Andrew Shubin » Add new tag

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

Shubin — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:55:19 +0000

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.

You Are Now Free To Swear in Pennsylvania

Shubin — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:52:28 +0000

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.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and many other courts, have made it very clear that profanity — including dirty words, foul language, and rude gestures — is protected speech. Nevertheless, an ACLU investigation revealed that the state police had, on average, issued more than two such citations per day.

“Using profanity toward someone, whether an officer or not, is just not one of those things that you can put someone in jail for,” explains Mary Catherine Roper, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “It may not be very smart, but you have a constitutional right to do that.”

Leaders discuss potential hike in fine for alcohol-related offenses

Shubin — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:34 +0000

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.

The current maximum, $300, has not been changed since the early 1970s, State Sen. Jake Corman, R-Centre, said.

University Park Undergraduate Association President (UPUA) Christian Ragland and Interfraternity Council President Max Wendkos were both present at the hearing and offered their perspectives on the proposed legislation.

Wendkos (senior-marketing and psychology) said he agrees with the goals of Corman’s plan, but doesn’t think the increased fines will stop people from drinking.

He said the reasoning for the legislation should be based more on preventing the extreme behavior that sometimes results from excessive drinking, since these acts often disturb community residents.

The legislation would also allow municipalities that are home to a college or university to charge an extra $100 fee to fund alcohol abuse prevention programs, as long as they have an “alcohol prevention unit” to direct them.

In addition to hearing from State College community members, the panel of five state senators listened to representatives from West Chester, Pa. and Indiana, Pa. The municipalities are home to West Chester University and Indiana University of Pennsylvania, respectively.

“Today we’re looking for public comment,” Corman said in his opening address. “We want to fashion a piece of legislation to make the excessive and dangerous drinking problem go away.”

State College Chief of Police Tom King used statistical figures to illustrate the urgency of a fine increase.

King said 45 percent of the borough’s $18.6 million operating budget is used by the police department, with two-thirds of the 7,000 crimes reported in State College related to alcohol abuse.

He also showed how dated the current $300 fine is by stating its equivalent when adjusted for inflation: $1,326.64.

Ragland (senior-political science) discussed the initiatives student groups are working on to help cut down on excessive and dangerous drinking at Penn State.

He said he supported the legislation and discussed successful UPUA programs like the White Loop extension that have curbed alcohol-related incidents late at night. But he said more funding would be helpful in creating further progress.

“Student leaders are often called on to combat this situation,” Ragland said. “But we don’t always have the resources.”

Though more discussion is necessary, Corman said the meeting was informative and accomplished the goal of getting feedback on the legislation and working toward a solution to the excessive drinking problem.

“It gave everyone a chance to understand what these municipalities are going through with this problem,” Corman said.

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

Shubin — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:17:48 +0000

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.”

As written in current law, enforcement officers of the Pennsylvania Game Commission can conduct stops and searches “at any time.” House Bill 181, introduced by Representative Bryan Cutler (R-Lancaster County), would require a finding of reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and a finding of probable cause to conduct a search.

“Current law essentially assumes that hunters are criminals and allows the game commission to conduct stops and searches under that assumption,” Hoover said. “HB 181 fixes a major problem with state law and does it through legislation, not through a lawsuit.”

The bill brings game commission officers’ powers to stop and search in line with current law governing the powers of police officers. Last year the state Supreme Court ruled that police only need reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard than probable cause, to stop a vehicle. The ACLU of PA disagreed with that ruling, but Hoover noted that HB 181 is an improvement on current law.

“The law regarding stops by police officers could be stronger and should require probable cause, as required by both the state and federal constitutions,” Hoover said. “But HB 181 stops game commission officers from stopping and searching at any place, at any time, and implements a standard that requires officers to have some belief that a person has committed a crime.”

The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration.

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

Shubin — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:20:43 +0000

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.