If there is one thing that legal blog watching has taught me, it is that a suspect's baggy pants are a policeman's best friend. Indeed, back in 2010 when I used to cover the baggy pants beat for Legal Blog Watch, I observed no fewer than three cases in a 12-month span where criminal plots were completely and utterly foiled by the perpetrators' baggy pants. See suspect trying to flee scene using fire escape whose "low-slung pants fell to his ankles, tripping him and sending him falling three stories to his death;" bank robber whose attempted sprint to the bank door was impeded by his sagging pants, causing the dye pack to explode into a cloud of red smoke; see also the burglar caught in the act who attempted to elude his pursuers but was captured because “[h]is pants were clear down around his knees so he couldn't run real well.”
Given the clear edge that baggy pants provide to police, you would think that police and lawmakers would be the strongest supporters of baggy pants. You would think, for example, that towns would organize "Baggy Pants Month," "Baby Baggy Pants" contests, and other events and festivities geared toward promoting baggy pants. And yet that just doesn't seem to be the case. If anything, local authorities continue to be irrationally hostile toward baggy pants. Just yesterday, the Alabama House of Representatives passed a bill by a 59-0 vote that would ban saggy pants throughout the state. As far as I'm concerned, that's 59 Alabamans who are soft on crime.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 17, 2012 at 04:17 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
DUI checkpoints continue to generate a lot of debate and discussion.
The latest skirmish involving DUI checkpoints comes from at least two states that are now reconsidering the legality and effectiveness of DUI checkpoints in the first place. In Utah, a bill will soon be considered by the state House of Representatives that would completely ban police from setting up DUI checkpoints, FOX 13 reports. Utah state Rep. David Butterfield, a sponsor of the bill, believes that DUI checkpoints violate citizens' rights against unreasonable searches. "The Utah Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have both held that they are constitutional under very narrow guidelines, but that's problematic," he said.
Similarly, WestIslip Patch reports, New Hampshire lawmakers are also considering a proposal to prohibit state police from setting up DUI checkpoints, again citing possible violations of citizen's civil rights. According to the Patch, New Hampshire lawmakers are concerned with citizens' "due process rights when they are arrested for other violations or their vehicles are searched."
Supporters of DUI checkpoints such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving argue that the tactic does improve public safety. They add that checkpoints do not violate civil rights because citizens are only detained briefly and strict guidelines govern what police may and may not do in connection with the checkpoints.
The current debate follows the discussion in many jurisdictions last year as to whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for people to spread the word that checkpoints are in place at a particular time and place. In May 2011, I wrote here about how several senators were pressing Apple, Google and Research In Motion to stop selling or otherwise making available smartphone apps that help drunk drivers avoid DUI checkpoints, asserting that such apps were "harmful to public safety."
In December 2011 I noted that police in Edmonton and Calgary, Canada, had begun asking the public to refrain from tweeting the locations of DUI checkpoints set up to catch drunk drivers, because they said doing so may put other motorists in danger. This position was not shared by police in Saskatoon, Canada, however, who took the opposite approach and even started alerting citizens themselves using Twitter as to when checkpoints were planned. The Saskatoon police believe that if people know police checkpoints are in place, they will think twice about drunk driving.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 16, 2012 at 04:24 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: My stupid uncle is posting awkward photos of me on Facebook from when I was kid, like shots of me posing in front of a Christmas tree. Can I get a restraining order to stop this evil man?
Answer: Nope. (Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Posting Family Photos to Facebook With Snarky Comments Isn't Harassment of Family Member -- Olson v. LaBrie)
2) Question: I have been disbarred, and the disbarment was imposed under my married name. I can just keep practicing under my maiden name, right?
Answer: You may not. (Legal Profession Blog, Two Names, Two Disbarments)
3) Question: I came home from work to find a saucer-sized, orange sticker on my door saying that New Orleans police had "served a narcotic-related warrant or checked this residence" as a result of a Crimestoppers tip. What is this supposed to be, a "Scarlet Letter" or something? Do I need to keep this on my door?
Answer: No, you can take it down if you want. And just be happy it wasn't the huge green poster-size stickers that the Nashville police are putting on homes after searches. (The Times-Picayune, ACLU objects to NOPD plans to identify properties investigated after drug tips)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM | Permalink
| Comments (2)
Meet Emma Burton of Olathe, Kan., my new favorite kindergarten student. Emma "fought the law" of her kindergarten class in order to stay true to her school -- Kansas State. As recounted on the Bug Bytes blog written by her mom, Julie, Emma's class recently participated in Kansas Week, where they learned about the state animal, tree, bird, and so on. Although Kansas has several state schools, including the University of Kansas and Kansas State, Emma's teacher decided for whatever reason that the class must use crayons to color in a picture of the University of Kansas' Jayhawk mascot. Five-year-old Emma, a die-hard Kansas State fan, however, was not having any of that.
Emma's mom says that when she went to school to pick Emma up, kids ran up to her and told her Emma was crying. She found Emma being escorted by the teacher, who was also holding piece of paper with an uncolored-in Jayhawk. The teacher told Emma's mom, Julie, that:
Emma would not color this Jayhawk today with the rest of her class. She told me she would not color it. She told me she does not like KU and her family likes K-State. She asked me for a K-State picture instead but I told her this was her only option. She took the paper, crumpled it up and threw in the trash can. I asked her to get it out of the trash can and she told me no then refused to speak to me the rest of the day. I told her I would have to have a chat with you about this and she will need to color this tomorrow during recess.
The teacher told Emma that coloring in the Jayhawk did not mean she had to like KU and that she could throw it in the trash when she got home. Emma told the teacher "she wouldn't bring a Jayhawk in her house."
At home, Julie told Emma that she and her husband were proud that Emma fought for her school and did not back down, but that Emma didn't have to make a scene about in school. Would she please just color the Jayhawk for her teacher?
No.
Julie warned Emma she might get sent to the principal's office.
I don't care. I'm not coloring it.
Using Kissinger-like diplomacy, Julie finally persuaded Emma to color in the Jayhawk provided Emma could also color in a K-State Powercat and wear a K-State shirt to school the next day. The Powercat she colored, along with an apology note for not coloring the Jayhawk, is below:
Emma did color in the Jayhawk, as well. Then she took it home and threw it in the garbage can. Emma refused her teacher's request to color in some additional Jayhawks that day from a coloring book with the rest of the class, as she said she "would not color two Jayhawks."
A few weeks after the Jayhawk-coloring incident, Julie updated her blog to say that Emma had received an email from Kirk Schulz, the President of K-State saying "I hope that Emma will join us in Manhattan in a few years -- she will find many like-minded people at K-State!" She also received a nice letter and a gift Powercat from Dr. Pat Bosco, K-State's VP for Student Life and Dean of Students.
Finally, the K-State Athletic Director asked Emma and her family to be their guests at the recent K-State vs. Kansas basketball game and honored Emma as the "Fan of the Night."
On behalf of LBW, I would simply like to say: Emma, you are awesome!
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 15, 2012 at 04:20 PM | Permalink
| Comments (8)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I was in my school's restroom doodling on some toilet paper. I wrote on the TP about how I had passed gas in the library ("passed a bomb!"). Why do I have to go to jail now?
Answer: Campus police don't play around with "bomb threats" of any kind. (WDAM, Was it bathroom slang or a bomb threat at JCJC?) (via Legal Juice)
2) Question: I work at a bingo parlor. A man called out "bingo!" tonight and I paid him $400. But now I realize he did not actually have "B-11" and he should not have won. Unacceptable! What should I do?
Answer: Calling out false "bingo!" cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. Call the police as they may be able to make him return the money or face theft charges. (WGAL, Man Who Faked 'Bingo' Returns Jackpot)
3) Question: Am I going crazy or did Catwoman just pepper spray Jack Sparrow in front of the Kodak Theater?
Answer: No, that happens sometimes there. Welcome to L.A.! (Los Angeles Times, 'Catwoman' claims other characters harassed her before brawl)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 15, 2012 at 12:00 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
On Monday morning, Scott Greenfield added a post to his Simple Justice blog ("5 Years") marking that prolific blog's five-year anniversary. He wrote of how he started the blog back in 2007 as "a way to keep busy" and somehow ended up writing a staggering 4,744 posts over the next five years.
In the "5 Years" post, Scott looked back on the years he's been writing Simple Justice, the things that prompted him to write, the significant changes in the blogosphere, friends and enemies made, and more. Then he humbly made a reference to his work at Simple Justice now being "part of the old, forgotten blawgosphere" (obviously not true), thanked everyone for reading and keeping him honest, linked to some video that I didn't watch about a dolphin "thanking everyone for all the fish," and wrapped up post number 4,744. I didn't think twice about it.
This morning, Greenfield's buddy Brian Tannebaum (who along with Greenfield and Mark Bennett make up the "Three Angry Lawyers" in this video) wrote a post entitled, "See Ya Greenfield" in which he bid Greenfield farewell. Tannebaum linked to the "5 Years" post and explained that Greenfield "is done blogging at Simple Justice. You can all stop your guessing and 'aw shucks, really?' He's done, It's over. Greenfield has a wicked sense of humor and wit but he would never waste his time faking his exit from the blogosphere. You're not worth it."
Wait, what!? I went back to the "5 Years" post, read it again, and still didn't conclude that Scott was shutting down Simple Justice. But some of the commenters obviously had reached that conclusion and were offering Greenfield their thanks for five great years, including one who said that "this morning's Douglas Adams reference was an unexpected surprise." Douglas Adams? After a short journey through Wikipedia, I finally found the following that shed light on the "5 Years" post:
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish is the fourth book of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" trilogy written by Douglas Adams. Its title is the message left by the dolphins when they departed Planet Earth just before it was demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass, as described in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." The phrase has since been adopted by some science fiction fans as a humorous way to say "goodbye" and a song of the same name was featured in the 2005 film adaptation of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
Ahhh, got it.
So no more Scott Greenfield in the blogosphere? That, my friends, is a major loss. He thanked his readers in "5 Years" for "keeping him honest" but really it should be the other way around. To me, more than anyone else, Greenfield was the best at holding his fellow lawyers and bloggers -- as well as himself -- accountable for their actions and inactions. He wrote what he believed, straight up, no chaser. I admire him greatly for that. If you agreed with him, terrific. If you did not, no problem there either -- just don't come looking to him for a hug or an apology, or for him to let you off the hook for being wrong or acting wrong.
As a blogger, Scott was not a "pleaser," an approach to life that many bloggers including myself fall into as it can be the easy way to go. Rather, Scott was the blogosphere's truth serum.
Thank you, Scott, for a fabulous five years writing Simple Justice. I know you will continue to make your presence felt in the blogosphere.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 14, 2012 at 04:20 PM | Permalink
| Comments (2)
Last week, Bloomberg Law produced an interesting video debating the issue of whether lawyer social media is nothing more than marketing hype. Usually when I write about something that did not occur in the last 60 minutes, Scott Greenfield immediately lambastes me for being late to the party, as if he were one of the guys in the AT&T commercial ("so 46 seconds ago, Carton.") But in this case, I think I am on solid ground given that (a) the video only came out a week ago; (b) it only has a few hundred views to date; and (c) most importantly, Greenfield himself is in the video, so how can he complain? Ha!
In one of his first forays into video since departing the ABA Journal for Bloomberg Law, Ed Adams serves as moderator in an interesting discussion between LexBlog CEO Kevin O'Keefe and Greenfield, a New York criminal defense attorney. In the nine minute video below, O'Keefe and Greenfield discuss topics including the Happysphere, the need to venture beyond the "safe and boring" when writing a blog, the fact that "on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog," using social media to find a mentor, and the importance of listening and engaging for lawyers who write a blog.
Check out the full video below -- good stuff.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 13, 2012 at 04:27 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: My neighbor has asked us to sign a release of liability before my son arrives at their house for a playdate. Is this how playdates work nowadays?
Answer: Not where I live, but who knows? Maybe you should counter-offer by asking for your neighbors to place some funds in escrow in case your son suffers any injury while in their care or loses any of his possessions? (Jonathan Turley, Mr. [Legal] Manners Responds To Parents Of Legal Bubble Boy)
2) Question: I'm a fugitive on the run in Italy. How am I supposed to update my Facebook page under these conditions?
Answer: That is a challenge, but bear in mind that each update provides fresh clues for the police on your whereabouts. (NewsCore, Fugitive Caught Posing With Obama Waxwork)
3) Question: Some motorist who was upset with my driving just pulled up alongside me and showered my car with pennies! Some of the pennies went through my open window and sun roof and even knocked my glasses off. Unacceptable! Can he do this?
Answer: No, those pennies are "dangerous weapons" under the circumstances. He could facing charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. (CBS News/The Associated Press, Pennies raise the ante in road rage incident)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 13, 2012 at 04:18 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: We are in Los Angeles for the day and we're at the beach tossing the football. Why is this police officer looking at us so menacingly?
Answer: Sorry but it is now prohibited for "any person to cast, toss, throw, kick or roll" any object other than a beach ball or volleyball "upon or over any beach." Don't go digging any holes deeper than 18 inches, either. (CBS Los Angeles, LA County OKs Hefty Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches)
UPDATE: The all-out ban has been lifted, so feel free to toss that football around -- just as long as you get the lifeguard's permission. (CBS Los Angeles, LA County Updates Ordinance On Ball, Frisbee Throwing At Beaches)
2) Question: I "adopted" my 42-year-old girlfriend as my child because it may help shelter money from creditors. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but are we committing incest now?
Answer: Depending on what state you live in, you may well be. (Slate, A Florida Millionaire Adopted His 42-Year-Old Girlfriend. Isn’t that Incest?)
3) Question: My dad adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend as his child because it may help shelter money from creditors. I do not want this new "sister"! Can I sue to block this adoption?
Answer: Yes, you can ask the court to disallow the adoption as a fraud on the court that shirks public policy on adoptions. (FOX News, Teenage kids fight dad's adoption of adult girlfriend)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 10, 2012 at 03:55 PM | Permalink
| Comments (1)
Remember the PreCrime Unit in the movie "Minority Report"? Set in 2054, the film's PreCrime Unit relied upon the future visions of three "precogs," mutated humans with precognitive abilities, to stop murders. Now, 42 years early, a real pre-crime unit may soon be rolled out in East Orange, N.J.
The Associated Press reports (via Infowars) that East Orange plans to begin using a combination of surveillance cameras and powerful red-beamed spotlights to highlight suspects before any crime is committed. The equipment will be mounted throughout the city on streetlights, allowing police to monitor hundreds of video feeds. If police observe suspicious behavior -- such as a mugging that is about to take place -- they will direct the red spotlight at the suspects to send a message to criminals that "we're observing you, the police are recording you, and the police are responding." William Robinson, Police Chief for East Orange, calls it a "light-based intervention system."
East Orange is funding its pre-crime efforts with federal grant money that has also permitted it to add other crime-fighting technology such as squad cars that automatically scan the license plates of all passing cars and cross-check the plates against databases of people on terrorist monitor lists, or with unpaid parking tickets or outstanding warrants. Infowars reports that East Orange police are then permitted to "pull over vehicles that match watch lists, even if the driver has committed no violations to draw attention from the patrol vehicle."
Bottom line: If you find yourself in East Orange, N.J., suddenly bathed in red light, be good!
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on February 10, 2012 at 02:09 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)