After I filmed this video, a lawsuit (as expected) was filed regarding one of the topics I talk about…hope everyone enjoyed the Super Bowl though!
2011 and the 4th Amendment
Happy 2011 everyone. I am not one for resolutions as why not take the year to be mindful of every action than deciding on one random day to take a few different paths that basically expire as of January 10th? In any event, let’s take a look at the 4th amendment. Why, I don’t know but it’s always nice to take a look back at the Constitution at the beginning of the year. Also, I must mention that I am not sad Brett Favre is getting sued for sexual harassment (and I just read his sister got arrested – WTF!). I am so glad the guy is getting called out. I digress. Back to the 4th amendment.
In case you have forgotten, the 4th amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
So, what happens if you are sitting at home, doing something illegal of sorts and the police bust down your door? Would you be arrested? In Kentucky, Hollis King and his friends were doing just that when it just so happened that the police were chasing another criminal and mistakenly busted down Hollis’ door. He and his friends were arrested but the Kentucky Supreme Court threw out the evidence against King ruling that the police did not have cause to bust into his house without a warrant. Was justice served? It isn’t as if King wasn’t doing anything wrong BUT, if the police wanted to bust down his door, they should have followed proper procedure. While I am all for punishment if you are doing something illegal, there is something to be said for freedom from the police just busting in your door at any point.
Or consider the case against Gregory Diaz, whose smartphone was accessed without a warrant when he was arrested on a drug charge in California. Are any incriminating texts and emails admissible as evidence against him? According to the Supreme Court, apparently so. How about if they find evidence of another other crime – such as murder or tax evasion? Sounds like we should all leave our wallets, phones and purses at home if we have anything to hide from Big Brother.
And for those of you who feel violated by the newly more molesting eyes of TSA, there’s line of underwear that’s got your back, I mean, ass. Supposedly it protects your personal areas from prying eyes by emblazoning the 4th amendment in metallic ink across key areas. Anyone interested in metallic pasties? Going once, going twice…
Lastly, let’s examine the constitutionality of strip searching a 13-year-old girl due to allegations from one of her peers that she sold them drugs, which were later determined to be Ibuprofen. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the legality of the search, citing the existence of sufficient case law which supports the reliability of student informants. Really? Reliable 13 year old student informants? Hmmm.
Overall I think we can feel safe about the 4th amendment in this new year of 2011 but I am going to be watching out for cases that deal with these topics and will keep you posted!
Spam – Jail or No Jail?
If you have an email address, I am sure you have seen an email that goes something like this:
NATIONALE POSTCODE LOTERIJ WEBSITE:www.postcodeloterij.nl VAN EEGHENSTRAAT 77 1071 GK AMSTERDAM. ONLINE RESULTS:FOR FIRST CATEGORY DRAW DATE:DECEMBER 2010 PRIZE NUMBER:NPCL/67/89/82/28 AMOUNT WON: ONE MILLION EURO(1,000,000 EURO) RE: ONLINE EMAIL AWARD NOTIFICATION YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS HAS WON A PRIZE MONEY OF ONE MILLION EURO AWARDED TO YOU BY THE NATIONAL POSTCODE LOTERIJ.TO FILE FOR YOUR CLAIMS SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIONS FOR DOCUMENTATION OF CLAIMS. *FULL NAMES *ADDRESS *NATIONALITY *COUNTRY *TELEPHONE/MOBILE *AGE *SEX *MARITAL STATUS & OCCUPATION. PAYMENT OPTION: TICK AN OPTION WHICH SUITS YOU BEST FOR THE REMITTANCE OF YOUR PRIZE MONEY TO YOU. 1. COURIER DELIVERY OF CERTIFIED WINNING CHEQUE (.....) 2. ONLINE BANK TRANSFER OF PRIZE MONEY (.....) CONTACT YOUR FILE AGENT WITH REQUIRED DETAILS
Or, something like this:
Try it!
www.euxicur.com
Doesn’t everyone just love these emails? In Milwaukee, they are prosecuting a man for sending out spam mail. Prosecutors contend that on any given day, one out of three “unwanted emails in the world” originated from this particular person. Fascinating I think to hold the title of “I am the person that sends out emails that nobody wants”. If convicted, he faces a $250,000 fine and up to three years in jail. Strong enough punishment? You tell me.
Lamebook isn’t that lame
Who is on Lamebook? That is what I want to know. I just read that Facebook is suing Lamebook for trademark infringement. For those of you wondering what trademark infringement means, it basically means that if I decide to sign up for Facebook, see Lamebook instead and sign up for it thinking that it is Facebook, one could make the argument that there is the likelihood of confusion as between the two names and potentially Lamebook has infringed upon Facebook’s trademark. The court will look at a bunch of different factors but at the very least, creating confusion in the marketplace is the easiest fact to consider for the public at the moment.
I think the fact that there is a site actually called Lamebook is quite hysterical. I went on the site and it says “the funniest and lamest of Facebook” and for anyone who is on Facebook, we all can admit that sometimes the posts and updates that people put on their pages certainly could be classified in the lame category. Or, maybe not even lame but probably worthy of enough information for a website. I think it’s actually a pretty funny idea and this lawsuit is going to make even more people go to the site. I would love to know who could possibly be confused by Lamebook, thinking it is really Facebook. I would kind of like to do a survey on that one.
Client 9
In a strange twist, the man I think of as being a total slut of a governor, actually does have a spine. Eliot Spitzer is in a movie. Client 9 is a documentary about his rise and mainly his fall from grace. I have watched the trailer and interestingly enough, Mr. Spitzer actually does talk about what happened and from what I can tell, his views on his mistakes. I am curious to see how much more Mr. Spitzer has to say other than what I saw in the trailer. It is oddly refreshing to see him be able to actually address what he did, rather than running away from it.
I noticed on the Huffington Post today that they are dedicating a site to being divorced. I know a lot of people are divorced and I guess it is a helpful site but I wish there could be a site dedicating to getting people back together (I am sure there is one but nothing is coming to mind at the moment). When I started practicing law, I always said I couldn’t practice family law because I would always help the people get back together. I know there are those relationships that are not meant to be but I wish there could be more information dedicated to people staying together and how to make a relationship stronger, rather than ways to get out. Even though I find it stunning that Eliot Spitzer’s wife was able to stand next to him as he apologized at a news conference, she was somehow able to make it work. I don’t agree with the choice but it was still her choice nonetheless to stay together rather than break apart. Interesting I think. Very interesting. I am hoping they interview her in the movie.
Weed lovers
I am against Prop 19, as in, I don’t think the use of marijuana should be legalized. Why can’t we just leave things how they are? If you need it for medical reasons, then fine. And, even in those instances, there are those fake “prescriptions” but better than just letting everyone use it whenever they want. At least there is some kind of gating process, even if it is sometimes shady. There are those that may think this sounds “high and mighty” but for those who argue that weed is harmless, I am not really getting the argument. Everyone I talk to always has some reason for smoking weed. It makes them feel more relaxed, they get more done after smoking, they are not as stressed out, etc, etc, etc and they always seem out of it to me. I know everyone needs an escape route sometimes so do what you need to do but I am hopeful this law doesn’t get passed.
I get that weed grows in the ground, it’s “natural” and there are people who really need it to relieve pain. I was in Venice Beach this weekend and this medical marijuana guy handed me his card. I started asking him a bunch of questions and the only thing he really said (and he was missing a tooth — just adding visual images for you) was that “weed really can help everyone”. I tried to ask about the process to determine whether someone really needed a prescription for marijuana or not and I really couldn’t get a straight answer. He asked me for a hug, which I politely declined and then I was on my way.
I am just not a fan of adding more laws to condone the use of a substance that makes people seem slow and out of it. It isn’t that I think marijuana is worse than other substances. I know that alcohol and tobacco are not any better but why do we need to add to the mix? There doesn’t need to be a law to help encourage the use of it. People will still use the drug but at the very least, it means that person is taking it upon themselves to endure the consequences — which by the way, in California, sometimes can mean just a fine and no jail time for a first time offender. I would rather have someone want to smoke weed bad enough to want to take that risk than to just make it legal and who knows how many people will start smoking.
Privacy, what privacy?
GO RANGERS. Sorry, I know this isn’t a sports blog but a fan is a fan. So let’s see, what is top of mind this evening. I find it quite interesting that so many websites are dealing with privacy concerns these days. As if they were not thinking of these things when they started their companies. It just seems that their concerns are public now whereas before, perhaps people just hoped that they could get away with squandering all of our information without us realizing it.
However, it is not an easy line to draw in all cases when deciding when technology is working against us in the privacy realm. For example, having zero sense of direction myself, a cell phone provider which offers GPS tracking on a cell phone might be quite helpful. The FCC ruled in 2005 that at least 95% of a cell phone provider’s devices needed to be trackable, for the purpose of helping in emergencies, etc. I see how this type of tracking can be helpful but there are numerous documented domestic abuse cases where a husband has been able to track down his wife with the use of this technology and unfortunately, not because he was just trying to say hello.
So where do we stand on all of this? While I am appreciative of being able to get directions and have the ability to find a friend who perhaps is lost in a forest, I certainly am not an advocate of creating additional ways for domestic violence to increase. Unfortunately I don’t think AT&T will be able to offer a survey anytime soon that asks “Are you prone to domestic violence?” “If so, we cannot accommodate your need for GPS at this time.” It would be nice though.
I’m Stephanie. Attorney at Law.
Let's make the law entertaining, shall we?
