People in Oregon who are arrested while in the possession of small amounts of drugs will no longer face felony charges. Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed HB 2355 into law on Tuesday, reducing the classification of possession of certain quantities of drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Individuals convicted of the misdemeanor now face up to one year in prison. Prior to this move, those same individuals faced up to five years in prison for possession of any amount of cocaine and methamphetamine, and up to 10 years for heroin and MDMA, according to the Huffington Post.

Per the new law, individuals may be charged with a misdemeanor if they are found to be in the possession of less than two grams of cocaine or methamphetamine, less than one gram of heroin, less than 40 pills of oxycodone, less than one gram or five pills of MDMA (also known as ecstasy), or less than 40 units of LSD. Individuals possessing larger amounts of those drugs can still face felony charges.

The law also contains a provision to combat profiling of people “based solely on the individual’s real or perceived age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, homelessness or disability.”

In 2014, California became the first state to defelonize minor drug crimes after voters approved Proposition 47. The ballot measure also included the reclassification of other felonies such as certain theft and fraud charges as misdemeanors.

In recent years, the U.S. federal government has begun to rethink sentences for some drug-related crimes. CBS reported in 2016 that more than 26,000 federal drug offenders had received shortened prison terms as a result of sentencing guidelines changes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved in 2014. The reevaluation of drug penalties is not just occurring in the U.S., but has become a global effort. Countries are working to lessen the power of organized crime and promote rehabilitative treatments for drug users.

Changes to federal drug policies in the U.S. may be slow to progress under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But states like Oregon could play a significant role in ending the “war on drugs” through drug defelonization and rehabilitating drug users rather than imposing harsh penalties on them.

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 Possession of Small Amount of Drugs No Longer a Felony Offense in Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Rob Kardashian published explicit photos of ex-fiancee Blac Chyna on Twitter and Instagram. Now, lawyers and experts say he could face criminal charges for revenge porn.

On Wednesday, Kardashian uploaded a series of posts to Instagram, accompanied by nude photos of Chyna, accusing her of cheating on him, taking advantage of him financially, and using drugs and alcohol in the presence of their seven-month-old daughter, Dream Renee Kardashian.

Instagram shut down Kardashian’s account almost immediately, but the reality star quickly moved to Twitter to continue the rant.

I truly thought Chyna wanted to be a family and that’s why I was so loyal to her but I learned my lesson and everyone else was right

— ROBERT KARDASHIAN (@robkardashian) July 5, 2017

The public feud quickly entranced all of Twitter, with the least-famous Kardashian sib’s tweets receiving hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets. “Poor Dream” even became a trending topic along with both of her parent’s names.

Chyna used social media to respond to Kardashian’s attacks, sharing since-deleted accusations to her Snapchat story that Kardashian physically abused her.

“Rob u did all this but u beat me up and try act it never happen!!!!!” Chyna wrote on Snapchat. “U put hand on me I swear on god!!!! On my kids but I’m supposed to be quiet because you’re a Kardashian.”

Kardashian and Chyna’s tumultuous relationship has been the primary source of their fame over the past year and a half. The pair first went public as a couple in January 2016, and Kardashian proposed three months later. Soon after, the couple announced they were expecting a child. Chyna has a child with rapper Tyga, who dated Kardashian’s sister, Kylie Jenner. Part of Kardashian’s Twitter post accused Chyna of having their child “out of spite” over Jenner’s relationship with Tyga.

Reports surfaced in February that the on-and-off-again couple had called off their engagement. The couple’s unlikely pairing and tumultuous relationship was the basis of their reality show spin-off “Rob & Chyna.” The show has been renewed for a second season, but it’s unclear how this development will affect it.

Was it Revenge Porn?

The nude photos Kardashian posted online without Chyna’s consent could be considered revenge porn, especially if Kardashian’s intent was to “cause substantial emotional distress or humiliation” to Chyna. Revenge porn is illegal in two-thirds of the U.S., including in California, where both celebrities reside. The misdemeanor crime carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Revenge porn is also known as non-consensual pornography, or cyberexploitation, since it does not always involve an act of “revenge,” like in Kardashian’s case. Several instances have involved hackers leaking nude photos of victims, which can also fall under the revenge porn laws.

Though no charges have been officially brought as of yet, several experts have said Kardashian’s posts were most definitely an act of revenge porn.

Chyna’s lawyer Lisa Bloom, who represented actress Mischa Barton in a similar case, warned Kardashian on Twitter that revenge porn is a crime and a form of violence.

Note to Rob Kardashian: revenge porn is a crime. And in my Mischa Barton case judge agreed it’s a form of domestic violence. Knock it off.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 5, 2017

“It’s disgusting,” Bloom told the Washington Post. “It’s a very modern way of being misogynistic.”

“The main point of it is that even if Chyna sent him nude photos, if she didn’t want them posted publicly, the law protects her,” Bloom told The Post.

Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who specializes in sexual privacy and started a firm dedicated to the topic, told the Post that Kardashian’s “slut shaming” posts show that he intended to harm Chyna.

“With the accompanying words, there can be no misgivings about his intent,” Goldberg said.

Chyna’s lawyers are reportedly exploring “all legal remedies and protections available,” and are pursuing a restraining order against Kardashian.

I represent Blac Chyna. I just gave Rob Kardashian notice that we’ll be in court Monday seeking restraining orders against him. More to come

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 7, 2017

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rob Kardashian Could Face Revenge Porn Charges, Experts Say appeared first on Law Street.

The two anti-abortion activists who secretly filmed conversations with staff members and doctors from Planned Parenthood are now facing felony charges in California. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt recorded their conversations with various people associated with the organization in 2014 and 2015, using a hidden camera, to expose what they claimed to be a plot by Planned Parenthood to sell fetal material.

Now California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has announced that the two activists violated state law by filming people without their consent. Daleiden expectedly called the charges “bogus” and “fake news” in a statement on his organization’s website, the Center for Medical Progress. But his theory that Planned Parenthood is “harvesting” and selling fetal tissue for profit has been debunked in more than a dozen states where investigations have been conducted.

Back in 2015, Daleiden and Merritt tried to prove that Planned Parenthood was committing a crime by selling fetal tissue. But representatives from the organization said that the videos were heavily edited and taken out of context. Also, the organization only donates tissue for scientific research–always with the patients’ full consent–and gets reimbursements for expenses.

#PlannedParenthood

Anti-abortion propagandist filmmakers @daviddaleiden, Sandra Merritt charged with 15 felonieshttps://t.co/DLFiG5CH0Q pic.twitter.com/MpRniSu7dq

— WarOnWomen (@WarAgainstWomen) March 29, 2017

A Texas grand jury found that Planned Parenthood had done nothing wrong, but found that Daleiden and Merritt used fake drivers licenses to gain access to a Planned Parenthood meeting. Daleiden was also charged with a misdemeanor for trying to buy human tissue, which is ironic since that was the crime he was trying to accuse Planned Parenthood of. Those charges were dismissed. But the California felony charges are related to the secret filming and total 15 each–one count per person they secretly filmed, and one count of conspiracy.

And there’s more bad news for the two–on Wednesday, a federal appeals court blocked the release of more videos by their group. Daleiden called that decision an attack on the First Amendment. “CMP will continue to fight this unconstitutional abuse of power and vindicate our First Amendment rights and those of all citizen journalists to speak and publish on matters of urgent public concern,” Daleiden said.

But the National Abortion Federation said that the release of the videos would put its members at risk, which is not far-fetched to think. Last January, Planned Parenthood sued the Center for Medical Progress, claiming that the release of the heavily edited and misleading videos caused a dangerous environment for its employees. Many Planned Parenthood employees have received threats, and in 2015 there was a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado that left three people dead.

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 Anti-Abortion Activists Who Secretly Filmed Planned Parenthood Charged with Felonies appeared first on Law Street.

The New Hampshire House just rejected a law that would have made it illegal for women to go topless or expose their breasts or nipples in public. Partly a response to the “Free the Nipple” movement that has begun to reverberate around the U.S., breaking the law could have gotten a topless female offender a misdemeanor. While luckily the bill was shot down, the entire debate is absolutely ridiculous.

The “Free the Nipple” movement is a social media campaign dedicated to taking the stigma away from female toplessness, both in public as well as on social media. Here’s a trailer for the 2014 movie based on the movement:

In New Hampshire, two women were arrested on the beach in Gilford last year for going topless, but no charges against them stuck because at the time it was legal for both men and women to be topless in the state. But the “Free the Nipple” movement, combined with the arrests, led lawmakers in New Hampshire to propose the bill making it illegal for a woman to “purposely expos[e] the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts in a public place.” If a woman broke the law twice, she could end up on the sex offender registry. There were exceptions written into the law for breastfeeding mothers.

The co-sponsors of the bill argued that women appearing topless was a threat to society as we know it, which seems like quite a hefty burden to place on shirts. State Representative Brian Gallagher, a Republican who co-sponsored the bill stated:

It’s a shame that some folks are more concerned with exposing their breasts in public places than they are concerned about how families and children may be impacted by being forced to experience this evolving societal behavior. This is about a movement to change the values of New Hampshire society.

Gallagher and another co-sponsor Representative Peter Spanos also cited “Little League games” and “libraries” as places that women are just dying to show up to topless. In a spat between some of the legislators on Facebook, Representative Josh Moore stated that a woman should expect to have her breasts grabbed if she appears in public topless, saying:

If it’s a woman’s natural inclination to pull her nipple out in public and you support that than you should have no problem with a mans inclantion [sic] to stare at it and grab it. After all… It’s ALL relative and natural, right?

Bad grammar and spelling aside, Moore’s assertion that a woman not wanting to get slapped with a misdemeanor for taking her shirt off is tantamount to her deserving to be groped is inappropriate at best, and condoning assault at worst.

The law didn’t pass the house, and rightfully so, given that it would blatantly create different standards for men and women. And, as my favorite argument (courtesy of the New Hampshire ACLU) pointed out: “in a state with an average temperature of only 46 degrees, the risk of rampant nudity seems rather low.”

So, New Hampshire women, you won’t be slapped with a misdemeanor if you’re topless…despite the best yet totally misguided efforts of some of the legislators in your state.

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 New Hampshire House Rejects Silly Bill Criminalizing Female Toplessness appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

Chelsey D. Goff

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

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

Hey y’all!

Last week Rachel Craig, 28, from Waynesboro, Virginia was convicted under the state’s new revenge porn law. She faces up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The revenge porn law went into effect in July and it criminalizes posting nude pictures of someone on the Internet without the individual’s consent. Craig was said to have been in an argument with her former boyfriend when she allegedly stole a picture of his current girlfriend from his phone and posted it on Facebook. Craig even took full credit for the act and warned the victim “not to mess with her” according to Sgt. Brian Edwards of the Waynesboro, Virginia Police Department.

Okay. I’m sorry. What!?! I have so many questions. First of all, if he is your former boyfriend why are you still even communicating with him? Secondly, what was she doing with his phone at all? Third, don’t you think at 28 you would be mature enough to not take this to Facebook? I don’t get it. I don’t get the blatant disregard for an innocent bystander and the maturity level of this woman. I also kind of wish there was a stupid clause tacked on to the law to give this girl an extra six months to sit in solitude and think about how dumb this whole situation is. Craig might go to jail and have to fork over $2,500 for something petty that could have been avoided if she just stopped and thought about what was the real issue and not harming an innocent bystander.

Two months ago another woman in Virginia — Crystal Cherry — was also charged with revenge porn because she posted nude photos of her boyfriend’s former girlfriend on Instagram and Twitter just days after the new law went into effect. Again, another one of these women who is dumb enough to take to social media and create issues that could be avoided at all costs if she could just handle her problems like an adult.

I like this law. The only thing that concerns me is that if this is a first-time offense, both Crystal and Rachel will probably not do any time and will just pay the fee. I know prisons are crowded and our tax dollars are hard at work with sustaining life for idiots who like to break the law, but maybe there should be something a little bit more that we could do. Maybe a class on how to not be so stupid? Or teach kids the proper way to use social media?

I like Facebook and Instagram and I admittedly have a serious love of Twitter, but I don’t need to know everything that you are doing. I don’t need to read about your daily drama. And I definitely don’t want to see you posting nude photos of another woman just because you’re mad at some dude who probably won’t matter to you in five years. Craig and Cherry get to be reminded of that every day now for the rest of their lives when they have to include their misdemeanor convictions on any application they fill out.

This month Jennifer Lawrence is on the cover of Vanity Fair and in her interview she mentions the celebrity nude hacking scandal that she was a part of. J-Law called it a “sex crime not a scandal,” and I tend to agree with her. Not only did this hacker violate someone’s privacy but also committed a cyber crime. Hundreds of celebrities’ nude photos were splashed across the internet, violating their privacy. Some people say that when you choose the life of a celebrity you choose to give up your privacy, but I completely disagree. Celebrities are still people. But I will criticize anyone who is dumb enough to take nude photos and save them anywhere. iCloud is not secure. Your computer is not secure. There is always someone trying to hack into something that will violate you in some way and they may just be doing it for the fun or just because they can.

Even some idiot Pasadena, Texas school teacher gave nude photos to a student she was having an affair with who ultimately ended up sharing them with others. Ashley Zehnder, 24, had reported that nude photos of her were being shared throughout the school where she taught. An investigation revealed that she was sleeping with a student who shared them. Will anything happen to the student who was having the affair and sharing the nude photos? Probably not. But Zehnder lost her job, will go to jail, and will probably have to register as a sex offender. Can we say Mary Kay Letourneau?

I think that there is a lesson in all of this. People need to be more cautious about what they are doing and where it is being saved. Craig and Cherry’s victims are on the same side as Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities. The only difference is Craig and Cherry got caught. Zehnder is the predator and the victim. Her private nude photos were shared with an entire school but she also preyed on a student.

Word to the wise: if you are going to take nude photos use a Polaroid and burn them when you are done if you don’t want them to be shared. Or better yet, just don’t take them. Have a little modesty and respect for yourself. If you want to share being nude do it in person where the only other person looking at you can only use their memory, not a hard copy that could be sent out to the world.

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 PSA: Nude Photos Will Send You to Jail 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.