With a high speed chase, you might only hear those police sirens for a few seconds before the cars come whizzing by you on the street.  Sometimes, maybe not even long even to property move over to the curb – or at least get partially out of the way!  Too often, however, those high speed police chases cause accidents and injure the innocent drivers on the road.   The courts were then faced with having to decide whether, or to what extent, a police officer could be liable to an injured driver for causing an accident as a result of a high speed chase.  I mean, if regular drivers who speed through the streets and intersections cause and accident, they’re liable to those they’ve injured.  Why shouldn’t the police be liable for causing the same accident?

Well, it’s not that simple I guess.  They’re in the “line of duty,” driving “authorized emergency vehicles,” and pursuing criminals.  State laws even provide for a limitation of liability.  For example, California Vehicle Code Section 17004 states the following:

“A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”

By enacting these kinds of liability-limiting laws for police and other emergency vehicles, “we the people” have decided that the interests of justice are served by granting the police “immunity” from prosecution for injuries that may occur during pursuing fleeing suspects.  Many of those suspects who flee have just committed serious crimes – car jacking, murder, robbery… but sometimes police conduct high speed pursuits over less serious offenses.  If the police were prohibited from speeding to chase after them…. the suspects would simply just get away.

But the line has to be drawn somewhere.   Some might argue that all high speed chases endanger the innocent other drivers on the road – that the police act in “reckless disregard” for the safety of the public on the roadway when they conduct a high speed chase.  Even further, sometimes the way in which a high speed police car pursuit is conducted actually “shocks the conscience” of the community.  For instance, would a high speed chase in excess of 100 mph along neighborhood streets in front of an elementary school be okay in pursuit of a minor traffic offender? If a 6-year old girl was killed by the police car while she crossed the street to go home… well, we might then look at that high speed chase and determine that it not only was in “reckless disregard for public safety,” but that it does in fact “shock the conscience.”

The courts have struggled over the years with what should be the standard for determining if a high speed chase was dangerous enough to hold law enforcement liable for violating our constitutional due process rights in connection with injuries sustained from such high speed chase.   Should it be a police pursuit that is simply “reckless”… or should it be only if a high speed chase is so reckless that there is a “conscious, knowing disregard for human life and safety”… or should it be the even higher standard of only when a high speed pursuit under the circumstances actually downright “shocks our conscience.”   Conduct that “shocks the conscience” is conduct that is “deliberately intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest.”  The “shock the conscience” standard is currently in use by the courts.  

The issue is incredibly important from a policy perspective because if the standard for constitutional liability is very high, then law enforcement will rarely be found liable.  If the standard is lower, more liability will be found, which will result in fewer apprehensions of criminals.

If you’re interested, you can read some of the court cases on this topic below: 

U.S. Supreme Court – COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERI LEWIS AND THOMAS LEWIS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PHILIP LEWIS, DECEASED, May 26, 1998.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals – Noni ONOSSIAN; Cyril Onossian; Herve Onossian, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sherman BLOCK; Michael Antonovich; Deane Dana; Ed
Edelman; Kenneth Hahn; Gloria Molina; County of Los Angeles; Daniel Finn; Larry Yates; Bruce Thomas, & One Hundred Unknown Named Employees & or Officials of County of Los Angeles, Defendants-Appellees, May 26, 1999.

The fight for marriage equality will rage on another day. On Tuesday, May 26th, California’s Supreme Court ruled to uphold the state’s gay-marriage ban, also known as Proposition 8. The 6-1 decision by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument from activists that Proposition 8 revised the California constitution’s equal protection clause.

Although the Court also ruled that the 18,000 same-sex weddings that took place before the prohibition passed are still valid and it would be too disruptive to apply Prop 8 retroactively, activists said they would go back to the voting public as soon as possible to repeal the ban.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Since that time, same-sex couples from around the country came to California to wed before this ruling made its way to the voters during the 2008 election. Consequently, Proposition 8 did pass with a 52% approval. As the fight raged on in California, Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage.

Although the court ruled that the ban denies gay couples use of the term “marriage,” California still allows gay couples to form domestic partnerships and does not “disturb the basic right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one’s choice and to raise children within the family.”

So what are your thoughts? Was justice upheld today based upon the voice of the voters, or was the decree of our Constitution challenged today and overruled? No matter what side of the fence you stand on this issue, there is a long fight ahead that will impact our country and that of generations to come.

So, when can the police search your car?  First of all, if you consent to the search, they can search it.  Also, if they have a warrant to search your car, they can search it.  But there are exceptions to the general rule requiring a warrant – today we’re talking about the “search incident to arrest” exception.  We’re talking about it here because the U.S. Supreme Court just handed down a ruling this week that severely limits law enforcement’s ability to search your car if you’re arrested. 

The rule used to be that if you are arrested when you’re in your car (or a passenger in a car), the police could search the interior of the vehicle (and containers within the car without needing a search warrant.  The reason the law allowed these vehicle searches  was:  (1) to protect the safety of arresting offers – for instance in case you have a gun or other weapon in the car you could reach and harm the office with it; and (2) to preserve incriminating evidence in the car which might otherwise be destroyed.  For nearly 30 years, police have relied on this rule to search vehicles upon arrest. 

Now, the law is different.  The Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Arizona v. Gant this week, which dramatically limits police searches of vehicles incident to an arrest.  A little background….  Rodney Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and placed into the back of a locked patrol car.  After Gant was secured, the police searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket on the back seat.  Of course, Gant was charged with drug possession, but fought it arguing that the police shouldn’t have been allowed to search his car.  The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. 

It was a tough decision for the Supreme Court Justices and they were almost split down the middle (a 5-to-4 decision), but the majority decided the old rule allowing a search of an arrestee’s car in this situation was wrong.  They ruled the police should only be allowed to search a car incident to an occupant’s arrest if, at the time of the search:  (1) the arrestee can reach for a weapon in the car or try to destroy evidence in the car; or (2) when it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence related to the offense for which the person was arrested.   Since Gant was already handcuffed and in the back of the patrol car, he obvioulsy couldn’t reach for a weapon located inside the car that he could use to harm the officer… or reach for evidence of drugs in the car he could destroy.  And since Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, there was obviously no evidence of the crime for which he was arrested (a traffic violation) that could be in the car.  So, the Supreme Court ruled that the search was illegal. 

So what will come of this ruling?  There is concern on both sides. 

On one hand, law enforcement is concerned that police officers’ safety is at risk by the ruling – the argument that police officers will refrain from handcuffing suspects and placing them in patrol car, rather leaving suspects unsecured in/around the car when they conduct the search.    Surely, at least some of the arrestees will have weapons in the car that could be used to harm the arresting officers. 

On the other hand, civil liberties groups have been concerned about “front” arrests for minor traffic violations – when the police suspect someone of drug crimes, but don’t have (or can’t get) a search warrant to look for the drugs… so end up arresting them for minor traffic violations so they can search the car without a warrant. 

What do you think?  Is this the right ruling?  If you’re curious… read the Supreme Court opinion in Arizona v. Gant here.

Remember, if you’re involved in a situation impacting your constitutional rights with regard to search and seizure, contact a criminal defense attorney in your area today.

On January 1st, 2009, laws mandating stores sell only cigarettes that are slow-burning and comprised of fire-safe paper went into effect in Delaware, Iowa, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas. Fifteen other states have laws that will take effect this year or next, according to the Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes.

The paper on these cigarettes is thicker in two separate areas so they will extinguish (if not puffed) when they burn to these spots. This was designed to prevent fires caused by unattended cigarettes. It is estimated that about 800 Americans die each year in fires caused by careless smoking.

“There has been a rash of smoking materials deaths,” Oklahoma Fire Marshal Robert Doke said Monday. “A cigarette will fall into overstuffed furniture or mattresses when people fall asleep, or it rolls off an ashtray and on to the carpet, then the possibility for ignition happens. This cigarette is supposed to snuff out before it can cause enough heat to start a flame.”

States that have already implemented fire-safe cigarette laws are New York, Vermont, California, Oregon, New Hampshire, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Utah, Alaska, Rhode Island and Minnesota, as well as the District of Columbia. Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, Louisiana, Hawaii and Wisconsin have laws that take effect this year. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and South Carolina have laws that will take effect in 2010.

A New Year brings new laws across the United States. Some laws will have a small impact; others will be felt by thousands, if not millions of people. Some of these laws include the no-texting while driving law in California, no trans-fat in fast food restaurants law for Oregon, and a referendum that bans non-married, cohabitating couples from fostering or adopting a child in Arkansas. To find out more about the new laws in your state, simply visit your state’s home page (e.g. www.ca.gov for California, etc.)

The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, recently issued a legal opinion regarding religious objections to oath of office.  The Office of Legal Counsel concluded that requiring postal workers to take the “oath of office” does not “burden a person’s exercise of religion” or violate their civil rights. 

Under federal law, Postal Service employees must subscribe to the following oath or affirmation: 

 “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”

As more fully described in the legal opinion, apparently some postal workers/applications objected to taking the oath of office – particularly to having to pledge to (1) “support . . . the Constitution,” (2) “defend the Constitution,” and (3) “bear true faith and allegiance to” the Constitution on the ground that doing so would violate their sincerely held religious views.  Those who objected argued that that their religions forbid military service or placing an allegiance to a temporal power over God. However, it was concluded that oath of office would not interfere with applicants’ right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. 

Highlights from the opinion concluding that the oath of office does not violate applicants’ freedom of religion include that:

• Supporting the Constitution against all enemies requires simply that a person abide by the nation’s constitutional system of government and its laws.  It was not intended to create specific responsibilities per se, but to assure that those in positions of public trust are willing to live by the constitutional processes of our system.
• The reference to “defending the Constitution against all enemies” does not require anyone to take up arms, or burden the religious exercise of persons who object to resorting to arms, but requires only that a person abide by the nation’s constitutional system of government and defend its laws by rejecting the use of force to overthrow it.
• Pledging that one will “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution does not require one to subordinate his or her allegiance to God to the United States. The phrase refers only to requiring that one pledge an honest and faithful commitment to the Constitution as opposed to other temporal powers—not as opposed to God.

The legal opinion also notes that the Postal Service has a “…compelling interest in ensuring, including through an oath, that prospective employees both support the Constitution and [are] committed to faithfully performing their jobs.”  Part of the reason for the oath is to make ensure a minimal level of loyalty and conscientious conduct on the part of federal employees and officers.  People who have “…engag[ed] in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, or giv[en] ‘aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” are simply barred from holding government office or employment.  

Postal workers in particular must meet certain minimum standards of loyalty and support of our laws required by all officers of our government.  Postal employees are in a position of public trust, with “… unique access both to the mail—which contains valuable items such as social-security checks, tax returns, and correspondence—and to public and private buildings.”

You can read the entire legal opinion by clicking here. 

Our legal rights, including freedom of religion and other civil rights, can sometimes present complicated questions in the real world.  If you have a question about how a federal law affects you in your job, contact a civil rights attorney or a labor and employment attorney in your area today.  You can also learn more about the law in LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center.

November 4, 2008 is Election Day! Considering that many US citizens work very long hours, this means that most of us will have to take time off during our workday in order to cast our ballot before the polls close. In many states, employers must allow employees time off to exercise their right to vote and may risk fines or even jail sentences for interfering with this time. In other states, however, the law offers no special protection or incentive for someone who takes time out of the workday to vote.

The following is a break down of states that do not have time-off-to-vote laws, those states that do and the penalties that can incur if they fail to comply.

States without time off to vote laws:

Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia

States with time off to vote laws and applicable guidelines:

Alaska:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Enough time to vote, unless 2 hours available before or after work
Must employee be paid? Yes

Arizona:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Up to 3 hours unless polls open 3 hours before or after work
Must employee be paid? Yes
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes
Penalty for violation: Fine of $2,500, jail up to 6 months; for enterprises, fine up to $20,000

Arkansas:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Work hours must be scheduled to allow employees opportunity to vote
Penalty of violation: Fine of $25 to $250

California:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Enough time at start or end of work to vote in statewide election, when added to free time during voting hours
Must employee be paid? Limited to 2 hours
Must employee make application? Yes, 2 work days before election
May employer specify hours? At beginning or end of shift

Colorado:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: 2 hours unless polls open 3 non-working hours
Must employee be paid? Yes, but limited to 2 hours for hourly workers
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes, at beginning or end of shift
Penalty of violation: Fine of up to $1,000 and/or jail up to 1 year; corporations also face forfeit of charter and right to do business in state

Georgia:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Up to 2 hours where necessary, unless 2 hours available before or after work
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes

Hawaii:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: 2 hours, excluding lunch or rest periods, unless polls open 2 non-working hours
Must employee be paid? Yes, if vote is cast
Penalty of violation: Fine of $50 to $300

Illinois:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: 2 hours between opening and closing of polls
Must employee be paid? No
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes

Iowa:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Enough time to give 3 voting hours when polls are open, unless employee has 3 consecutive hours non-work time when polls are open
Must employee be paid? Yes
Must employee make application? In writing
May employee specify hours? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine of $50 to $500 and/or jail up to 30 days

Kansas:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Up to 2 hours, between open and close of polls1
Must employee be paid? Yes
May employee specify hours? Yes
Penalty for violation: Fine up to $2,500 and/or jail up to 1 year

Kentucky:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Reasonable time, but not less than 4 hours between opening and closing of polls3
Must employee be paid? No
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes

Maryland:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Up to 2 hours unless employee has 2 continuous hours off duty between open and close of polls
Must employee be paid? Yes, with proof of vote cast

Massachusetts:
Employees affected: Any voter employed in mechanical, manufacturing or mercantile businesses
Time allowed: No work during first 2 hours polls are open
Must employee make application? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine up to $500

Minnesota:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Morning of Election Day
Must employee be paid? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine up to $1,000 and/or jail up to 90 days

Missouri:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: 3 hours unless polls open 3 successive non-working hours
Must employee be paid? Yes if vote is cast
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine up to $2,500 and/or 1 year in jail

Nebraska:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Up to 2 hours unless polls open 2 hours before or after work
Must employee be paid? Yes
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes

Nevada:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: “Sufficient time” unless sufficient time exists during non-working hours; 1 to 3 hours depending on polls’ distances
Must employee be paid? Yes
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine up to $1,000 and/or jail up to 6 months

New Mexico:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: 2 hours unless work begins 2 hours after polls open or ends 3 hours before polls close
Must employee be paid? Limited to 4 hours
May employer specify hours? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine of $50 to $100

New York:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: “Sufficient time” unless sufficient time exists during non-working hours; 4 consecutive non-working hours while polls open is “sufficient”
Must employee be paid? Limited to 2 hours
Must employee make application? Yes, 2-10 work days prior to Election Day
May employer specify hours? Yes, at beginning or end of shift
Penalty of violation: Fine of $100 to $500 and/or jail up to 1 year (first offense). Corporations also face forfeiture of charter

North Dakota:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Employers are encouraged to provide time off to vote when employee’s regular work schedule conflicts with times polls are open

Ohio:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Reasonable time (amount not specified)
Must employee be paid? Limited to 4 hours
Penalty of violation: Discharge or threat of discharge prohibited; fine of $50 to $500

Oklahoma:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: 2 hours, more if necessary, except where employee has 3 hours before or after work to vote
Must employee be paid? Yes if vote is cast
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine of $50 to $100

South Dakota:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: 2 hours, unless polls open 2 non-working hours
Must employee be paid? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine up to $200 and/or jail up to 30 days

Tennessee:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Up to 3 hours unless polls open 3 hours before or after work
Must employee be paid? Yes
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes

Texas:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time allowed: Amount not specified; none if polls open for 2 non-working hours
Must employee be paid? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine up to $500

Utah:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time Allowed: 2 hours between opening and closing of polls, unless polls open 3 or more non-working hours
Must employee be paid? Yes
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes
Penalty of violation: Fine up to $1,000 and/or jail up to 6 months; for corporations, fine up to $5,000

Washington:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time Allowed: Up to 2 hours
Must employee be paid? Yes

West Virginia:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time Allowed: Up to 3 hours, if necessary, between opening and closing of polls
Must employee be paid? Yes, unless he or she has 3 hours non-working time to vote and chooses not to do so
Must employee make application? Yes, in writing 3 days before election
May employer specify hours? Yes
Penalty of violation: For corporations, fine up to $1,000; other employers/ individuals, fine up to $500 and/or jail up to 6 months

Wisconsin:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time Allowed: Up to 3 hours while polls open
Must employee be paid? No
Must employee make application? Yes
May employer specify hours? Yes

Wyoming:
Employees affected: Any voter
Time Allowed: 1 hour, unless polls open 3 or more consecutive non-working hours
Must employee be paid? Yes, if vote is cast
May employer specify hours? Yes, exclusive of meal times
Penalty of violation: Fine up to $1,000 and/or county jail up to 6 months

For more information about time off for voting laws in your state, visit the National Conference of State Legislatures at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/electlaws.htm.

Are you facing a legal issue?  Have you been sued, or are you wondering about foreclosure?  Did you just have a medical procedure that didn’t turn out as you expected?  Is bankruptcy looming?  What about your family life – are you and your spouse considering divorce?  Do you need to update your will?  Has someone you love been arrested for a DUI? 

These are examples of only some of the most common legal issues.  The fact is we actually deal with the law more than most people think.  More importantly, when we face a legal issue, many of us might not know where to turn for answers.  The legal system can certainly be overwhelming – especially because the consequences are often so grave. 

Since 1994, LawInfo has been providing the public with quality legal resources they can count on.  The idea for the company even came out of the founder’s own legal needs!  How do you find the right attorney?  How do you know the attorneys you contact are in good standing with the state bar association?  What if you want to learn about a legal issue before you talk to a lawyer?  Well, these are the reasons LawInfo was established!  LawInfo has a whole library of information about the most common legal issues including answers to frequently asked questions, articles, legal guides, legal forms, and other information – ALL FREE TO THE PUBLIC!  The really great thing is this – you can also easily find an attorney who will understand your legal needs.  It’s all designed to help the public – help someone find answers they need and find an attorney who can help them. 

Learn more about LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center and Find the Right Attorney in your area today!

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a death row inmate claiming he could not be killed humanely by lethal injection because he was obese. On Tuesday, October 14, 5-foot-7, 267-pound Richard Cooey, 41, died at 10:28 a.m. at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, confirmed a spokesman with the state attorney general’s office. There were no immediate reports of difficulties finding suitable veins to deliver the lethal injection. Cooey also previously requested that the state use a single drug rather than a three-drug combination, and asked for a stay of execution pending a hearing on that motion, both of which were denied.

Cooey’s attorneys had argued that his weight problem would make it difficult for prison staff to access a vein for lethal injection, thereby causing the death to be painful and agonizing. Cooey is 75 pounds heavier than when he went to death row — the result of prison food and 23-hour-a-day confinement, his lawyers said. Cooey received a pre-execution exam early Tuesday where he was cleared as eligible for injection.

Cooey and a co-defendant were convicted for brutally raping and slaying University of Akron students Dawn McCreery, 20, and Wendy Offredo, 21, in September 1986. His co-defendant was 17 at the time and was sentenced to life in prison because of his age.

Anyone who has ever received an email knows all too well the evil and iniquity that is SPAM. SPAM is unsolicited, non-compensated commercial electronic mail sent in bulk that is usually fraudulent or deceptive in nature. On December 16, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act), which establishes a framework of administrative, civil, and criminal tools to help consumers, businesses, and families combat unsolicited commercial email. This law requires all commercial email messages to be identified as such and include an “opt-out” for recipients, prohibits commercial email that contains fraudulent headers or sexually explicit material, prohibits commercial email sent to addresses via an automated directory mechanism, and subjects civil and criminal penalties upon senders (spammers) who violate these terms.

While large businesses have routinely sued “spamvertisers” in court, individuals have had little recourse for compensation, monetary or otherwise. The anti-SPAM law grants consumers the right to sue on criminal grounds if just one piece of unmarked, unsolicited pornographic material is received. This law acts in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission (FCC) and other federal agencies to reduce or eliminate the viewing of sexually explicit material by minors. If spammers knowingly violate the requirements as set forth by the anti-SPAM law, they can be faced with fines or imprisonment.

Unlike telemarketing calls or third-class mail, which generally comes from legitimate businesses, SPAM is largely fraudulent and is not paid for by the sender. In fact, SPAM can actually cost the recipient. SPAM currently accounts for over half of all email traffic. This flooding of SPAM imposes significant costs on businesses and individuals who pay for disc space charges, connect time, long-distance net connections, etc. that have to accommodate the junk email. Thus, SPAM directly costs the consumer and their Internet Service Provider (ISP) to transmit, whether it is read or not. And, since telemarketing companies pay for phone charges and third-class mailers pay postage fees, these advertisers are more apt to spend their resources on potential clientele, whereas spammers can obtain email accounts through a mass-mailing directory, and send out free messages to an infinite number of people.

If you are being hit hard by SPAM, there are a number of things you can do. First, contact your ISP provider and alert them of the problem. They will likely tell you to forward the junk email(s) to them, wherein they can investigate the origin and proceed in having the spammer’s ISP account cancelled. If the spammer’s ISP refuses to take action, there are organizations that not only provide filtering software and blocking systems to download, but will also aid you in your fight to track and shut down the spammer. Since the internet is growing at such an explosive rate, and spammers are becoming more professional in their work (and moving faster than the laws set up to deter them), it is difficult to apprehend every spammer that invades your account. However, if the SPAM involves pornographic material or clearly demonstrates fraudulent practices, you and your family have rights under the anti-SPAM law, and are encouraged to proceed accordingly.

To find out more about filtering software or anti-SPAM organizations, visit www.junkbusters.com, or www.spambusters.com. To report a fraudulent SPAM, forward the email to uce@ftc.gov for the Federal Trade Commission to add to their database. For further legal information about SPAM, or to contact a LawInfo Lead Counsel criminal litigation attorney to discuss your SPAM case, click here.

The Supreme Court earlier this week ruled that executions by lethal injection are not a cruel an unusual punishment, which would be prohibited by the 8th Amendment, partly because it is currently the most humane way to execute a condemned criminal. The plurality opinion concluded that it may be cruel and unusual if a more humane form existed and a state did not take steps to implement it, but currently no method exists which is more humane. Because this conclusion was not definitive about the process of an execution the continuing capital punishment cases courts may hear may continue to be dominated by political arguments, and not legal ones.

The two prisoners who brought the case Baze v. Rees did not argue that their pending executions are unconstitutional; they argued that the method the state uses may be unconstitutional. The prisoners agreed that if done successfully lethal injection is humane but argued that if it is done unsuccessfully lethal injection may cause undue pain and suffering, rendering it inhumane, and thus cruel and unusual. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument partly because of the lack of supporting evidence and the lack of an alternative method of execution.

The danger this decision creates is that our court system is supposed to adjudicate only legal questions, not political or moral ones. What is politically correct has long been held to be the province of elected legislatures, who write the law. The courts are only supposed to interpret the law. The decision in Baze may require courts in the future to determine the level of humaneness provided by several types of executions.

How is a judge supposed to determine that it is more humane to execute someone through lethal injection, asphyxiation in a gas chamber, electrocution or some future type of execution? Part of the problem is the test itself. The dictionary defines “humane” as being characterized by a person’s tenderness, compassion or sympathy; or a person’s concern to alleviate suffering. A judge may now be required to judge a method of execution based on their own personal beliefs, and whether a judge personally dislikes a law should be irrelevant to their legal opinion.

The most accurate measure of society’s level of tenderness and compassion is not through a handful of unelected judges but through elected representatives, who by their larger number are more likely to represent our society’s diffuse backgrounds. In his concurring opinion Justice Alito states, “Lethal injection was adopted by the Federal Government and 36 States because it was thought to be the most humane method of execution.” The federal government and these states adopted lethal injection because their respective legislatures passed a law, not because a court told them to.

The ruling may also require a type of execution that causes the least amount of suffering. The Constitution forbids cruel or unusual punishment but it does not forbid punishment that makes a person suffer. If a punishment does not cause any suffering it would probably not be deemed a punishment.

In Justice Ginsburg’s dissent she argues that a legislature’s “standards of decency” may determine the constitutionality of that state’s method of execution. In Justice Scalia’s concurrence he asserts that there are issues that are “inherently subjective and insusceptible of judicial review.” A state legislature’s standard of decency or level of compassion may be an area of the law that is inherently outside of a court’s area of review.