News from Alaska
|
Alaska Supreme Court rules anti-abortion initiative unconstitutional
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
|
|---|
| Last Friday, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld Superior Court Judge Patrick McKay's ruling preventing the Natural Right to Life initiative from appearing on the Alaska ballot.[3]
The proposed initiative stated:
| “
|
The State of Alaska shall protect the natural right to life and body of all mankind from the beginning of biological development. We the People affirm that the natural right to life and body of the unborn child supersedes the statutory right of the mother to consent to the injury or death of her unborn child. In life threatening situations, the law of necessity shall dictate between the life of the mother and her child.[4][5]
|
”
|
Clinton DesJarlais, the plaintiff, argued for the anti-abortion initiative, referencing "the United States Constitution, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, maxims of law, the Nuremberg Trials, various Alaska statutes and rules of procedure, and various dictionaries" in support of his argument. The State responded by saying that DesJarlais' references “cannot create cognizable legal claims.”[3]
The Court sided with the State, saying:
| “
|
DesJarlais’s argument also fails to recognize that we are governed by positive constitutional law. We are bound to follow the text, structure, and binding interpretations of the Constitution. Thus, neither we nor the lieutenant governor can invalidate a recognized constitutional right, regardless of whether that right purportedly conflicts with natural law.[3][5]
|
”
|
The high court issued a unanimous 4-0 ruling, finding that the initiative would have violated a woman's right to privacy, a precedent established by Roe v. Wade in 1973. The initiative was also unconstitutional according to the Alaskan and U.S Constitutions.[3]
|
|
|
News from Florida
|
Police can't search cellphone without a warrant, says Florida Supreme Court
Court: Florida Supreme Court
|
|---|
| When Cedric Smallwood was arrested for a convenience store robbery, he probably never guessed that his case would make it all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.
Smallwood was a regular customer at the convenience store that he robbed in 2008, absconding with approximately $14,000-16,000 in cash. After he was arrested, the police officer looked through his phone and found incriminating photos taken the day after the robbery of Smallwood and his fiancée holding wads of cash.
The defense held that such a search of the cell phone violated Smallwood's privacy, citing the Fourth Amendment. They argued that the photos were not admissible as evidence since they were obtained without a warrant and the officer did not have cause to search the phone. The trial court denied that claim, explaining that the photos in the phone were similar to those that might be contained in a wallet found on an arrestee, which would be legal for police to search incident to an arrest.
When the case went to the Florida First District Court of Appeal, the judges said the search was legal based on a 1973 Supreme Court case where evidence of heroin found in a cigarette pack during a search of an arrestee was allowed as evidence (United States v. Robinson). The appeals court, however, questioned their ruling and asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the situation.
The Supreme Court found that Robinson did not apply to cell phone searches, pointing to the complexity of today's phones, many of which are simply small computers.
In it's ruling, the court explained,
| “
|
The most private and secret personal information and data is contained in or accessed through small portable electronic devices and, indeed, many people now store documents on their equipment that also operates as a phone that, twenty years ago, were stored and located only in home offices, in safes, or on home computers.[6][5]
|
”
|
Additionally, the court pointed to the United States v. Flores-Lopez decision, which explained how, with modern security camera technology being accessible via the Internet and cell phones, "at the touch of a button a cell phone search becomes a house search."[6] Thus, the cell phone is no longer regarded by many courts as simply a "container," but a more sophisticated look into one's private life.[7]
Full text of the ruling here: Cedric Tyrone Smallwood vs. State of Florida, May 2, 2013 |
|
|
News from Louisiana
|
Louisiana student newspaper sues university
Court: 19th Judicial District, Louisiana
|
|---|
| An award-winning student journal got a dose of bad news when Louisiana's 19th District Court ruled against them in a public records lawsuit.[8]
The Daily Reveille, a publication produced by students of Louisiana State University, sued the school when it denied them access to the names and résumés considered in the recent search for a university president. Part of the conflict stemmed from the university’s use of private search firm R. William Funk & Associates in filling the position; though LSU is a public institution, the firm, which protects candidates’ information even from universities in the initial phases of a search, is not.[8][9]
As explained by LSU’s search committee chairman Blake Chatelain, the committee began with a list of about a hundred prospective candidates—only ten of which had actually applied for the job, the other ninety being nominees. The list was narrowed to thirty-five, at which point those candidates’ résumés were made visible through an online portal (created by Funk & Associates) to the committee. Only one of these five contenders had actually applied for the position: F. King Alexander, who ultimately won the spot.[9]
LSU argued to Judge Timothy Kelley that publicizing candidates’ information discourages qualified people from applying. Alexander himself agreed, saying that he would not have entered the race had he known his name would be public.[10]
Though Kelley ruled in LSU’s favor, mandating only that résumés of the ten true applicants be released, the conflict is not over. A week before the trial, local news organizations The Advocate and Nola.com went head-to-head with LSU in a separate but similar court case—and won, by ruling of Judge Janice Clark.[8]
Andrea Gallo, editor-in-chief of the Reveille, expressed disappointment,
| “
|
I’m still hopeful that the records will eventually become public based on Judge Clark’s ruling and my interpretation of public records law.[11][5]
|
”
|
Gallo is expected to soon announce whether she will appeal.[11] |
|
|
News from Pennsylvania
|
Former judge sentenced to house arrest
Court: Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania
|
|---|
| For former Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice Joan Orie Melvin, May 7, 2013, may have been one of her last days of freedom for the foreseeable future. On this date, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Justice Lester G. Nauhaus sentenced Melvin to three years house arrest.
Melvin and her sister, Janine Orie, a former Melvin staffer, were convicted in February 2013 of "conspiracy, theft of services, and misapplication of government funds."[12] In February, the sisters were accused of illegally using judicial staff and other aides in Melvin's campaign for a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which she won in 2009.
Justice Nauhaus was highly critical of Melvin during the sentencing hearing. Melvin apologized to the court and to her six children, who were in the courtroom, and called herself a role model. Nauhaus responded, "[t]his isn't a parking ticket...Your children's mother is a convicted felon."[12]
Despite the fact the prosecution asked for prison time for both Melvin and her sister, Nauhaus gave both sisters house arrest. Melvin received three years and Janine Orie received one year. He also ordered Melvin and her sister to perform community service. At the end of Melvin's sentence, she will face a two-year probation. Nauhaus ordered her to pay a fine and send personal apology letters to every state judge and the staffers she forced to work on her campaign.
Melvin has resigned from her seat on the Supreme Court and may also lose her state retirement pension.[13] |
|
|
News from Michigan
|
Health Insurance Benefits Remain Approved for Same-Sex Partners of State Employees
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
|
|---|
| The Michigan Supreme Court has unanimously declined to hear a challenge to a State Health Insurance Plan that allows live-in partners of state employees to be included in state health plan coverage.[14]
In 2011, the Michigan Civil Service Commission approved the State Health Insurance Plan which would allow non-family members who have lived for at least a year with a state employee to be included under the employee's health insurance plan.[14]
Governor Rick Snyder largely opposed the policy and Attorney General Bill Schuette sued the Civil Service Commission, arguing that not only was the plan unconstitutional, but it directly violated Michigan's 2004 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.[15]
Lowers courts have since dismissed Schuette's suit, with the Michigan Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling 2-1 in favor of the Michigan Civil Service Commission earlier this year. The Appeals Court found that the State Health Plan does not conflict with the 2004 same-sex marriage ban and that the Plan is not only "unambiguously completely gender-neutral" it also does not "depend on the employee being in a close relationship of any particular kind with the [state employee] beyond a common residence." The court went on further, explaining that "[c]onsequently, there is no absolute prohibition against same-sex domestic partners receiving benefits through their relationship with an employee so long as that receipt is not based on the employer’s recognition of that relationship as a 'marriage or similar union.'"[16]
Currently, Michigan has 124 state employees whose health insurance covers live-in partners. In total, Michigan has about 49,000 state workers whose benefits and compensation are overseen by the Civil Service Commission.[14]
In rejecting Schuette's appeal, the largely-Republican Michigan Supreme Court stated simply in a short order that it saw no reason to hear the appeal since they were not persuaded they should review the case.[14][15] |
|
|
