Mark Shubin

Posts Tagged ‘Add new tag’

Supreme Court rejects appeal over D.C. gay marriage law

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

By J. Scott Applewhite, AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who are seeking to put a proposal on the ballot to overturn the District of Columbia’s gay marriage law.
The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who want Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district’s Board of Elections and Ethics after the board refused to put the initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination.

Last year Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and began in 2009 began recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You Are Now Free To Swear in Pennsylvania

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

Peter Suderman, Reason.com
January 11, 2011

Thanks to the ACLU, you can now say all seven of George Carlin’s seven dirty words in Pennsylvania without fear of being fined by the state police:

Travelers and residents in Pennsylvania, feel free to break open that swear jar — you no longer need it to make bail. This week, the Pennsylvania State Police reached a settlement with the ACLU that retires them from policing the dictionary. This, after 770 people were cited in a one-year period, and faced a fine and potential jail time, for speaking words the state police deemed obscene.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit in May on behalf of Lona Scarpa of Luzerne County, who called a motorcyclist an “asshole” after he swerved too close to her and another pedestrian. When she reported the incident to the police, Ms. Scarpa found herself charged with disorderly conduct for swearing and faced a possible $300 fine and 90 days in jail. (more…)

Leaders discuss potential hike in fine for alcohol-related offenses

Tuesday, September 14th, 2010

By Katrina Wehr
Collegian Staff Writer

State College Borough Council President Ron Filipelli said he doesn’t leave his home after 10 p.m. and keeps his car inside to prevent damage from drunken passersby.

“It’s like living in two different neighborhoods,” said Filipelli, a longtime resident of the Highlands neighborhood. “One during the day, and a completely different one at night.”

And in an effort to deter students from engaging in the excessive behavior that can result from alcohol abuse, Filipelli — along with state senators, borough officials and community members — met Monday afternoon to discuss legislation that would raise fines for alcohol-related offenses. The legislation aims to raise the maximum fine for alcohol-related summary offenses to $1,000. (more…)

State House Passes Bill to Protect Constitutional Rights of Outdoorsmen, Wins Praise from ACLU of PA

Monday, June 8th, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 1, 2009

HARRISBURG- The Pennsylvania House of Representatives today unanimously passed legislation to conform the search-and-seizure powers of the Pennsylvania Game Commission with the federal and state constitutions, and the bill’s passage won praise from the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

“People do not give up their constitutional rights simply because they hunt and fish,” said Andy Hoover, legislative director of the ACLU of PA. “Outdoorsmen have a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.”
(more…)

Kansas v. Ventris: Exclusionary rule unnecessary to protect against Sixth Amendment violation through jailhouse snitch

Sunday, June 7th, 2009

From U.S. Supreme Court Blog

Ventris was charged with murder and other crimes. The state planted another defendant in his cell as a “human listening device,” even though Ventris’ right to counsel had attached. Predictably, Ventris made incriminating statements to his cellmate. The state later conceded that it violated Ventris’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it surreptitiously planted the snitch in Ventris’ jail cell. The state was prohibited from using the confession in its case-in-chief, but was allowed to use it to impeach Ventris’ own testimony at trial. Kansas held that such use was impermissible under the federal exclusionary rule and conceded that it had violated Ventris’ Sixth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court held 7-2 that this violation did not require exclusion of the informant’s testimony when offered for purposes of impeachment, reasoning that the Sixth Amendment violation occurred when the uncounseled interrogation was conducted, not at trial The question whether to exclude the statement at trial was a separate question, involving the “remedy” for the violation. The Court concluded that the interest in exclusion was outweighed by the need to prevent perjury and the integrity of the trial process. The Court found little appreciable police deterrence would occur as a result of exclusion because police, if they opted to obtain uncounseled statements, could not likely anticipate that the defendant would testify at trial, and would testify inconsistently with the prior uncounseled statement. Ominously, the Court refused to confirm Kansas’s concession of a Sixth Amendment violation, opening a wide door in future cases for the state or federal government to argue that no constitutional violation occurs where police obtain a voluntary statement by way of a jailhouse snitch.