On September 13 2014, 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham went missing, and recently authorities arrested and charged 32-year-old Jesse L. Matthew Jr. in relation to the incident. His current charge is described as abduction with intent to defile in the case of Graham. (Intent to defile meaning he intended to sexually assault the victim.) Matthew is currently being held without bond and is scheduled for a hearing in early December. Unfortunately, after two weeks of searching, Graham has still not been found, but authorities are doing all they can to locate her.

This case is a tragedy and my heart goes out to Graham’s family and friends. One of the hardest things to understand in this case is recently surfaced reports alleging that Matthew has a history of sexual assault accusations, none of which ended in conviction. According to The Washington Post,

The alleged assaults occurred within an 11-month span from 2002 to 2003 as Jesse L. “LJ” Matthew Jr. moved from Liberty University in Lynchburg to Christopher Newport University in Newport News. Police investigated each report, but neither resulted in a criminal case, according to the Lynchburg prosecutor and a review of online court records in Newport News.

If the allegations of these cases from over a decade ago are true, and with minimal knowledge of the reasoning surrounding the dropped charges, it is hard not to wonder why Matthew got away with such crimes not once, but twice before harming another innocent young girl? These alleged incidents occurred while Matthew was a student attending university, and although legislation and public discourse surrounding campus sexual assault has been under the miscroscope in recent months, I cannot help but wonder how we can act to prevent this loophole?

This case is reminiscent of another sexual assault case with similar characteristics.  In 1996 Amie Zyla, an 8-year-old girl, was sexually molested and victimized by family friend Joshua Wade who was 14 years old at the time. Wade was adjudicated for a misdemeanor in juvenile court. Nine years later, Wade was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for a series of sexual molestation cases involving the abuse of young children. This case caused huge controversy, and was the driving force behind expansions in the definition of sexual assault.

These two cases indicate the importance of people’s histories and backgrounds. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it is wrong for our privacy to be intruded upon, but with something like sexual assault cases — regardless of whether there has been a conviction — something about this needs to be mentioned. It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to understand how hard it can be to convict a perpetrator of sexual assault. There is often a lack of witnesses on top of fear and upset from the victim; with a case dependent on DNA testing, the odds are very slim. Just because cases may not be tried in court — like Matthew’s two alleged college incidents — it does not mean that they didn’t happen and are not warning signs for things to come.

The media has spent its energy publicizing Matthew’s past. This runs a risk of setting off stricter registration laws for sexual offenders, which have proven to do more harm than good. By broadcasting the background of a perpetrator who was in society seemingly living normally until his arrest for the disappearance of a young girl, I question whether the media is supporting the need to find Graham and bring her home safely, or whether it is striking the ‘stranger danger’ rape myth back into society?

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Case of Hannah Graham and the Myth of Stranger Danger appeared first on Law Street.

To blog about such a controversial topic like the use and possession of guns in the United States is something I want to tread carefully with. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion surrounding the debate, but this week I could not help but question the legality of guns when coming across two particular cases.

On Thursday, Don Spirit killed his six grandchildren, aged from three months to 10 years old, and his daughter before turning the gun on himself. Spirit, whose case has been described as a murder-suicide, was someone who had already been involved in the criminal justice system. According to Fox:

In 2001, Spirit pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after he fatally shot his 8-year-old son in the head in a hunting accident. Spirit, who also was convicted in 1998 for felony possession of marijuana, was sentenced to three years in prison for the shooting.

The details of the investigation are still in the very early stages, so it is hard to understand the motive — if there was one — the facts surrounding Spirit’s mental health, and his relationship with the victims. Aside from knowing these facts, I cannot help but wonder how Spirit even managed to have a gun after being convicted of a shooting in 2001? Gun accessibility legislation for ex-convicts really needs to be reconsidered in light of this case.

What I feel a lot of people fail to recognize is that the most common method of suicide in the United States is through the use of guns. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2011 there were 39,518 deaths by suicide. An overwhelming amount of these deaths (19,990) were the result of firearms.  If we are a country that aims to protect our citizens and the rights of others, surely we should look out for ourselves just as much? If we have such easy accessibility to the weapons of our choice that could end our lives, should we not reconsider the laws surrounding them? Do not get me wrong, I am more than aware that the black market for firearms is an ever-growing underground business, but if we cannot efficiently manage the legal selling and keeping of licensed handguns, we have no hope to stop the illegal sales and handlings.

My point needs to be extended to the safety of those living with others who have access to guns. On the same day as the tragic deaths resulting from Spirit’s heinous act, a fifth grade boy was arrested in Michigan after being found to have stolen his grandfather’s pistol. Not only was the boy found with the gun, but he had also created a list of names in the back of his homework book of people he allegedly planned to harm. As a result of this discovery, the boy has been suspended from school for ten days, and could face possible expulsion. Again, this could be my criminological thinking coming out, but I cannot help but wonder whether this punishment will actually solve the problem of what the boy intended to do? I certainly do not think he should be given jail time, or any formal sentence, but I do think that he needs to be aware of just how serious his actions were. Why? Because if he is not aware of it, what is to stop him doing it all over again, and just being more careful.

I fear that in a culture where are part of normality, when conflict arises in such intense situations, sometimes the only resolution seems to be in the form of violence via the use of weapons. I personally do not think this reflects on the attitudes and actions of those involved in this violence, I think it is the instinct that they have been taught their entire lives, to protect themselves in an extremely lethal way. In order to enact firmer laws that protect our safety, we have to start working on understanding the reason for such laws. As someone who is British, and not used to the debate on the use of guns, one of the main things I have come to realize is that it is a right for US citizens to own a gun, and by restricting this right through legislation, essentially the country contradicts all it stands for. As hard as it is to stand back from what an entire population believes in, more awareness needs to be raised toward the consequences of guns, not just for now, but for the future.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Auraelius via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two More Disturbing Gun Cases Beg the Question When Will We Change? appeared first on Law Street.

Flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror can cause the blood to drain from your face, your hands to become clammy, and your heart to do a gymnast-style somersault. After the immediate physical effects of dread set in, questions begin to catapult forth from your mind. “How much will this cost me? “Did the officer see me texting?” “Am I going to lose my license?” The questions become louder and more frequent during that dreaded time waiting for the officer to approach your window and request your license and registration.

This is a nerve-racking situation that many will encounter during their years as drivers, which is why it is important to know your rights when a cop pulls you over. The following tips teach you what to do when you get pulled over and will make the anxiety-ridden experience more pleasant for you and the officer.

When Can an Officer Legally Pull You Over?

A cop needs probable cause — that is, a legitimate reason to believe you broke the law — in order to stop you. Speeding or driving with a broken tail light are both common examples of probable cause. Once you are pulled over, however, if a police officer observes something illegal in your vehicle such as drugs or weapons, he or she can arrest you and would not have to prove that you were speeding in court — just his account of the story suffices.

How and Where Should You Pull Over?

Unfortunately, due to the presence of crooked cops and police impersonators, it is of paramount importance to pull over in a well-lit, populated area. This promotes better safety for both the officer and driver. If you cannot pull over immediately, give a hand signal to the officer indicating that you plan to and drive the speed limit until you find a safe place; however, do not coast or drive for too long before stopping, as this could make it seem like you are trying to hide something. Once you do stop, there is some dispute as to whether or not it is a good idea to get out of the car. While staying in the driver’s seat could lead to the suspicion that you are concealing a weapon, getting out of the car can also seem threatening to some officers. A retired State Trooper in Virginia told the AOL Autos section that he never wanted drivers to get out of the car, as to him this indicated that he or she had something to be afraid of.

I don’t care if you’re the baddest officer there is, there’s always someone out there who’s badder than you, and if we can keep them inside the car, that’s the best way to keep from being injured.

-Retired Virginia State Trooper

Be On Your Best Behavior

You’ve already been pulled over, and whether or not you think this action was justified, it is important to be courteous to the officer to avoid provoking him or her to slam you with a higher fine or charge. Take a few deep breaths, greet the officer kindly, and don’t make any snide remarks.

According to the same retired Virginia officer, a woman once harassed him while he was trying to write her ticket. “I had to roll my window up while she was yelling at me…Well, I guess she didn’t like that because she yanked my door open and said, ‘Don’t you ignore me, you m——- f——!’ Well, that was it, she crossed the line there, so I cuffed her and arrested her for disorderly conduct and took her in.” Had she kept her cool, the woman may have prevented an unnecessarily unpleasant experience for both her and the officer.

It’s important to remember that you have the right to remain silent. Choosing your words carefully can be beneficial, as officers often seek an admittance of guilt from the driver. The 5th Amendment protects individuals against self-incrimination. This means that you can answer “no” to an officer when he or she asks if you know why you were pulled over and to similar questions.

After the officer issues a ticket, warning, or other penalty, ask him or her if you may leave. This avoids the chance of leaving any loose ends or seeming like you are trying to make a getaway.

When Can a Cop Search Your Car or Cell Phone?

A police officer can legally search your vehicle under five circumstances:

1. If the officer asks and you consent to the search
2. If you have an illegal substance or object in plain sight
3. If you are arrested for a legitimate reason
4. If the officer has adequate reasoning to suspect a crime
5. If the officer believes crucial evidence could be destroyed without a search

These five criteria also dictate when an officer can do a search on a home. Minor traffic violations on their own do not constitute just cause for a search. The 4th Amendment provides the right to refuse a search, but officers do not need to inform drivers of this.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding whether or not it is lawful for officers to search the contents of cell phones without a warrant. The justices determined that doing so is generally unlawful, except to physically examine the phone to ensure it cannot be used as a weapon. If a police officer asks to search your phone, you can refuse to consent to the search until he or she has a warrant.

Know Your State Laws

Being at least slightly familiar with the driving laws in your state can be immensely beneficial in the event that you are pulled over. These laws can vary immensely from state to state, especially with regard to the use of electronic devices while operating a vehicle. For example, in New York, it is unlawful to talk on a cell phone whereas other states permit the use of hands-free devices.

Knowing even your most basic rights as a driver can only serve as a benefit in the event that you are pulled over. Click here to see an infographic with a state by state overview of driving.

 —

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) 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.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jace via Pixabay]

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 Do You Know What to Do When You Get Pulled Over? appeared first on Law Street.

Whether near your home or on the other side of the country, you’re responsible for knowing the driving laws wherever you go. Many drivers may not realize that these laws frequently change as you cross state lines, especially those relating to cell phone usage. Some states still allow text messaging while driving, whereas others ban cell phones, even in hands-free mode.

The following infographic breaks down some of the most pertinent driving laws and how they differ among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. And in case you accidentally mix up any of these laws, make sure to check out these tips for what to do when you get pulled over.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Lord Jim via Flickr]

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 Infographic: State-by-State Driving Laws appeared first on Law Street.

A new law recently implemented in New York City is a significant step in the right direction for improving the rights of workers.

On April 1, 2014, an updated paid sick leave law took effect. The measure requires businesses with five or more employees to provide sick leave to employees caring for themselves or their relatives. After taking office, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that paid sick leave would be extended to cover more employees in the city, and he was now fulfilled that promise. Because of the law, 1.2 million more workers in New York will have paid sick leave, many of whom work low to minimum wage jobs.

Skeptics worried about the possible negative effects the new policy would have on businesses. Some small business owners were worried that they wouldn’t be able to afford paying for their workers’ sick leave. Yet when the law took effect, it did so without a commotion. There were no voiced complaints or protests. This silence bodes well for the law’s success and sustainment, and can perhaps pave the way for more progressive labor legislation. And for Mayor de Blasio, who has already faced a setback in failing legislation to raise the minimum wage, granting more residents of the city paid sick leave is a substantial victory.

So what allowed for this measure to be successfully implemented without protest?

Businesses found the law to be reasonable.

Since the law did not take effect immediately, businesses had time to check their budgets to see how offering paid sick leave to employees will impact their profit. While businesses may lose a little money to offer five (or more) sick days a year for employees, the cost of this is not exorbitant. Moreover, business can take comfort in the fact that they do not have to allow an employee paid sick leave until after he or she has been on the job for more than three months. This provision of the law allows time for trust to develop between an employer and an employee, which will lower the risk of an employee’s taking advantage of paid sick leave.

Many people believe that extending paid sick leave to more employees is fair.

One small business owner, Shiv Puri, reflected on the importance of paid sick leave while he worked on Wall Street. He noted that his staff should receive the same benefits as employees as he has been given. Additionally, a poll by FindLaw found that 71% of respondents across the country were in support of extending paid sick leave. In New York and across the United States, the extension of benefits such as paid sick leave are gaining support for being fairer to all employees. Despite the people that had vocalized their concerns before the law took effect, there are many others who support the measure.

Businesses can also benefit from giving workers paid sick leave.

Employees who work low earning jobs know that money is hard to earn and therefore every shift is crucial to supporting themselves. Many have had to make the choice between going to work feeling ill or staying home to care for themselves. Employers don’t want sick workers on the job: they are less productive and can infect co-workers and even customers. Allowing a few days of paid leave will keep sick workers at home, which is ultimately good for business. Additionally, employees who receive more benefits from their employer will feel better treated and will translate how they feel about the job into their work ethic. Providing paid sick leave can also make workers more productive, another benefit to businesses.

It just makes sense.

People that earn low wages already have a harder time making ends’ meat. Why is it then that our system extends more benefits to the people that receive higher salaries? The point of benefits such as paid sick leave is to assist employees, but the people who need the most help are those who work low and minimum wage jobs, because they have a harder time as it is affording basic necessities. Of course, good benefits are a nice incentive for businesses to entice qualified candidates to work for their company. But these benefits can also be used to encourage those in minimum wage positions to stay on the job and to attract more workers to fill open positions.

The law makes New York, the most recent of more than twenty cities and states that have mandated paid sick leave for employees of certain businesses. With the success of the policy’s implementation in New York, perhaps more places in the US will adhere to this just principle.

[NY Times] [HRE Online] [In These Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

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 Paid Sick Leave in NYC: It Just Makes Sense appeared first on Law Street.