I’m the kind of person who likes to believe in justice. Everyone does deserve a fair trial, no matter how heinous the crime or convincing the evidence.

That being said, the way in which sexual assault has been handled at some of our nation’s universities has been reprehensible at best. Policies do need to be changed, we’re all on the same page here. The real question that needs to be answered now is how?

On the other side of the country, California thinks maybe it has the answer. The state just instituted a new series of policies for its public schools that have been summed up under the phrase “yes means yes.” The law states:

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.

This law has certainly received less backlash than Harvard’s, although some are still worried that it’s too harsh on those accused of sexual misconduct. The disconnect puts us in an interesting position — what’s too far and what’s not far enough? I don’t think there’s a perfect answer to that yet. There’s a whole treasure trove of imperfect answers out there: the policies and actions of the schools that are under investigation.

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 Harvard’s New Sexual Assault Policies Spark Dissent From Professors appeared first on Law Street.

Health care costs have long been a hot topic of conversation in American culture. We’ve had problems with our health care system because the costs are high, of course, but also because sometimes they’re simply unknown. Often people who go in for a procedure, even with insurance, have no idea how much they’re going to owe until they receive a bill in the mail. One state has finally decided that that’s a bad way of doing things–starting this month, the state of Massachusetts is providing “price tags” for healthcare.

As of last week, if you are insured through a private company, you can go on that company’s website, type in what medical procedure you’re looking to get, and it will tell you how much it costs. This is part of an act that Massachusetts passed in 2012 that aimed to create greater transparency in healthcare costs, and make the system more efficient.

Now this system isn’t perfect, nor is it centralized. Not every single cost associated with a particular medical procedure will be listed–for example some places won’t list the cost of reading a scan or processing a test or an accompanying hospital stay.

The WBUR reporter who checked out the system, Martha Bebinger, also noticed some other interesting components. Health care costs vary by hospital or doctor, as well as by insurance provider. In some cases the difference was negligible, but in others, it was striking. For example, the cost of an Upper Back MRI ranges from around $600 to $1800, depending on where you go. Bebinger also noticed that the costs can change from day to day.

This is a valuable tool, because in addition to allowing patients to figure out where would be the best place to get a particular procedure, it also allows them to plan ahead. Some of the sites also create calculations of co-pays and the like, making the sites even more budget-planner friendly. Some of the sites allow the ability to leave patient reviews, so people can get some idea of the quality of the healthcare they will get before they actually commit. And while the system is by no means centralized, all of the big insurance providers in Massachusetts seem to have created some sort of online site with the ability to price-check.

The new requirements have also been applauded because of the hope that they may drive healthcare prices down. If people are able to readily access prices, they will shop around, and private doctors may offer slightly lower prices to incentivize customers.

The only possible concern I see is that people may be discouraged from going to the doctor’s office if they know in advance how much it will cost. However, I would imagine that those cases would be few and far between, and that overall, more transparency will benefit people who are on a budget.

Massachusetts has, in the past, introduced innovations in its health care system that ended up becoming national trends–the Affordable Care Act was loosely based on Massachusetts’s system of healthcare. Massachusetts may once again be in the position of testing an idea that could eventually end up a national norm.

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 Healthcare Procedures in Massachusetts Now Have Price Stickers appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Lately our lives have been beaten down by the constant news about terrorists. It seems like terrorism is everywhere we turn. What happened to the days when we all lived in the nice little American bubble where terrorism didn’t even seem to be a word we could rightly understand? Now it is a word that we use on a daily basis. 9/11 was the starting point of a scary reality for most of this generation and its connection to terrorism. Before that day we could get on a plane and not have to worry about if the person next to us had a bomb in their underwear or constantly wonder and worry about what might happen next. People are unpredictable and you never know what could happen. The security blanket of living in a nation considered a Super Power is no longer there; we walk around with a target on our backs.

Finally our government is getting it together and figuring out what to do to make our world a little bit safer. Even amid all things ISIS at least the government is finally trying to do something. Kudos to President Obama on the airstrikes the other night!

In an effort to deter people from becoming homegrown jihadists, our government has started a pilot program in three cities: Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis. The administration is looking for new ways to intervene in the lives of people who may want to launch an attack on us, even American citizens. The ideas they have put together seem a bit strange and big brother-esque to me, but a necessary evil in terms of protecting the many from the few.

My biggest question though, is how do you know who to look for? How do you know who is thinking or planning anything?

I always think of the film Enemy of the State when it comes to trying to keep an eye on terrorism. What if some innocent person gets pulled into something they aren’t even aware of and the government ruins their entire lives? And once it figures out they aren’t “the guy” it just leaves them alone with a simple apology and they have to to pick the pieces of their life.

How much are we willing to give up to our government in order to be safe? This is something I struggle with all the time because I certainly do not believe in big government, but I do believe our citizens should be safe and protected from harm’s way. Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer.

Allison Dawson

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

The post New Federal Pilot Program Aims to Deter Homegrown Jihadists appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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

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

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Chensiyuan via Wikipedia]

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: #9 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) published an op-ed in the New York Times last week that points out a major problem with our nation’s government–the House of Representatives doesn’t actually represent the American people. Schumer is right, and our electoral system deserves much of the blame.

As Schumer mentioned in his piece, roughly a third of Americans are right-leaning conservatives, a third are left-leaning liberals, and a third are independents with moderate views. Schumer explained that because voter turnout is so low in primaries, the extreme ends of both parties or, the “third of a third” decide who wins in primary elections. The Tea Party is a prime example of this idea in practice. Roughly 10 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Partiers, so if the House of Representatives was truly representative, the Tea Party would have 10 percent of the seats. But because they are way more active in elections than more moderate Republicans, 144 of 435 current congressman, or 33.1 percent, support the Tea Party. It would be easy to just blame this problem on those who don’t vote. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that. According to his op-ed, Sen. Schumer’s proposal to reform our primary system is to institute a “top-two” primary. In this system, all candidates run in one primary and all voters vote, regardless of party. The top two candidates then enter a run-off, or general election. This means that you may have a general election with two Democrats, or two Republicans, but no matter what, they will represent the district’s two favorite choices. However, this reform may not be enough.

The roots of the problem stem from gerrymandering and our first-past-the-post, single member congressional districts. Let’s start with the problem of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Imagine a state that votes roughly 70 percent Democrat and 30 percent Republican. Under any definition of fair, roughly 70 percent of the state’s representatives should be Democrats and 30 percent Republicans. But this hardly ever happens. For example, I used an approximation of Massachusetts’s party breakdown for the description above, yet Democrats hold all nine of its congressional seats. Thirty percent of Massachusetts is not represented in Congress. This occurs because our congressional districts have only one member and are elected by FPTP, meaning the first candidate to break the 50 percent barrier wins the one seat and all those who voted for the loser are not represented.

Because the 30 percent of voters who are Republican are not concentrated in any one congressional district enough to break the 50 percent barrier, they have no representation. This may have been aided by gerrymandering–the process of drawing districts to favor a political party. But even without gerrymandering, Republicans in Massachusetts would be lucky if they won one or two seats. Where gerrymandering really amplifies the problem is when it creates completely uncompetitive districts, meaning one party is all but guaranteed to win it. This makes the primary election much more important than the general election. This brings us back to the issue raised by Sen. Schumer–the more extreme candidate often wins these primary elections, and then succeeds in an unchallenged general election. This allows the extreme 10 percent of voters to decide who represents the whole district. This is how our House of Representatives has become so polarized, and a terrible representation of the views of many Americans.

So, what is the solution to this giant mess? Unfortunately, Schumer’s solution has not been proven to work in the states that have already implemented it. This problem requires a more drastic solution, something called proportional representation. A detailed plan for a proportional representation system is described by the organization FairVote, but I will give you a simple version. Under this new hypothetical plan, there would no longer be single member congressional districts, but larger districts that would have either three or five representatives. The representatives would be elected using ranked choice voting, a method in which voters rank their favorite candidates. How exactly this would work is described here. But essentially, in these three or five seat districts, the minority party would have the chance for its voice to be heard. In a five-seat district, where exactly 60 percent of voters are Democrat and 40 percent are Republican, three seats will go to the Democratic Party and two to the Republicans. See the infographic below to see how this plan would impact a state with a party breakdown similar to Massachusetts.

Proportional representation is a system that distributes seats in a much fairer way than FPTP does. It will get moderates back in Congress and increase voter turnout, because voters will feel like they can actually elect someone who represents them. It will fix the House of Representatives by making its name match its definition–the House will finally represent the American people.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PBS NewsHour via Flickr]

Editor’s note: The author of this piece previously interned at FairVote.

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Fix the House of Representatives 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 [Chensiyuan via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #2 Harvard Law School 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 [Chensiyuan via Wikipedia]

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 Schools for Healthcare Law: #6 Harvard Law School 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 [Anne via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Top 10 Schools for Healthcare Law: #8 Boston University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly seven years of relatively little disruption, a Massachusetts abortion clinic was the site of a vivacious protest on Saturday. The protest was three times larger than the clinic’s normal crowd and took place within the confines of the now meaningless 35-foot buffer zone. Last Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley terminated Massachusetts’ buffer zones around abortion clinics in defense of protesters’ freedom of speech. A consequential storm of criticism from women’s rights groups followed. They posed the question of whether constitutionality should be the sole factor in a decision so influential.

Although I always find myself screaming on behalf of pro-choice advocates, I must admit that the Supreme Court’s ruling does follow the constitution in a very logical and technical sense. But should the Constitution be the final word? Pro-choice activists across the country certainly don’t think so.

The Ruling

SCOTUS’s decision to strike down the buffer zones stemmed from their broad definition of anti-abortion advocates’ free speech. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “here the Commonwealth has pursued interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers,” referring to sidewalks where protesters typically congregate. Eleanor McCullen, the grandma-esque poster woman for abortion opponents, argued that the buffer zones were unnecessary because the exchanges they sought to restrict were peaceful, not violent. However, an abortion opponent could just as easily whisper a dangerous threat as they could shout it.

Justice Scalia pointed out that the close, personal interactions being defended by this ruling were a perfect example of what the First Amendment is intended to protect–the right to try to persuade others. He even went on to compare these conversations to protests that occur in other scenarios, such as protesters outside the Republican National Convention or voting stations.

At this point, I know I was not alone in thinking: did he really just compare getting an abortion to filling out a ballot? It’s not like choosing a political party. It’s not a choice you can alter or change with time. It’s a choice that will change your life forever and not one that should be taken lightly. It’s a choice that you should be so firm in that a peaceful chat outside a clinic would not persuade you to change it. It’s a choice that will affect you for the rest of your life. Most importantly, its a personal choice, not one subject to public discussion and attack.

Yes, I said “attack.” Just because it’s not screaming, loud, and belligerent, doesn’t make it polite or okay–harassment can take many forms. For example, most anti-abortion protesters shame patients silently with posters calling them killers, or with pictures of living, dead, or mutilated babies. The Boston Globe shared a statement from a young woman entering the aforementioned Massachusetts clinic on Saturday. She said, “you have to walk through this circle of people staring at you and talking to you and judging you…it’s very intimidating.” This shaming can bring as much emotional pain as any violent act.

Equally as interesting is the Supreme Court’s choice to eliminate these safe zones around abortion clinics, while still retaining their own buffer zones around the courthouse. The Supreme Court’s most recent regulation on their own buffer zone states:

The term ‘demonstration’ includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services, and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.

In fact, the closest public place where protesters would be allowed to hold demonstrations is 252 feet from their front doors. So, not only do the hypocritical justices have their own buffer zone, but it is more than seven times that of the Massachusetts clinics. The irony is truly nauseating.

What the Supreme Court should have considered:

• History: In 1994, two staff members at Planned Parenthood clinics in Brookline, MA, were killed by shooter John C. Salvi. He went on to injure five more people and also shot up another clinic in Virginia, where he fled to after the initial crime. No one should approach protesters, especially abortion opponents in Massachusetts, with the naivety that they will always remain peaceful. The buffer zone was not full-proof, but at least it was some sort of safeguard to protect patients and staff.
• Success Rates of Buffer Zones: There haven’t been any dangerous altercations since 2007, when the 35-foot zone was enacted. The fact that these zones have worked shouldn’t be used as justification to terminate them, but rather to further their necessity.
• Success Rates of Anti-Abortion Protesters: The buffer zones did not make it impossible for abortion opponents to achieve their goal. Eleanor McCullen, the case’s plaintiff, testified to persuading about 80 women to forgo abortion procedures, even with the 35-foot buffer zone. Why should the Supreme Court make it easier for less-polite protesters to attack the patients, while peaceful abortion opponents are still accomplishing their objective?

The only silver lining is that the Supreme Court seems to realize the need for some safeguard for entering patients. They contended that there are alternative steps that the Massachusetts legislature can take to ensure the protection of clinic patients. But in the meantime, women in Massachusetts must forgo the protection, however seemingly scant, that they were once guaranteed before entering abortion clinics.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Talk Radio News Service via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sorry SCOTUS, Harassment Isn’t Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

The possibility of government regulation of noncompete clauses in the business world has been a hot topic in recent months – especially throughout the tech industry. Now it seems that the debate has expanded to an array of other smaller industries, including the ever-so-competitive camp counseling field.

According to the New York Times, 19-year-old college student Colette Buser was passed over for a summer counselor job in Wellesley, Mass. in fear that nearby LINX camp would sue. Apparently Buser had a noncompete clause tucked into her contract from the previous summer, which prevented her from working within ten miles of a LINX location. According to the Times, everyone from “chefs to investment fund managers to yoga instructors, employees are increasingly required to sign agreements that prohibit them from working for a company’s rivals.”

LINX tried defending its actions to the Boston Herald, claiming that its training methods are just as crucial as the confidential intel that tech companies using noncompetes have. LINX President Joe Kahn said that the company uses these clauses because they train employees using unique methods and have seen counselors get hired mid-summer as babysitters. “Much like a tech company would be protective of their technology and proprietary information, we’re protective of our customer information,” said Kahn.

Buser is not the only person who has been affected by noncompete clauses recently. According to the Boston Herald there have been plenty of other instances where former employees found themselves in trouble because of a noncompete clause.

• A student trying to intern at a tech firm was requested to sign a one-year noncompete.
• A Massachusetts man whose job involved spraying pesticides on lawns was asked to sign a two-year noncompete agreement.
• A Boston University graduate was asked to sign a one-year noncompete for an entry-level social media job at a marketing firm.
• Phil Poireir, a pastor at a Megachurch in Seattle, was let go because he refused to sign a noncompete contract.
• A hair salon in Norwell, Mass., obtained an injunction requiring hairstylist Daniel McKinnon to stop working at a nearby salon because he had signed a noncompete, which prohibited him from working at any salon in neighboring towns for a year.

In McKinnon’s case, he was forced to live on unemployment benefits for months. “I almost lost my truck, I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me,” McKinnon told the Times.

From the employer’s perspective, noncompete clauses make sense. The company has invested its time and money into training its employees, so it would only be logical to protect those investments. But it seems that some companies are taking it a bit overboard. Can one hairdresser really cause a business to flop? What does it say about your company if you’re trying to scare your employees to stay committed? These are the questions that businesses need to ask themselves when they put noncompete clauses in their employees’ contracts.

Many noncompete clauses put people like Daniel McKinnon out of work for weeks and even months at a time. MIT professor Matthew Marx thinks that people should have the freedom to come and go as they please. “There was a saying at the Silicon Valley startup where I worked, ‘You never stop hiring someone.’ They can go where they want. People are free to leave and start companies if they’re not happy,” Marx said.

Over the past year there has been a 60 percent rise in departing employees who face lawsuits from their former bosses for breaching these agreements, the Wall Street Journal reported. These disputes lead to long, drawn out court battles that impede productivity on both sides of the disagreement.

Many legislators are trying to bar noncompetes in various states throughout the country. State Representative and Vice Chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, Lori Ehrlich,  contends that noncompetes are hurting growth in our economy by “decreasing working mobility and squelching startups.”

Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has proposed a bill that will make it easier for workers in all types of industries to move from one job to another with ease by banning noncompete agreements. These agreements seem to cripple employees’ ability to be innovative, leaving them befuddled and frustrated with their inability to advance.

While the fear that former employees may take confidential information is understandable, companies should sue if, and only if, the former employee is caught doing so, not beforehand. Should their personal knowledge be considered company information? Does that make sense to anyone out there?

Currently, only California and North Dakota ban noncompete clauses according to the Herald. So if you are working for a company and you have a brilliant idea for a new startup, you can go to California or North Dakota and the judge will not honor the agreement. Since startups in North Dakota aren’t exactly booming, I would look to the Golden State.

— Trevor Smith Featured Image Courtesy of [Penn State via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Want to be a Camp Counselor? Better Check Your Noncompete Clause appeared first on Law Street.

It seemed surreal when news broke that star NFL player Aaron Hernandez would be arrested for the mafia-style execution of local amateur football player Odin Lloyd. In the weeks following that report however, details from the case emerged that painted a very realistic image; the former New England Patriot may have actually committed murder. Ensuing news stories seemed to complete the picture of Hernandez as executioner. A motive for killing Lloyd surfaced. Rolling Stone made public his history of violence and drug abuse. But despite all the plausible connections made in the case, the prosecution was facing several hurdles in convicting the fallen football star. The murder weapon linked to the shooting has not been found and finding credible, cooperative witnesses in the trial has proved difficult for the prosecution. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts could be forced to convince a jury — using only circumstantial evidence —  that a local celebrity is guilty of murder.

This was true until recently, as the prosecution may have received a boost to its case. Last Friday, Hernandez’ alleged accomplices from the night of the murder, Carlos Ortiz and Ernest Wallace, were indicted by a grand jury for the murder of Odin Lloyd. Ortiz and Wallace were originally charged only as accomplices, but the failure of either party to cooperate in the Commonwealth’s case against Hernandez has forced the hand of the prosecution, and likely frustrated its’ attorneys.

The indictment of Ortiz and Wallace is helpful to the prosecution because if a murder was part of a joint venture, the judge presiding over the case may instruct the jury that they may render a guilty verdict without knowing who actually pulled the trigger. Joint venture liability doesn’t make the job easy, but it does allow for conviction if the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly participated in the commission of the crime charged.

Now its the defendants’ attorneys who are frustrated, and for good reason. If a jury didn’t believe Carlos Ortiz’s dubious story of ‘just going along for the ride‘ prior to the indictment, it meant he could be charged as an accessory. Now, he could do life. Prosecutors can also potentially use these new indictments as negative reinforcement to get Ortiz or Wallace to cooperate against Hernandez in a 2012 murder for which the former tight end has been investigated. Either way it appears the prosecution has gained an advantage, leaving Hernandez with even fewer teammates by his side.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Andrew Blancato

The post Hernandez Associates Charged With Murder: Big Break for Prosecution? appeared first on Law Street.

The quick response of a state legislature to overcome a loophole in a law demonstrates the power of public action.

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that taking ‘upskirt’ photos did not violate the right to privacy as guaranteed in the state’s voyeurism law. Upskirting is the practice of taking secret photos of an individual’s private area; they can be snapped, for example, of a woman’s private parts while she walks up stairs wearing a skirt.

The incident that prompted the case occurred in 2010 when a man took photos of women wearing skirts on a MBTA trolley on two separate occasions. In its ruling, the court noted that the state’s voyeurism law dealt only with taking pictures of naked or partially undressed individuals, but the upskirting photos were taken when they were fully clothed, therefore, the law did not apply. In addition, the court declared that the second part of the voyeurism law, a reasonable expectation of privacy, was not met. Because the MBTA trolley operates in a public environment and there were cameras, the victims of the photographs could not have expected their privacy to be upheld.

By ruling solely on a matter of law, the court’s decision did have some merit. The Supreme Judicial Court was ruling in the context of law on the books and so, the existing policy did not provide the court with legal reason to declare the upskirt photos illegal. However, the court’s deeming that the defendants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on mass transit is less understandable. Being in a public place with cameras should not justify the exposure of individuals’ private areas; in fact, because they were fully clothed, the women proved they had no intention of showcasing their bodies to the public eye.

While it was disappointing that the court declared upskirting legal according to existing law, the ruling highlighted the need to update the law. The court felt that the practice of upskirting should be illegal, but that they had no power to enforce that themselves. This was a legislative loophole that needed to be closed.

The court’s decision enraged the public, and their outcries prompted the Massachusetts legislature to quickly respond by drawing up a bill that would make upskirt photos illegal. The legislation passed both the state House and Senate, and on Friday, March 7, Governor Deval Patrick signed the bill into law. It took only two days from the time that the court ruled to the governor’s signing legislation outlawing upskirting.

The swift timeframe demonstrates that the case serves as a prime example of public reaction in creating an incentive for the efficient passage of legislation. 

Boston.com noted that the decisive action of the Massachusetts state legislature was a welcome change from its usual slow pace of work. But in the midst of such a strong outcry from the citizens over the court’s decision, lawmakers knew that swift action should be taken and would be appreciated. Commenting on the pace of the legislation, Speaker of the House Robert A. DeLeo stated, “we can send a message out there, to women especially, that this type of action will not be tolerated.” The legislature hastened to pass the legislation to demonstrate its commitment to citizens’ right to privacy.

Perhaps the last time the state government acted as quickly was in 2006 when a woman was killed after the collapse of a Big Dig ceiling. The amount of press attention and public outrage the incident caused allowed the government to quickly resolved the problem of the project’s oversight between the executive and legislative branches. Hopefully, the success of the rapid response to outlaw upskirting shows that there does not need to be an emergency to hasten legislative action, but that people’s voices and responses to a situation can influence legislatures to speed up the process of passing laws.

[Boston Herald] [Boston.com] [NY Daily News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Geneva Vanderzeil apairandasparediy.com via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Down Vote on Upskirting: Why the Mass. Legislature Got it Right appeared first on Law Street.

Students have to go to school- it’s the law. But what happens when a student, legally bound to go to school, is suspended for a long period of time, or even expelled? In some places, there is no contingency plan to make sure the student is learning while out of school. Should students who have been suspended or expelled be expected to keep up with schoolwork the same way their peers- who remain in classes- are?

Massachusetts has recently passed a new law, which would require school districts in the state to provide some kind of provide some kind of education to students facing long-term education or expulsion. Specifically, it says: “any school district that suspends or expels a student under this section shall continue to provide educational services to the student during the period of suspension or expulsion.”

The bill does not highlight specific ways in which school districts could supplement these students’ education, but with modern technology, online options seem feasible. Some people have pointed out that the cost of educating students outside of the classroom is expensive, but if the alternative is not having students taught at all, some expenses don’t seem like that much of a problem. There are also alternative schools, which are funded publicly for students with behavioral problems. But again, each state handles admissions to these schools differently. There is also always the concern of over-filling alternative schools, and having the education there suffer as a result.

Long-term suspensions and expulsions are not the norm for most students, but have become an increasingly common way to deal with behavioral infractions of students. Many schools have instituted “zero tolerance” policies in respect to actions like fighting and bringing weapons, alcohol, or drugs to school. If a student is found to have partaken in one of the “zero-tolerance” behaviors, he or she faces immediate and severe punishment, ranging from suspension to expulsion.

While the safety of students is of course a priority, educators and legislators need to consider the ramifications of these “zero-tolerance” policies, and many others, which lead to so many suspensions and expulsions in the first place. While the Massachusetts law is a great attempt to keep students on track when they otherwise would not be, perhaps it is more important to address these problems before students have to leave school.

The ACLU outlines something known as the “school-to-prison pipeline.” People claim that when students aren’t in school, they are more likely to engage in other destructive behaviors, making it more likely for those individuals to end up in prison. The group outlines a number of policies, including zero-tolerance policies that they say only adds to the number of students suspended or expelled each year.

By implementing this law, Massachusetts has stuck a wrench in the school-to-prison pipeline, which currently exists. Rather than letting a student’s education fall by the wayside during the suspension, students will have the opportunity to continue to keep up with classes even while not in the school building itself. Obviously, the long-term benefits of the policy are not known, but it shows that state legislatures across the country could be addressing similar topics.

Regardless of whether this method has been proven to work, the idea and rationale behind it is solid. When students are in school, they’re taught. When students aren’t in school, they don’t get taught. Having a student not in school because of behavioral problems not getting taught seems like a recipe for disaster. If more states took the path Massachusetts is taking now, down the road we could see some significant changes in the population of incarceration among youth who have faced these problems in school at a young age.

[ACLU] [Sentinel and Enterprise] [Law] [Dignity Schools] [Huff Po]

—

Molly Hogan(@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Larry Darling via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massachusetts Expands Instruction to Expelled Students appeared first on Law Street.

In my search for a news story today, I came across what looked like an interesting topic. A trial is set to begin in Fort Hood, TX, regarding a prostitution ring that was supposedly set up by a Fort Hood sergeant who has yet to be charged. On trial is Master Sergeant Brad Grimes, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is accused of participating in the prostitution ring.

Conspiring to pay for sex is without a doubt a crime, and if Grimes did so, he deserves to be punished as the court sees fit. But what sparked my interest, and a bit of surprise, was that Grimes was also charged with adultery.

That got me thinking: am I woefully ignorant of current laws, or do I just not see adultery charges that often?

So, I looked it up, and what I found was an incredibly wide-ranging set of laws, and a number of strange cases. Let’s start with the most extreme derivations. In Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, adultery is a felony. Technically speaking, in Michigan, you could be sentenced to life in prison for cheating on your spouse, as Judge William Murphy in the Michigan Court of Appeals noted in 2007.

Then there are states that are not nearly as harsh. Of the 23 states that still have adultery laws on the books (Colorado abolished theirs earlier this year), most classify it as some type of misdemeanor. This means that in most of these states, an adultery conviction would result in a fine.

A slim majority of states don’t have any adultery laws on the books at all. And it’s important to note that in those that do, actual trials or charges rarely develop. In Massachusetts, one of the states that does classify adultery as a felony, no one has been convicted of it since 1983. Even in that case, the punishment was only two $50 fines, one for the woman who committing adultery and one for the man with whom she was sleeping. If anything, adultery comes up during custody or divorce battles.

In the military, adultery laws are taken more seriously. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not specifically contain adultery as a crime, but does have Article 134, which “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline”. The Manual for Court Martial expands Article 134 to include examples of specific offenses, and does contain adultery. The penalty for adultery can include up to a year in confinement, and/or dishonorable discharge.

According to this Slate article, standalone charges for adultery are rare. They’re usually piled on with other misconduct charges, such as lying to a superior. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be damaging—in 1997, Lt. Kelly Flynn made headlines when she was dishonorably discharged after lying about sleeping with the husband of one of her coworkers.

That brings us back to Grimes. He was charged with adultery in conjunction with other charges, and really, my point here is not to diminish the conspiracy to pay for sex charges he is also facing. My point is that I was shocked to see an adultery charge listed at all. Off the top of my head, I don’t think I can think of a popular prime-time drama in which adultery does not incur. In fact, there have been entire shows that pretty much revolve around it—Desperate Housewives, anyone? Maybe I’m just cynical, but I’ve always seen adultery as a personal act in which a decent proportion of our population engages—not a potential felony. Now I’m not trying to say that adultery is an ok thing to do, or morally acceptable. But the truth of the matter is that it happens. The percentage of married women reporting affairs in the last two decades was around 15% in 2013, for men it was around 21%. Grimes probably deserves the sentence he will receive. But our archaic adultery laws also deserve a look.

—

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 [Harsh Agrawal/www.chromoz.com 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 Adultery in the US: Do You Know the Laws? appeared first on Law Street.

After a young woman in North Andover, Massachusetts named Erin Cox was punished for picking up an intoxicated friend from a party, her story is receiving national attention. Formerly the varsity volleyball captain, she has been stripped of her captainship and suspended for five games.

The story of what happened that night shows that Cox is a strong, independent, and compassionate young woman. On a weekend evening early in October, she received a text from a friend who was at a party and intoxicated. Being a good friend, Cox decided to go pick her up. However she arrived there at the same time as the police, who had come to break up the rowdy underage party. About a dozen students were arrested, and another dozen or so were warned that they could be summoned to court for drinking underage.

Cox was one of the students who received that warning, despite the fact that she had just arrived and had not been drinking. In fact, a police officer at the scene who performed sobriety tests vouched for Cox’s claim that she had not had even a sip of alcohol.

Cox explained in an interview with the Boston Herald that she truly felt as though she was doing the right thing. “But I wasn’t drinking,” she told me. “And I felt like going to get her was the right thing to do. Saving her from getting in the car when she was intoxicated and hurt herself or getting in the car with someone else who was drinking. I’d give her a ride home.”

After the police reported the party break-up to the school, many students faced various punishments for breaking the school’s zero tolerance policy on drugs and alcohol. Cox was one of them. The school has claimed that simply because she was at the party when the police arrived, regardless of her purpose or sobriety, that she was in the wrong. They also claim that being a student athlete, moreover a student athlete with a leadership position, is a privilege that can be revoked for inappropriate behavior. Cox’s family is standing behind her, stating that they’re proud of their daughter’s attempt to be a good friend and responsible young adult. Her mother attempted to sue the school district, but was told that the district court did not have the appropriate jurisdiction. They are now expected to move onto a federal claim.

I have a few different issues with the punishment of Erin Cox. First, this sends a horrible message to students. Seniors in high school are taught to weight their worth on what they plan on doing after graduation. For some, the attempt to get into a college of their choice becomes all-consuming. The message that North Andover High School sent to its students preached selfishness—essentially Cox’s punishment indicated that helping your friends is not worth it because it may get you in trouble. That’s not the lesson that young people should be learning as they go out into college or the real world. High school isn’t just about algebra and AP Tests; it’s about teaching you how to be a decent human being. Furthermore, the school implicitly told Cox that she should have let her friend drive drunk, or get into a car with someone who had been drinking. Did that friend make a mistake? Yes. Did that mean she was unworthy of Cox’s help? Absolutely not.

This news story reminded me of another instance in which young high school athletes were present at a crazy, unruly party rife with underage drinking. The Steubenville case took the nation by storm, and raised important questions about appropriate behavior in teens. But Cox’s story is the flipside.

Let’s compare the two situations: Here, a young woman in Massachusetts who serves as the captain of her volleyball team is caught by the police, sober, picking up a drunk friend from a party. Her captain title is stripped, and she is suspended for five games. In Steubenville, two young men who are on the football team in non-leadership capacities are drunken underage at a party and sexually assault another teenager. Multiple partygoers take pictures, talk about the incident on social media, and harass this young woman. As recent grand jury indictments show, the high school these young men attend help them cover up the whole thing.

Now my comparison probably falls into the category of apples and oranges, but it is fair to ask: why the enormous disparity in the way these two incidents were treated? I’m not sure. It could be because of different policies at the schools. It could be because high school volleyball in Massachusetts is probably lucky to draw a 10^th of the crowd as high school football in Ohio. It could be because Ma’Lik Richmond and Trent Mays were young men, but Erin Cox was a young woman. There are any number of reasons to explain why these two stories are so divergent, but none of them are particularly comforting. High schools are supposed to teach their students to be adults who are capable of acting appropriately, making good decisions, and determining right from wrong. Then these institutions of education are supposed to hold their students accountable to these standards. In my book, Stuebenville and North Andover, different as the cases may be, both failed.

[Huffington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [bankbryan 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 High School Student Punished for Being a Good Friend appeared first on Law Street.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has issued a $40,000 penalty to South/Win Ltd. of North Carolina to settle environmental violations discovered following a 12,000-gallon methanol release in Leominster.

The spill occurred at the South/Win’s Nashua Street location where windshield cleaner and other automotive consumer products are produced.

Company employees discovered an apparent leak from a hose line used to transfer methanol from railcars to the building on March 7, 2011. A backflow valve apparently failed, discharging 12,000 gallons of methanol to the rail bed.

For a spill of this magnitude, notification to MassDEP is required within two hours of discovery; assessment and cleanup should begin immediately. The company did not notify MassDEP until March 10, and also did not hire an environmental contractor to conduct the cleanup until that date.

[Banker & Tradesman]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Paul-W via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post MassDEP Fines N.C. Company $40K for Environmental Violations in Leominster appeared first on Law Street.