southcarolinaprelawland

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Examining The Complexity Of Removing Controversial Monuments

By Caitlin Hodges, College of Charleston Class of 2022

July 29, 2020

A major uproar about the injustices that African Americans face throughout their lives has been ignited internationally but originated and is most prevalent in the United States. The disorder in the United States was brought on by the thought that police officers use excessive force against African Americans, and that the American government is structured to help its white citizens over its African American citizens.  On the 25th of May, George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis by Derek Chauvin, a white police officer who used excessive force that ultimately led to his untimely death on a public street.  Bystanders filmed the incident and the video became publicized by the media. In an effort to seek justice for George Floyd, as well as all African Americans, a number of protests have broken out in American cities using the slogan “Black Lives Matter”.

The thought of cleansing the United States of its racist history is not a new concept.  Conversations about controversial American monuments of men that had connections to slavery or the Native American persecution began several years ago. The conversations about removing certain Confederate statues in America, such as the Civil War monument at Stone Mountain, Georgia that depicts President Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee, and General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, became a nationwide debate topic after Dylann Roof shot and killed nine African Americans, claiming it was to “start a race war”, in a Charleston, South Carolina, church in 2015.  However, the wrongful deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and many other African Americans prompted the government to start participating in the removal of monuments as a way to show good faith.  American citizens have split opinions about the importance of historical statues and monuments.  Some believe that they’re a testament to the nation's history.  On the other hand, some argue that leaving a reminder of racism and slavery keeps the nation thinking in reverse rather than looking to the future[1]  

The riots and protests throughout the United States have resulted in the vandalism of certain monuments and statues, some of which were of historical figures, such as Ulysses S. Grant,  who advocated for Reconstruction and fought in the Union army during the Civil War.  The White House released a statement in June of 2020 regarding President Trump’s Executive Order about protecting the monuments, memorials, and statues.  The Executive Order also extends to trying to eliminate the violence and crime that has gone along with these protests and riots. The Executive Order has six sections.  Section one details the purpose for the policy.  The policy was implemented after the unlawful destruction and vandalization of not only the monuments and statues but private property of businesses and American citizens.  The Executive Order emphasizes that if someone defaces or damages a monument, memorial, or statue is vandalism of government property and the perpetrator will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Congress has made an effort to protect federal property, section 1361 of title 18 of United States Codes, authorizes imprisonment of up to 10 years for deliberate destruction of government property.  Both the Veterans’ Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act and the Travel Act also prohibit the destruction of federal monuments.  The government has taken the appropriate steps to protect monuments and statues from being removed by unlawful force and have taken measures to punish the individuals that do.[2]    

Removing the controversial tributes is not only made difficult by the tensions from both sides of the aisle, but also due to the laws protecting them at the local, state, and federal levels.  Jessica Owley, a law professor at University of Miami School of Law, created a framework that explains the legal status of Confederate monuments.  Her assessment is that the ways the monuments are funded would pose a hindrance to removing them.  When it comes to funding, there are two sides of the scale: monuments on public land with public funding, and monuments on private land that are privately funded. However, most monuments are in a messy gray area and a mix of public and private.  The monuments at Stone Mountain and the Marvel Carriage Museum in Georgetown, Delaware, are examples of the complex nature of removing monuments in the United States.  The monument at Stone Mountain was originally built on private land that was owned by the Daughters of the Confederacy, eventually it was purchased by the state of Georgia, and currently is protected by the state statue statutes.  There is a push for the state of Georgia to remove the monument because it is funded by taxpayer dollars.  However, the state of Georgia would have to approve any alterations or removals before the monument can be touched.  The monument in Georgetown, Delaware, has a similar issue. It was built on private land by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, however, the property has a favored tax status and the museum receives state grants.  The NAACP is pushing for the monument’s removal on the grounds that the public's tax dollars should not be supporting a monument that sends a controversial message.    

Historic preservation laws are another complication when it comes to removing monuments.  These types of laws are quite broad and rely on several factors, type of resource (in this case, a monument), who has ownership, and where it is located.  The federal government has two laws that best apply: The National Historic Preservation Act, which manages the National Register of Historic Places,  and the National Environmental Policy Act.  Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, poses the largest challenge to removing Confederate monuments.  Section 106 outlines the potential downfall that removing the monument would have on the historical property, state legislatures also have similar laws which may deter the removal of monuments due to the complications that the removal would have on the property it sits on.[3]

[4]

The removal of controversial monuments is not only difficult due to the differing opinions on the matter, but also because of the layers of applicable laws that make the removal of historical monuments onerous.  

________________________________________________________________

Caitlin Hodges is a Junior at the College of Charleston.  She is double majoring in Political Science and History with a concentration in Politics, Philosophy, and Law.  She hopes to go to law school after graduation. 

________________________________________________________________

[1] Ebrahimji, J. L. A. M. A. A. M. (2020, July 1). These Confederate statues have been removed since George Floyd’s death. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/confederate-statues-removed-george-floyd-trnd/index.html

[2] The White House. (2020, June 26). Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-american-monuments-memorials-statues-combating-recent-criminal-violence/

[3] American Bar Association. (2019, December). Confederate-monument removals slowed by knot of legal issues. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/december-2019/efforts-to-remove-confederate-monuments-slowed-by-knot-of-legal-/

[4] U.S. Forest Service. (1999). National Historic Preservation Act: Identifying and Preserving Historic Bridges, 0071-2854-MTDC. https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/htmlpubs/htm00712854/page03.htm#chart

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Systematic Racism’s Affect On American Citizens Rights

By Ava Tanner, College of Charleston Class of 2022

June 15, 2020

In light of recent events, international protest over the murder of George Floyd and growing support for the Black Lives Matter movement, [1] many people are asking themselves how ascriptive characteristics, such as ethnicity, age,and gender,affect the supposedly equal rights of American citizens. To determine one's rights as a citizen of The United States, look no further than the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that all citizens have equal rights to expressive and cognitive beliefs including speech in traditional public forums.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [2]Yet, historically these rights have not been universally applicable to non-white citizens deemed so by our legislative and judicial bodies. It only takes a brief study of American history: slavery, the civil rights movement, and current events to determine that racial minorities have been and are being oppressed. This observable systematic oppression generates the question,does race affect citizens' First Amendment rights?

To analyze this question it is important first to understand the differences between race and ethnicity. Race is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits. Ethnicity is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as “large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, religious, linguistic, cultural origins, or background.” [3]In layman's terms race can be reduced to a categorization of skin color while ethnicity encompasses cultural identities. This means racism is a form of systematic oppression founded on recipients'  ascriptive traits, the color of their skin.

Acts of racism occurred on American soil before the county’s' founding. America declared independence from Great Britain in 1776, but the Atlantic Slave Trade began in approximately 1526 and brought enslaved Africans to colonial shores as early as 1619.[4]This horrific act initiated the classification of non-whites as othered and therefore less in a social and legal perspective. This standard was reinforced through the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court case in which Justice Taney stated, “[Black men have] No rights which a white man is bound to respect.” In respect to Dred Scott sued for his rights as a free black man be upheld in each state. [5] Racial oppression continued to be enforced by federal law until Abraham Lincoln, America's 16th president (1861-1865)[6] approved the Thirteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights in 1865 which abolished slavery throughout the United States. [7]

Jumping ahead in history to the American civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s.Reverend Martin Luther King Junior was the leader of the civil rights movement,and in the spring of 1963 in correlation with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), he led the Birmingham Campaign. This campaign primarily consisted of peaceful protest in Birmingham, Alabama to promote equal rights. [8] Included nonviolent marches, sit-ins, and boycotts. However, before it could officially begin he was arrested for violating a state injunction to protest. In response to his arrest, more than one thousand people attempted to march in downtown Birmingham. Police officers responded by using high-pressure fire hoses, dogs, and clubs to arrest hundreds of demonstrators, including students and children. After photos of children being abused by police officers were published public outrage declared this an obvious violation of black Americans' First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. These events in combination with many others lead to the incorporation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[9]

Civil unrest over minority rights continues,peeking most recently in May of 2020 after a viral video showing George Floyd, an unarmed black man arrested and murdered by a white police officer on May 25th.[10] Although this is sufficiently horrific, it was not the first public murder of an unarmed black person this year. On February 23rd Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black man was shot by two white men in a truck while jogging. [11] On March 13th Breonna Taylor, an essential medical worker, was shot in her home by police during an unannounced drug raid. [12] While it may not be possible to determine each of these crimes to be racial motivated, the concurring evidence does not weigh in favor of racial neutrality in the judicial process. For example, during a Minnesota protest of George Floyd’s murder on May 30th CNN reporter Omar Jimenez, a young Latino man, and his team were arrested and detained by Minnesota police officers. Yet, his white colleagues were allowed to continue documenting the protest. This is an obvious violation of Jimenez’s First Amendment right, freedom of the press.[13] These events showcase the lack of respect for racial minorities First Amendment rights.

Although the question, does race affect citizens' First Amendment rights, is ultimately up to the individual to determine it is important to consider America's history and documented disdain for racial minorities. Currently, many American youths are answering this question, yes, and taking action to promote equal rights. This can be seen in the nationwide protest, many of which are filled with young people. In Charleston SC on Sunday, May 31st hundreds filled the downtown streets protesting the death of George Floyd and advocating for the Black Lives Matter movement.[14] This attitude has extended beyond America with BLM advocacy in Canada, Europe, and Australia to name a few. [1]Corporations like Ben & Jerry’s have released quotes supporting the BLM movement. “What happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis is the fruit born of toxic seeds planted on the shores of our country in Jamestown in 1619, when the first enslaved men and women arrived on this continent.” [15]These statements of support for equal rights brings hope for many suffering from systematic racism that one day, possibly in the near future, equal rights will truly be attainable in the land of the free.

________________________________________________________________

[1] “Thousands Protest Across 3 Continents to Honor George Floyd and Support the Black Lives Matter Movement”.Time.com.6 June 2020.

[2] “Bill of Rights of the United States of America (1791)”.billofrights.org.2020

[3] “Race”.Merriam-Webster.com.2020

[4] “Ethnicity”. Merriam-Webster.com.2020

[5] “"No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect".acslaw.org.19 March 2007

[6] “Abraham Lincoln”.www.whitehouse.gov.

[7] “United States Declaration of Independence”.en.wikipedia.org.31 May 2020.

[8] “Constitutional Amendments and Major Civil Rights Acts of Congress Referenced in Black Americans in Congress”.History.house.gov.

[9] “The Birmingham Campaign (1963)”.blackpast.org.31 August 2016.

[10] “Killing of George Floyd”.en.wikipedia.org.7June 2020.

[11] “Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery”.en.wikipedia.org.7 June 2020.

[12]“Shooting of Breonna Taylor”.en.wikipedia.org.7 June 2020.

[13] “A black Latino CNN reporter was arrested. A white CNN reporter was not.”cnn.com.29 May 2020

[14] “Youth leads Black Lives Matter protest in downtown Charleston”.livefivenews.com.5 June 2020.

Photo Credit: Tony Webster

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Gender Equality, Equal Rights Amendment, And COVID 19, How Are These Three Things Related?

By Ava Tanner, College of Charleston Class of 2022

May 29, 2020

Gender equality is a goal many Americans continue to strive for in the 21st century. Although countless efforts have been made to achieve legal protection on the bases of gender, currently the only law regulating this is Title IV of the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. [1] It states that “it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.” While this is a helpful law regarding personal protection rights in the workplace it has many loopholes the largest being, it does not establish legal protection for discriminatory acts beyond the workplace such as in public forums or government legislation. A solution to this problem was introduced into Congress in 1923 by Alice Paul, a renowned women’s rights activist. She proposed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). [2] This amendment makes discrimination based on sex illegal stating, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” This is a vital and important part of establishing women’s rights in America. However, it was not until January of this year that the amendment received a ¾ths majority ratification thanks to the state of Virginia. Ninety-seven years since this amendment’s proposal, our democracy can now take the next legal steps to establish equal rights.

While this is monumental for American history, it could not have come at a worse time, the COVID 19 global pandemic. Beginning with the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, equal rights movements have seen a gradual increase in social acceptance and political backing. Now in the 21st century, the majority of American women experience a fair amount of autonomy regarding their personal lives, healthcare, and financial stability. Yet, with the onset of this global pandemic women are experiencing more gender inequality than previously seen in this country during this century. [3] Social constructs established to hold women back are now worsening during the pandemic. Due to this, women have less opportunity for professional development in comparison to men respectively. A common example is the wage gap defined as lower salaries for female workers completing the same job as their male colleagues. This phenomenon greatly affects the typical heteronormative family dynamic. (family of four, a wife, husband, and two children) As the wife has a comparatively lowerincome deeming her a nonessential worker in a time of crisis. During this pandemic with a rapid change in lifestyle including but not limited to, a reduction in childcare facilities and availability of restaurant’s, women are finding themselves with more duties than before and are experiencing a loss of autonomy.[4]

While some people assume the world will get back to normal in the coming weeks, women may experience something very different. In other nations with national pandemics similar to COVID 19 women have been negatively affected causing long term gendered gaps in educational, financial, and social opportunities. An applicable example currently occurring in America is the lack of access to healthcare facilities, restructuring of higher education opportunities, and a rapid increase in gender-based violence. [5] With a limitation on nonessential healthcare services women more at risk to experience reproductive related issues such as undiagnosed breast or ovarian cancer as well as lack of access to abortion services. These reductions in healthcare put an already at-risk group even more so, which inevitably puts lives in danger. Higher educationopportunities are also becoming a gendered issue as some families with recent high school graduates may now face an impossible question of which child can they financially support through college. According to national police reports domestic violence against women has rapidly increased over the past three months with stay at home orders forcing vulnerable family members to continuously stay in unsafe living conditions. [6] While these facts are disheartening and make people feel powerless it is vital to remember that as citizens we have the power to support legislation like the ERA which will help women rapidly recover from the setbacks compiled during the COVID 19 pandemic.

________________________________________________________________

Ava Tanner is a student at the College of Charleston majoring in political science with a minor in studio art and she aspires to go to law school after graduation.

________________________________________________________________

[1] “The Equal Rights Amendment: What You Need To Know”.www.americanpress.org. 29 January 2020.

[2] “Equal Rights Amendment”. Equalrightsamendment.org. 2020.

[3] “Coronavirus magnifies silence around sexism and gender inequality”. Peoplesworld.org. 16 April 2020.

[4] “Putting A Gender Lens On COVID-19: Thought Leaders Weigh In”. forbes.com. 17 April 2020

[5] “The Coronavirus Crisis Confirms That the U.S. Health Care System Fails Women”. Americanpress.org. 23 April 2020

[6] “A Double Pandemic: Domestic Violence in the Age of COVID-19” cfr.org. 13 May 2020

[7] Image Source: “The 97-year history of the Equal Rights Amendment”. www.smithsonianmag.com. 13 November 2019

 Photo Credit: Montanasuffragettes

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Stay-At-Home and Business Closures, Where Does the Power Come From?

By Robert Rosso, College of Charleston Class of 2021

May 29, 2020

As case count of COVID-19 continues to rise throughout the country, many Americans still found themselves without a paycheck from state “stay-at-home” orders closing of thousands of businesses, offices and restaurants.  Many argue that continuation of widespread lockdowns and stay at home are unfair and illegal, with protestors taking to the streets in multiple states.  States that have chosen to ease restrictions more gradually have been faced with a variety of lawsuits and legal challenges from business owners, religious figures and some state lawmakers.

What gives states the power to enforce “stay-at-home” orders and close businesses in the first place?   Each state has their own form of emergency powers allowing them to declare a state of emergency and give authority to the governor.  In a state of emergency the governor is generally given a broad range of powers and the ability to order offices and businesses to close if need be. These powers have most recently been used by governors in response to natural disasters and hurricanes, so often the closure of businesses was not necessary [1].  For our current disaster, the COVID-19 pandemic, governors across the nation have ordered the closure of businesses, and issued “stay-at-home” orders in an effort to flatten the curve, sparking controversy from many who believe it has continued too long.

The first case on the issue dates back to 1905 in Jacobson v. Massachusetts where Jacobson argued that mandatory smallpox vaccinations were a violation of his constitutional rights.  The Supreme Court’s response was quite general but asserted that, “the liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment . . . consists, in part, in the right of a person ‘to live and work where he will.’" and that “in every well-ordered society . . . the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” [2]. This case is the first instance that allows for the states to enact laws that can restrict some freedoms in the case of great dangers, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

With “great danger” being such a broad definition the Court has put some limits. In the context of a pandemic, the Court has added that, “if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution" [2].  In addition to Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the courts can apply the strict scrutiny test, which requires laws to be “narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest” when deciding which restrictions go too far.

But despite these allowances for the government to enforce “stay-at-home” orders, dozens of lawsuits had been filed at state governments alleging that various Constitutional rights have been infringed.  In California a lawsuit over the closure of gun firearm and ammunition retailers, claiming a violation of Second Amendment rights. The lawsuit argues that firearm retailers are essential businesses for more Americans, allowing Californians to lawfully defend themselves [3].  Similar lawsuits over the Second Amendment have been filed in other states as well such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  California has faced other claims from religious figures that the state has unjustly closed religious services, alleging a violation of freedom of religion and of assembly [4].  Similar lawsuits have popped up across the county as restrictions begin to ease in some places and remain in place in others. It is clear that the rights are restricted as a result of the pandemic, but the question being whether state governments have overstepped their bounds in doing so.

It is not likely that many of these lawsuits will succeed as a pandemic is justifiable for a state of emergency, but it has led to a debate over the bounds of state power and will surely not be the end of such lawsuits.

________________________________________________________________

[1] The Governor Declared A State Of Emergency. What Does That Mean?, www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-governor-declared-a-state-of-emergency-what-does-that-mean/ar-BB110Yme.

[2] Gerstmann, Evan. “Are 'Stay At Home' Orders Constitutional?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 25 Mar. 2020, www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2020/03/25/are-stay-at-home-orders-constitutional/#2e66b9ee104e.

[3] Stockler, Asher. “California Is Latest State to Be Hit with Lawsuit over COVID-19 Gun Restrictions.” Newsweek, Newsweek, 28 Mar. 2020, www.newsweek.com/california-lawsuit-covid-19-firearms-gavin-newsom-1494843.

[4] “Three Southern California Churches Sue Gov. Newsom over Coronavirus Orders.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 14 Apr. 2020, www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-13/three-southern-california-churches-sue-gov-newsom-over-coronavirus-orders.

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Empty Words or Legally Binding? An Analysis of the Legality of Non-Disclosure Agreements

By Zachary Cardow, Clemson University Class of 2021

November 8, 2017

In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein harassment allegations, heads are rolling in the entertainment industry.  Weinstein(s), Spacey, Affleck, Ratner – and the list is growing by the day.  With so much attention centered on sexual harassment in Hollywood, the means by which these high-profile assaults are kept hidden are beginning to surface.  It seems as though a relatively common aspect of business might be the go-to method used to silence victims and bystanders alike.  The non-disclosure agreement, also known as a confidentiality agreement, can be found in almost every corner of show business.  These simple documents have become the be-all end-all for Hollywood confidentiality, but are they really as effective as they seem?  Or are they simply being used as a high-class scare tactic to keep the ill-informed in their place?  

           How do non-disclosure agreements work?  NDA’s serve as a contract between two consenting parties and generally fall into one of two categories: prevention of an employee from giving away trade secrets, or the confidentiality of a misconduct settlement. When Zelda Perkins went to the Financial Times and broke the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal, she essentially violated a 24-year-old contract.  Specifically, because Mrs. Perkins went to the press – and was the first one to do so – she could be found in breach of contract and sued by Mr. Weinstein or his company.  If Mrs. Perkins had gone to the police, it is more than likely that a judge would have tossed the NDA if he deemed it to be egregious in nature.  Further, if other individuals had come out prior to this, then the information would already be in the public domain and would be difficult to enforce.[1], [2], [3], [4]

           What other confidentiality agreements exist in the show business industry?  A high-profile NDA that came under public scrutiny was that of the Greenhour Corporation, a production company owned by Leonardo DiCaprio.  Within this agreement were several clauses that protected both DiCaprio and Greenhour Corp. from several avenues of litigation.  First, employees are prevented from revealing any sort of personal information about DiCaprio, his family, or his business.  It also prevents the signee from even revealing that he or she is working with Greenhour Corp. at all.  The second half of the agreement deals with potential lawsuits. It states that the contractor might be exposed to offensive jokes or even harassment.  If broken, it is stated that the person in violation must pay $250,000 to DiCaprio.  Throughout the contract it is implied that the signee has no power to sue Greenhour, but as discussed earlier this is somewhat erroneous.  However, to a legally illiterate signee this may seem like a fully binding contract that removes all rights to future litigation or complaint.[5]

           What is being done about the ominous nature of non-disclosure agreements?  Senator Leyva of California will be introducing a state bill in 2018 that would make confidentiality agreements in sexual assault or harassment settlements illegal.  As for other states, some have what is called “sunshine in litigation” laws.  These laws would prevent a judge from enforcing an NDA or similar contract in the event of a “public hazard.”  It is possible that large scale harassment and assault would qualify as a significant public hazard, and therefor nullify the NDA in question.  However, not everyone is a fan of making NDAs illegal.  Some women support the use of them to protect the privacy of victims. Non-disclosure agreements allow women who do not wish to go public the ability to keep their experiences out of the public eye.  Many worry that by outlawing NDAs women will be less inclined to report harassment and assault in the workplace. [1], [3]

           With more and more Hollywood giants being ousted for harassment and assault allegations, the spotlight will continue to grow on non-disclosure agreements.  The outlandish claims that are made within them, as well as the potential benefits of using them will most likely be a public debate for the foreseeable future. It is important that individuals in any aspect of business be aware of what NDAs actually are and what the consequences of signing (and potentially violating) them may be.  Despite how they are being used, NDAs are simply a contract of privacy, and cannot be used to coverup illegal activities or crimes.  The fall of Harvey Weinstein and his compatriots is a testament to this, and hopefully will lead to an increase in awareness of the legal practices in show business.

________________________________________________________________

[1] “The Harvey Weinstein Effect: The End of Nondisclosure Agreements in Sexual Assault Cases?” Forbes.com. 26 October 2017.

[2] “Weinstein Scandal Raises Questions About Non-Disclosure Agreements.” Npr.org. 11 October 2017.

[3]“Taking aim at non-disclosure agreements.” Bizjournals.com. 1 November 2017.

[4]“Non-disclosure Agreements – An Explainer.” Ft.com. 24 October 2017.

[5]“How Does Hollywood Protect its Power Players? Through Nondisclosure Agreements Like This One from DiCaprio’s Company.” Dailywire.com. 1 November 2017.

[6]All images were used under a Creative Commons license.

[southcarolinaprelawland]

A Farewell to Privacy

By Zachary Cardow, Clemson University Class of 2021

October 31, 2017

 From the moment we wake up to the moment we go to sleep, every aspect of our lives is ruled by modern technology.  Phones, TV’s, cameras, watches, computers – the list goes on.In recent years there has been a surge in wearable technology with releases of items such as the Fitbit and Apple Watch.  These devices have the ability to track your fitness, your productivity, and even your location at all times.  Alongside this wearable tech there has been massive strides with facial recognition software.  All across the world companies and organizations are lining up to gain access to this relatively new frontier.  This technological revolution is taking us into a new era of modernization and connectivity, but does it also spell the end for privacy as we know it?

           One of the two main points of privacy concerns lies in wearable tech.  These simple watches or bracelets track your steps, your heart rate, exercise, etc. At a cursory glance, these functions may seem perfectly innocuous, possibly even vital to an individual’s everyday well being.  However, underneath these helpful functions lies a sinister truth.   The data being collected on the wearer of the technology has to be stored somewhere.  Normally this information is placed into cloud storage controlled by the company providing the product.  We all know that most people do not read the unnecessarily long privacy agreements, but that is exactly where the crux of the problem is found.  Within these agreements is normally some sort of clause or phrase stating that the users personal date “can and will be used.” Further, these statements are crafted in such a way as to prevent any sort of future litigation against the company if anything unfortunate befalls the consumer data.  With a recent rise in massive data breaches, international hackers, and devastating viruses it is no surprise that this is the case.  When companies say that they will keep your data “safe,” there is no guarantee that it will actually be safe or even an idea as to what “safe” means.  There isn’t a Fort Knox of the internet, and all information can be made vulnerable. But what are the ramifications of this on the consumers and wearers of these devices?  In the worst-case scenario if a data breach occurs, it is possible that your personal health records could be sold to insurance companies. These companies would then have the ability to hike up your rates or even terminate your coverage without a warning or even an explanation.  And for those lucky enough to not have this information stolen, the tech companies could still willingly sell off your data as you have already given up ownership in that pesky privacy agreement.  Something very similar to this happened when the tech store RadioShack went under for chapter 11 bankruptcy.  In a last-ditch effort, they attempted to sell the collected data of over 100 million customers to a data collection group.  Many states objected to this and were able to limit the amount and kind of data that RadioShack was allowed to sell.  A very similar case occurred in 2016 with the Columbia Casualty Company v. Cottage Health System.[1], [2], [3], [4]

Columbia Casualty Company v. Cottage Health System.  United States District Court for the Central District of California.  31 May 2016.  Retrieved 27 October 2017.

           In 2015, Cottage Health System experienced a massive data breach that exposed the private medical records of over thirty-two thousand patients.  CHS was then involved in a class actions lawsuit by the victims of the data breach, and were able to reach a 4.1 million dollar settlement.  However, a twist occurred when the Columbia Casualty Company sued the Cottage Health System saying it did not have to pay the settlement because CHS failed to secure the data, per their contract.  This data breach proved both a failure to store sensitive information securely as well as to protect the information in the event it was stolen.[5], [8]

           The second main concern involving privacy revolves around the use of facial recognition software.  With the upcoming release of the iPhone X, new details are emerging about its facial recognition system, named Face ID.  This technology is designed to allow users to quickly unlock their iPhone’s with just a glance at their camera.  Unfortunately, this new implementation is creating a plethora of privacy concerns. One of the newest details indicates that the camera for the iPhone X will always be on, capturing and remembering data whether you want it to or not.  Despite what Apple says, the technology they are implementing is nowhere near as safe as they make it seem.  The recently released Samsung Galaxy S8 could be unlocked via the facial recognition software simply by putting a photo of the individual in front of the camera.  But it is not just phones that are implementing this new technology. JetBlue recently started installing facial recognition stations in select airports.  This new system will allow flyers to use their face in lieu of a boarding pass.  The facial biometrics are not done by JetBlue however, and the scans are sent through US Customs and Border Protection.  The same agency is also compiling a database of facial scans of non-citizens tracked leaving the country.  117 million adults already have their faces contained in databases that may be used by federal and state authorities.  This new method of identification could easily prove to be the next frontier in law enforcement.  But the questions pertaining to its privacy and ethics are just beginning.  In a recent court case in Illinois, a judge delivered a win for privacy advocates. Judge Gottschall ruled that the tech company Shutterfly had violated state law by collecting the facial scans of its customers without their permission.  [6], [7], [9]

Alejandro Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc.  United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. 15 September 2017.  Retrieved 27 October 2017.

           Despite these recent court battles, there is still a massive amount of uncharted legal territory ahead.  Americans find themselves in the awkward middle ground, with new technology emerging and the legal system attempting to catch up with changing society. Until these two factors intersect, it is essential that tech consumers and Americans in general are aware of their right to privacy.  It is also necessary to be weary of contracts that force you to give up these legal rights, as it is certainly not done by chance.

________________________________________________________________

[1] “The dark side of wearables: How they’re secretly jeopardizing your security and privacy.” Techrepublic.com. Retrieved 26 October 2017.

[2]“Weary of Wearables: IP, Privacy, and Data Security Concerns.” Lawpracticetoday.org. 14 January 2016.

[3]“5 Privacy Concerns about Wearable Technology.” Blog.varonis.com. 11 March 2014.

[4]Consumer Data Sale in Bankruptcy: Lessons from RadioShack.” Law360.com. 15 July 2015.

[5]“Insurer cites cyber policy exclusion to dispute breach settlement.” Buisnessinsurance.com. 15 May 2015.

[6]“Why the iPhone X’s face-scanning tech could be a privacy disaster.” Mashable.com. 28 August 2017.

[7]“Facial Recognition May Boost Airport Security But Raises Privacy Worries.” Npr.org. 26 June 2017.

[8]Columbia Casualty Company V. Cottage Health System. United States District Court for the Central District of California.  31 May 2016.  Retrieved 27 October 2017.

[9]Alejandro Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc.  United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division.  15 September 2017.  Retrieved 27 October 2017.

Photo Credit: Quevaal

[southcarolinaprelawland]

A Decade of Impropriety: A Brief History of Wells Fargo Scandals

By Zachary Cardow, Clemson University Class of 2021

October 18, 2017

What do fake accounts, human trafficking rings, Mexican drug cartels, and money laundering schemes all have in common?  It appears that all of these and a litany more are tied to Wells Fargo. That’s right, your family bank down the street.  Wells Fargo has been a staple of American banking and finance for over one-hundred and sixty-five years.  It seems, however, that the bank has “lost the reins,” so to speak, in the past decade. Wells Fargo is currently facing catastrophic repercussions from its shady business dealings that could have lasting consequences.  Here are just a few of the transgressions that have plagued the iconic company over the years.

2004:  Billions of dollars each year are smuggled through US banks by Mexican drug cartels despite laws to prevent it[1].  One of the most astounding instances of this occurred at the Wachovia bank between 2004 and 2007.  The confiscation of a private jet overflowing with millions of dollars’ worth of cocaine by the Drug Enforcement Agency led to a surprising discovery.  A paper trail linking the notorious Sinaloa cartel with the US bank Wachovia was also on board.  This immediately sparked an investigation by the Justice Department into the dealings and practices of Wachovia.  Over six thousand subpoenas were issued in attempt to find out if the bank failed to follow anti-laundering laws.  Following a failure by Wachovia to hire a satisfactory number of investigators, official charges were drawn up by the Justice Department.  However, the bank would never go to trial.  The matter was settled out of court with a little help from Wachovia’s new owner, Wells Fargo, who would then proceed to foot the one-hundred and sixty-million-dollar bill.  The federal prosecutor for the case stated that Wachovia had exhibited “blatant disregard” for laws designed to prevent money laundering, despite warnings from internal monitors.  This case would go down as the largest violation of anti-laundering law in United States history.[3], [2]

2008:  A series of class action lawsuits were filed in 2008 claiming that Wells Fargo had charged customers excessive overdraft fees. Specifically, the company was accused of changing the order of purchases made on a card.  This practice allowed Wells Fargo to charge customers more in fees and fines for the overdrafts.  Wells Fargo was also accused of fostering an environment that helped contribute to more customers making overdrafts.  This included not providing accurate financial statements as well as forcing customers to participate in protection programs for overdrafts.  A California court ordered Wells Fargo to pay over two-hundred million dollars to its customers, a ruling which was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.  However, the Supreme Court declined to take the case on, allowing the California ruling to stand.  Similar lawsuits were filed in every single state and the cases lasted into 2017.[4]

2012:  In 2012, Wells Fargo was forced to pay 175 million dollars for alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act as well as the Fair Housing Act.  The violations included overcharging minorities for home loans and pushing them towards undesirable mortgages.  The misconduct took place across thirty-six states as well as the District of Columbia and affected approximately thirty-four thousand Latinos and African Americans.  Also in the settlement, Wells Fargo was forced to institute new monitoring methods to ensure the unfair practices would not occur again.  Despite this, Wells Fargo did not admit to any wrongdoing and claimed it settled simply to prevent drawn out litigation. [5], [6]

2013:  A class action lawsuit of over thirty-five million dollars was taken to court by a contingent of African-American Wells Fargo financial advisors.  They claimed that the bank had blocked and segregated them from high level positions. The court ruled in favor of the employees and forced Wells Fargo to change its policies and practices that allowed this discrimination to take place.  Further, it also made 360 of the plaintiffs eligible to receive settlement payments.[7]

2013:  Wells Fargo received the lowest score of seven major US banks regarding its policies on human slavery by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.  The ICCR commented that the bank had many subpar business and financial practices and fell short on its overall transparency.  It is worth noting that the center also said that all the banks on the list showed some improvement from previous years. [8]

2016:  The most recent scandal to rock Wells Fargo has to deal with the creation of millions of fake credit and bank accounts.  In 2017 Wells Fargo admitted it had discovered approximately 3.5 million fake accounts created by its employees, up from approximately 2 million the previous year.  Another 528,000 accounts were created without permission for an online billing program.  Wells Fargo has agreed to pay 6.1 million dollars in refunds to customers who had unauthorized accounts created in their name.  A class action lawsuit has also forced the embattled bank to fork out nearly 142 million dollars for fake accounts stretching all the way back to 2002. Executives of Wells Fargo have blamed the account creations on “unrealistic sales goals,” and have since disbanded the practices in question.[9], [10]

Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation.  United States District Court Northern District of California. Retrieved October 20 2017.

           The aforementioned scandals are by no means the only legal issues to have befallen Wells Fargo in recent years.  The company currently faces a public relations disaster with consumer confidence down and constant negative press.  Despite these factors, the five-year stock price of Wells Fargo & Co is only down about three points according to the New York Stock Exchange.  However, it still remains to be seen if the bank will be able to fully recover its shattered image in the public eye.

________________________________________________________________

[1] “Human Smugglers Thrive with Help of U.S. Banks.” www.breitbart.com. 21 January 2015.

[2] “How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico’s murderous drug gangs.” www.theguardian.com. 2 April 2011.

[3] “Banks Financing Mexico Drug Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal.” www.bloomberg.com. 29 June 2010.

[4] “Wells Fargo wants court to toss overdraft lawsuits and let it use arbitration.” Latimes.com. 24 August 2017.

[5] “Wells Fargo to pay $175 million to settle lending bias allegations.” Latimes.com. 13 July 2012.

[6] “Wells Fargo to pay $175 million in race discrimination probe.” Reuters.com. 12 July 2012.

[7] “Wells Fargo Will Pay $35.5 Million to Settle Race Discrimination Class Action.” Topclassaction.com. 5 May 2017.

[8] “Wells Fargo Ranked Lowest on Corporate Responsibility in Human Slavery Report.” Christianpost.com. 8 October 2013.

[9] “Wells Fargo uncovers up to 1.4 million more fake accounts.” Money.cnn.com. 31 August 2017.

[10] Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation.  United States District Court Northern District of California.  Retrieved October 20 2017.

[southcarolinaprelawland]

One Comic-Con to Rule Them All?

By Zachary Cardow, Clemson University Class of 2021

October 18, 2017

The legal battle between the San Diego Comic-Con and the Salt Lake Comic Con continues to brew along the California-Utah border.  The court case that has been dredging on for more than 3 years over the rights to the phrase “comic-con” has rocked a massive community of fans as well as a multimillion-dollar industry.  As of today, the direction of this case remains unknown, even as the pretrial comes to a conclusion.  It is altogether possible that the outcome will rest on the word for word examination and interpretation of several basic legal terms.

           Due to the expanding comic fan culture and the many upcoming conventions, the details of this interesting trial are surfacing once more. The case as a whole is based on one question: Does San Diego Comic-Con have exclusive rights to the name “comic-con?” In order to answer this, we must first ask if the phrase “comic-con” has fallen victim to genericide.  As defined by US Legal, genericide is the situation in which a trademark loses its federal protection because it has become generic[1].  To assess this, we can look at the culture surrounding comic conventions. Originating somewhere in the sixties or seventies, comic conventions have blossomed into a behemoth of modern culture.  There are currently over fifty comic conventionsscheduled between October of 2017 and August of 2018[2]. Some of these individual conventions expect to admit over one-hundred thousand individuals each.  Looking at the names of these conventions, one can see the phrase “comic con” crop up over and over again in one form or another. You will see “Comic Con,” “ComicCon,” “Comicon,” and even just “Con[2].” From this a judge will have to decide if a watering down of the term has occurred, possibly to the point of becoming generic.

           The existence of all of these conventions raises another question.  Why has SDCC, a shortening of San Diego Comic Convention, not regulated the use of the term “comic con” until now?  Renewed in 2016, but first filed in the seventies, SDCC’s trademark covers their official logo as well as the name “Comic-Con.”  Salt Lake Comic Con, or SLCC, contends in part that it is not the words that are telling, but what lies between them.  SDCC’s main trademark consists of “Comic Con” with a hyphen. In 1995 SDCC abandoned a move to trademark the “comic con” without the hyphen, and since then similarly named conventions have popped up all around the country without any policing by the SDCC[3].  By examining the online trademark database, it can be seen that there are currently three live trademarks for companies including the phrase “comic-con” with a hyphen.  None of these organizations are currently being brought to court by SDCC[6].  Salt Lake alleges that this essentially amounts to a naked license, or a trademark of which the owner cannot properly monitor and control its use.  When a naked license occurs, the trademark will be officially considered “abandoned” by the United States Patent and Trademark Office[4]. So why does the SDCC care if “comic con” is in the name of another convention?  According to their attorney, it is possible that individuals are attending the Salt Lake convention under the assumption it was sponsored or put on by the internationally renowned SDCC.  Specifically, they claim in their litigation that the SLCC is capitalizing on their use of the moniker[5]. Not only do they claim the SLCC is using the name for financial gain, but they also say that they are purposefully aiming to mislead the public and confuse them into attending their convention.

San Diego Comic Convention V. Dan Farr Productions. United States District Court Southern District of California. 12 September 2017. Retrieved 10 October 2017.

           In her pretrial ruling, Judge Battaglia tackled some of the issues previously discussed.  She handed down three specific rulings that will most likely prove crucial in the coming weeks.  First, she ruled against the San Diego Comic-Con regarding the similarities between the logos.  Although similar, the SLCC logo was found to not be of such a caliber that it would qualify as trademark infringement.  Second, that the similarities of the goods were such that they were “basically interchangeable,” thus ruling against the Salt Lake Comic Con.  Finally, it was ruled that the methods of marketing were of too common use to be used as a factor, and therefore weighed against both (or neither) party.  Also of note in her findings, Judge Battaglia stated that genericide could possibly have occurred with “comic con,” a fact that will more than likely be revisited in the coming pretrial hearings and eventual trial.  She also ruled out the possibility of “abandonment” of the license, leaving genericide as the defendant’s main point of defense. Unless a settlement is reached, which is highly unlikely, the trial is set to start on the 28th of November[8].  No matter the outcome of this case, it is sure to upset a very large number of people.[7]

________________________________________________________________

[1] “Generic Term Law and Legal Definition.” Uslegal.com. Retrieved 10 October 2017.

[2] “Comic Cons.” Upcomingcons.com. Retrieved 10 October 2017.

[3] “Comic Con Trademark Battle Escalates As Trial Looms.” Forbes.com. 30 June 2017. Retrieved 10 October 2017l.

[4] “Naked License Law and Legal Definition.” Uslegal.com. Retrieved 10 October 2017.

[5] “Battle over Comic Con name could be decided by a judge.” Sandiegouniontribune.com. 27 June 2017. Retrieved 10 October 2017.

[6] United States Patent and Trademark Office. Uspto.gov. Retrieved 10 October 2017

[7] San Diego Comic Convention V. Dan Farr Productions. United States District Court Southern District of California. 12 September 2017. Retrieved 10 October 2017.

[8] “Comic-Con trademark may have to activate superpowers to survive attack.” Arstechnica.com. 21 September 2017. Retrieved 10 October 2017.

[9] All images were retrieved from the public domain.

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Does International Law do enough to Promote Women’s Dignity?

Kali Fields, Clemson University Class of 2019

October 9, 2017

International law comprises of treaties, general principles of law, international custom, judicial decisions and teachings of qualified publicists. All of these categories have principles that call for equality and proper treatment of women. Promoting women’s dignity can be displayed by efforts of the international community to eliminate violence against women and promote equal opportunity, but is not seen by each individual country.

Violence against women is recognized as a violation of human rights, yet 1 in 3 women worldwide are victims of violence due to their gender [6]. Conventions have been the main form of international law that deals with attempting to end violence against women. The Convention to Eliminate Discrimination against Women, entered into force in 1981, was the first convention to mention violence against women. This convention’s goal was to stop the discrimination of women worldwide, which would then lead to the end of violence against women because the violence is a result of discrimination. This is a logical way to end violence against women, and also if successful has many other righteous implications [4]. Of the 194 member states, 7 have not ratified CDAW: the United States, Pacific Islands of Tonga and Paula, Iran, Somali, Sudan and South Sudan. The United States claims they have not ratified CEDAW because they already provide legal protection to women and the protocol of CEDAW is a violation of the United States constitution by intervening in professional and family life. So while the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination against Women proves as a good first step and attempts to eliminate the source of violence, it has its failings. Another, more recent convention of violence against women happened on a smaller scale, within the European Union, and is known as the 2011 Istanbul Convention. The convention’s goals was to protect women and girl against all forms of violence and discrimination, empower women, implement protocol to protect and assist women in violence situations, promote support and assistance of law enforcement and create international cooperation in the fight against violence [1]. The convention also dealt with immigrants and asylum seekers and their rights.  It was put into place to protect women against all violence, including domestic, during times of peace and war. The convention states measures must be taken on each state’s level to promote these changes socially and using legislation, while also raising awareness. This convention was a huge step for women of the European Union, as well as women on a global scale. This was the first international step to deal with domestic violence and set many standards for how women deserve to be treated and protected. By the European Union taking this stand and closing the gaps between policy and reality, they could eventually have started an international norm. The concern for domestic violence, as well as asylum seekers well being, has only grown since the convention took place. While the legislation was not passed on a global level, it has the potential to have global implications. Violence against women is not an easily issue to tackle, as no human rights violation is, but the global community is taking steps to eliminate this violence.

Discrimination causes multiple concerns for women’s international well being, one being the lack of equal opportunity. This is an area that the international community that has come a long way in that is due to legislation and social change. CEDAW is again an important form of legislation that has enabled equal opportunity for women throughout the world. The convention binds states to ensure equal rights and opportunity on a public and political basis.  CEDAW has put initiatives into motion to enable women and girls to gain a proper education and actively contribute to the economy. CEDAW includes provisions stating women and girls must have the same access to education that men do and the same quality of education, with the goal of increasing female literacy and decreasing female dropout rates [4].  In 1952 the Convention of Political Rights of Women took place, this convention guaranteed women’s right to vote, hold public office and exercise public functions. This gives women the opportunity to have a say in their future and the ability to be an active citizen [5]. Women holding office and excising their right to be involved in public functions is important in the fact it enables equality, but that it also sets a standard for young girls that they have a voice and are important to society.  Obviously this is not a convention respected by all UN member states, but foundation of it displays equal political opportunity is a goal if the UN and international law. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Culture Rights of 1966 is another form of legislation that brings about equal opportunity for women. Article 7 of the ICESC states that women have the right to have working conditions not inferior to men’s, one example being wages if the work is equal; this article also states there must be equal opportunity for employment and promotions [2]. This allows women to be equal with men at the work place and to grow within a company. While this provision may not always be the reality, it is a measure that international law took to better the wellbeing of women. Allowing for opportunity is an ideal that has been set by the international community as a whole and encouraged many individual states to pass laws ensuring equal opportunity which is vital because it is hard to enforce international law, but managing national law is much more achievable. Some states that have their own equal opportunity laws are the United Kingdom, The United States of America, Iceland, the Philippians, Indonesia and many more. Ensuring women have equal opportunities to contribute to society is vital to promoting their dignity and enforcing the principle that women are more the child bearers and not inferior to men in any respect [3]. International legislation has attempted to make equal opportunity a reality, but there is only so much legislation can do.      

________________________________________________________________

Kali Fields is a junior Political Science major at Clemson University. She is originally from New York and has a strong passion in education and human rights.

________________________________________________________________

 [1] European Union. Council of Europe . Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence .N.p.: n.p., 2011. Print.

[2] General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI), “International Conveant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” available from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx

[3] "Joint Staff Working Document - Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment: Transforming the Lives of Girls and Women through EU External Relations 2016-2020 - International Cooperation and Development - European Commission." International Cooperation and Development. N.p., 22 Sept. 2015. Web. 08 May 2017.

[4] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3970.html [accessed 8 May 2017]

[5] "United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women." UN Women. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2017.

[6] "The World's Women 2015: Trends and Statistics." United Nations. United Nations, n.d. Web. 08 May 2017.

[southcarolinaprelawland]

The History And Law Of Campus Police

By Emily Rogers, Clemson University Class of 2020

October 6, 2017

On modern day college campuses, campus police are a staple.  In a way, it is obvious that campus police are different from regular police forces of cities (after all, it is in the name), yet the tangible difference is ambiguous.  This begs the question: What are campus police, and why do they exist?

While campus police officers are familiar and frequent today, this was not always the case.  The first campus police department did not come until 1894 [1]. There was a mass riot due to a disagreement in-between students and the townspeople of New Haven, and due to this, two New Haven Police Department members were assigned to the Yale campus [1].   This was the first time police officers were assigned solely to a university’s campus.  

Since these first police officers were assigned, there has been a rise in the number of universities with their own police forces. In 2012, 92% of public, 4 –year campuses had police officers to provide law enforcement [2].  The percentage of sword officers for private universities is significantly different than public ones in the same year with only 38% of universities using sworn law enforcement officers [2].  This number seems absurd, but there is al alternative to sworn offices: nonsworn officers.  Nonsworn officers primarily exist on campus only and enforce university rules [2]; for example, Princeton University defines non-sworn officers as being “…empowered by the institution to enforce University regulations” [3].  This is different from sworn officers who “…have full arrest powers granted by a state or local authority” [2].  The main contrast between the two is that nonsworn officers’ power is derived from the university itself while sworn officers are given their authority by some form of government entity.

 As mentioned in the second paragraph, campus police officers came into existence out of need in chaos.  In modern day, campus police officers have played pivotal roles in serious moments in modern United States history, such as at Virginia Tech in 2007 where 33 people were killed in shootings [4].  This being said, 86% police officers on campus have arrest powers [2], and 94% of sworn campus police officers are authorized to carry a firearm [2].

What does this mean for you?  This means that when operating on public college campuses, be aware that the campus police officers operate just like city police officers. Therefore, they can arrest you, administer you a breathalyzer test, and may search your belongings if they have reasonable cause.  However, on private campuses, you will encounter more private, nonsworn officers, who are may not be able to arrest you. One thing to remember is that most campus police officers are sworn officers and should be treated just like city police officers. 

________________________________________________________________

[1] “History of the YPD.” It’s Your Yale, Yale, https://your.yale.edu/community/public-safety/police/history-ypd. Accessed 3 Oct 2017.

[2] “Campus Law Enforcement.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Jan 2015, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cle1112.pdf.  Accessed 4 Oct 2017.

[3] “Non-Sworn Security Officers.” Princeton University Public Safety, Princeton University, https://publicsafety.princeton.edu/about/unsworn-officers.  Accessed 4 Oct 2017.

[4] Engber, Daniel.  “How Much Power Do Campus Cops Really Have?” Slate, 16 Apr. 2007, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/04/what_can_campus_cops_do.html.  Accessed 4 Oct 2017.

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Suicide Terrorism as a Rational Act: Part I Knowing the Opponent

By Jessica Hendrick, University Of South Carolina Class of 2019

October 6, 2017

In modern America, we tolerate the consequences of suicide terrorism without blinking an eye. For instance, it’s routine to get to the airport a couple of hours before your flight in order to go through the never-ending stent of airport security; We systematically open our bags for searches whether we are entering a movie theater, a concert arena, a football game, or an entertainment park; and we not only expect to walk through a metal detector at our place of school or employment- but we want to, in an effort to further satisfy our blanket of security.

Americans have accepted this new age of TSA and Homeland Security as a cultural norm. But, have the same Americans gained a deeper understanding for the logistics behind terrorist attacks and why they’re effectively being preformed all over the world? Without directing speculation, one can assume an answer in the fact that the strategic logic of suicide terrorism is buried far, far below the patriotic heap of emotion people feel after an act of terrorism. It hides deeply under the news headlines rambling off names and faces that the public should despise, and even under generalizations about their said origin and religion.

This abundance of national pride and simultaneous lack of understanding can breed a misconception of terrorist’s motives and a mistrust among people of different cultures. Therefore, the first step in understanding the rationality of suicide terrorism is taking a closer look at the actors themselves. Further, which people are performing such atrocities against humankind and how can we link them to one another?

Robert Pape, a well-known political scientist of The University of Chicago, aims to answer this question. He suggests that there is only one link: every suicide terrorist has a goal that contrasts the interests of their target state (source 1). This link is the only reliable connection to the large masses of different terrorist’s groups and organizations. In other words, factors like race and piety can’t collectively define suicide terrorism. Instead of simplification through cultural explanation or the monopoly of a religion, one most look further to their similarity in objectives.

Another common misconception worth squandering is that these actors work as lone wolves. In contrast, suicide terrorists rarely act on their own accord. Attacks don’t represent the ideals of the individual foot solider, but the ideas of a strong organization with whom they are being backed. In fact, ninety-five percent of suicide terrorists are part of a larger institute that is pushing for a specific concession from a specific target state (source one). And in an effort to further analyze the rationality of these institutions, we must first recognize them.

Lastly, one must acknowledge that there are changing complexities to this phenomenon. A certain profile of a loner stereotype is frequently accounted by the media- but does this description hold true?  In reality, attributes painting the image of an unmarried, young man with no children and little aspiration has been blown to shreds time and time again. In fact, actors are both men and women coming from a variety of social classes, degrees in education, and family relations.Perhaps the public rejects these details in an attempt to make the faces of terrorism less relate-able but nonetheless, they are involved members of society who play active roles in work and social settings.

A closer look at the actors of suicide terrorism show that they can not be placed into a specific category based on demographics or culture. Instead they are people of different backgrounds sponsored by large organizations that are pushing to meet a specific goal. In the break down of these social casts we can begin to analyze these specific goals and gain a deeper understanding for the rationality of suicide terrorism. In Part II, this analysis will begin.

________________________________________________________________

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/06/the-logic-of-suicide-terrorism/302739/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/strategic-logic-of-suicide-terrorism/A6F51C77E3DE644EBD20ADE176973547

PAPE, R. (2003). The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. American Political Science Review, 97(3), 343-361. doi:10.1017/S000305540300073X

[southcarolinaprelawland]

The Breathalyzer Test: A Test So Legal You Can’t Say No

By Emily Rogers, Clemson University Class of 2020

September 25, 2017

           The breathalyzer test, a tool used by police officers to measure an individual’s blood alcohol level (BAC), may legally be administered to any driver at the digression of a police officer.  The requirement to comply with this test is derived from implied consent, which is a concept that receives its power mainly from state law. However, implied consent and the legality backing the inability of an individual to refuse the breathalyzer test without legal penalties is supported by a ruling from the United States Supreme Court.

           Implied consent is the concept that by driving on public roads, the driver is considered to have agreed to be subject to a breathalyzer test [1].  This means that a driver can be administered a breathalyzer for any reason- or no reason at all. Implied consent’s power is backed primarily and explicitly in state law. In South Carolina, implied consent is iterated State Code 56-5-2950 [1]. In section 56-5-2950, subsection A states “A person who drives a motor vehicle in this State is considered to have given consent to chemical tests of the person’s breath, blood, or urine…” [1]. This phrase affects drivers because their breath can be tested, legally, at any time.  This code is the backbone of implied consent in the state of South Carolina.  

           A lot of the power behind implied consent comes from the punishments and individual may be subject to if they do not comply with a breathalyzer test.  The possibilities for what happens if an individual refuses a BAC test comes from the state code 56-5-2951, which dictates punishment for not agreeing to said BAC test [1]. The main outcome of refusal of a BAC test is the suspension of the person’s license [1]. This can lead to hearings and a restricted driver’s license. A person who does not agree to be subject to a breathalyzer test can be subject to similar penalties as an individual who fails a breathalyzer test.

          The federal support for implied consent andan unwarranted BAC test is derived from the supreme court case Birchfield v. North Dakota, which took place in 2016 [2]. Danny Birchfield was arrested in North Dakota for refusing to take a breathalyzer test or have blood drawn [2].  It was illegal in North Dakota’s state law to refuse to be subject to some form of BAC test. Therefore, Birchfield was charged with “a misdemeanor violation of the refusal statue” [2].  

Birchfield argued that the Fourth Amendment protects him from being charged as a criminal for refusing to be subject to this search of his person [2].  However, in a 5-3 decision[3], the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional to administer a warrantless breathalyzer test, but not a warrantless blood test.  Due to this, Danny Birchfield’s case was overturned because he was charged for refusing a blood test [3]. 

The Supreme Court based its decision to allow warrantless breathalyzer testsoff of a separate Supreme Court case, Riley v. California[2]. In this case, the Court determined that a warrant may be exempt by weighing “the degree to which is intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and… the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests” [2]. It is in the interest of the government to prevent of drunk driving for safer roads; therefore, administering a breathalyzer test without a warrant is constitutional.   The Supreme Court ruled that the breathalyzer test “entails a minor inconvenience” to the person being tested [2].  An unwarranted blood test is not allowed because they are more intrusive to the individual, violating their privacy, whereas a breathalyzer test does not involve piercing the person’s skin [2].  

The legality of unwarranted BAC tests in the form of breathalyzer testsaffects drivers because it means these individuals may be subject to one when pulled over or stopped by a police officer.  A police officer has the power to administer a breathalyzer test at his or her digression.  It is important for all drivers to know about implied consent and how it can be enforced because it can affect drivers in their lives.  Implied consent affects drivers at sobriety checks and when they may be pulled over.   Technically, a person may still decide against taking a breathalyzer test, but by not being subject to a breathalyzer test, this person may still be subject to criminal prosecution.

________________________________________________________________

[1] “South Carolina Code of Laws: Unannotated.” South Carolina State Legislature, Title 56,http://scstatehouse.gov/code/t56c005.php. Accessed 21 Sep. 2017.

[2] “Birchfield v. North Dakota: Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.”  The Supreme Court, 23 June 2016, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf. Accessed 21 Sep. 2017.

[3]Kopan, T., & de Vogue, A. “Supreme Court Oks warrant-less breathalyzer tests in drunk driving arrests.”  CNN, 23 June 2016,  http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/supreme-court-drunk-driving-breathalyzers-birchfield/index.html.  Accessed 21 Sep. 2017.

[4] “The Bill of Rights: A Transcription.”  National Archives, Amendment IV, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-iv-2 . Accessed 22 Sep. 2017.

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Dog Attacks And The Law Of Breed Specific Legislation

By Kayla Basenese, Coastal Carolina University

August 25, 2017

Dog attacks have long been a serious problem that requires both special and delicate attention. With many external factors to consider, any situation involving such an attack can go in many differing ways; predominately in the most negative way possible. Often, an entire breed tends to suffer solely based on negative media images and a negative stigma attached to the targeted breed. With the rise of dog fighting in the 1980s came a new tactic for controlling aggressive dog breeds. This strategy is currently known as breed specific legislation. BSL is a relatively new and emerging attempt at controlling dog breeds that are typically perceived as dangerous, or in other words viewed as genetically aggressive. BSL refers to laws that either ban or regulate certain breeds in effort to decrease attacks on humans and also other types of animals.

As a touchy and even discriminatory topic, BSL typically compromises the pit bull class of dogs. This includes breeds such as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and English Bull Terriers. (1). In some areas, this legislation also targets breeds including American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, and any other mix of these breeds. A breed specific ban usually requires any of the above listed breeds to be removed from the area, and in even some extreme cases be killed by animal control. Restrictions on the other hand, may require owners to spay or neuter the dog, muzzle the dog, purchase liability insurance, keep the dog on a leash at all times, or even make the dog wear a tag indicating their dangerousness.

The problem of dangerous dogs however, cannot simply be fixed by such a vague and quite inefficient way. In “The Fiscal Impact of Breed Discriminatory Legislation in the United States”, John Dunham et. Al found that financial cost of breed specific legislation significantly outweighs the benefits. The total estimated annual cost to enforce BSL is $476,973.320, and with an already underfunded animal control program, this could also end up costing individual communities even more money. Some of these costs include but are not limited to: enforcement, kenneling, veterinary care, litigation costs, DNA testing, increased shelter space, and increased shelter staffing (2). Plenty of research has shown that such legislation has not affected the outcome of dog attacks on other animals or humans, but instead has caused many dogs to be put down and ripped from their family homes simply because of an image.

John Dunham says it best: “The nature of this method of identification allows the possibility for error by allowing legally permitted dogs to be captured and euthanized solely based on a person’s opinion on the dog’s breed make-up” (2). Allowing others to decide which dogs are dangerous produces the worst possible effects by solely pinning all the responsibility on the dog. ASPCA lists some alternatives to breed specific laws as: enforcement of license laws, availability to low cost sterilization, dog laws that remain breed-neutral and focus more on the guardian, laws that hold dog guardians legally and financially responsible for any mishaps, and laws that prohibit chaining or unreasonable confinement of dogs (3). These specific alternatives will not necessary fix the issue of dangerous dogs, but it certainly is a start to eliminating the discriminatory laws currently in place. Overall, it is time for a new and more effective way at preventing dog attacks and improving the relationship between man and dog. 

________________________________________________________________

1.     https://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/

2.     http://bestfriends.guerrillaeconomics.net/assets/site/res/best%20friends%20methodology%20and%20write%20up.pdf

3.     https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/dog-fighting/what-breed-specific-legislation

Photo Credit: en:File:Chaman 001.jpg by User:Celticoak en:File:AmStaff6.jpg by User:Tatanga 2006 en:File:Pitbull (Bernnie).jpg by User:Marthy en:File:American_Bulldog_600.jpg by User:sannse

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Making a Case for Racial Profiling

By: Margaret Sasser, University of South Carolina Class of 2018

August 1, 2017

It’s looks like 2017’s airline drama isn’t letting up anytime soon. In early July, rap trio Migos was supposedly removed from a Delta flight to Des Moines for no clear reason. Naturally, there are two sides to how the event played out.

According to Delta representatives, the rappers repeatedly ignored pre-flight instructions from attendants. When Kirshnik Ball (Takeoff), one of the group’s members, still had his bag on the ground rather than properly stored in the overhead, Delta employees made the decision to remove him from the flight. The other members, Kiari Cephus and Quavious Marshall (Offset and Quavo), along with their manager subsequently exited the plane as well. Considering that they were in their way to a show scheduled for that evening in Iowa, the men were extremely frustrated.

The rappers insisted that their removal from the flight was an act of racial profiling and entirely unjust. They claimed to have fallen asleep in their seats after boarding, and consequently didn’t hear any of the flight attendants’ instructions. This implies that the airline was hasty with kicking Ball off the plane rather than simply asking him to store his luggage correctly.

All in all, the only people who really know what happened on the plane that afternoon are the employees and Migos themselves. Racial profiling is defined by using race or ethnicity to make judgements on someone’s actions or intentions. It’s important for anyone making a case for racial profiling to have significant evidence, whether that be recordings or photos, to help prove the case to a judge.

________________________________________________________________

http://variety.com/2017/music/news/migos-kicked-off-delta-flight-racial-profiling-1202490139/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/migos-kicked-off-delta-flight_us_5960d212e4b0d5b458eab154

Photo Credit

https://www.instagram.com/p/BWRQhTlBiA-/?taken-by=migos&hl=en

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Coastal Carolina Cheerleading Scandal

By Sydney Dash, Coastal Carolina University Class of 2018

May 14, 2017

Currently under investigation the Coastal Carolina Cheerleaders are being accused of obtaining a escort service.The investigation is ongoing and the team remains suspended until further notice.  It all started after an investigator from the CCU Department of Public Safety came to their cheerleading practice Wednesday night and told the team that someone sent an anonymous letter to the school president stating the team was allegedly involved in a long listing of inappropriate actions. Prostitution being the major action on the list, and that some of the ladies worked as shot girls in local Myrtle Beach Strip Clubs. After an anonymous letter was sent to Mr David Dezenzo the President of the Coastal Carolina  the investigation immediately began. The letter reveal more appropriate act that the cheerleaders participated in such as buy alcohol for minor, and pay others in exchange to do their school work. As we expected the parent of the cheerleaders are furious of the quick decision to suspend the entire team based upon one letter.

There were rumors said by another anonymous source that through interviews with current and former cheerleaders and text messages, she determined that four cheerleaders “were and are currently” involved in an online dating service called SeekingArrangement. It was a online dating service gaining benefits of clothes and money it was said that there was no sexual favors performed from the cheerleaders to the clients. Public records released by the state informed that 11 of the cheerleaders knew about the escort serves and remaining 7 had no knowledge.  After recently creating a group twitter account from the cheerleaders they released a statement saying: “ The false accusations has led to harassment on the campus  as well as on social media. They ask that as a community they support through tough times and remain calm until the situation is cleared up shortly”. ( The Daily Mail ). Under the suspension the cheerleaders will not be able to attend the national dance competition in Florida and possibly may not get a refund for all the money they have raised so far to attend the competition. The team remains suspended, though the cheerleaders are being allowed to attend class. Until more evidence is released the parent will remain with the saying “ False Allegations” and the university will remain the case as open and pending.

[southcarolinaprelawland]

How The Country Least Interested In Soccer Is Trying To Save It

By Emma Cohn, College of Charleston class of 2017

June 7, 2015

On May 27th Swiss police arrested nine FIFA officials and five corporate executives in a hotel in Zurich, after an investigation into the organization lead to allegations of bribery and corruption. However, it was not the Swiss that lead the investigation. The arrests and indictment of these personnel was the result of a four-year investigation into the governing body of soccer by the F.B.I. Since the 27th four more officials and two more executives have been charged as well, bringing the total number of people charged with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption to 14. After years of being accused for corruption, FIFA finally got what was coming to them.

For years major decisions made by FIFA affecting World Cup host countries, TV deals, and governing positions, were used as bartering chips for FIFA officials to cash in on. The official federal indictment included 47 counts of corruption including bribery, fraud, and money laundering. Whether the cash was stored in briefcases like in the movies or stored in offshore bank accounts, either way the money was being used for personal use. A BBC investigation revealed that former Vice-President Jack Warner, one of the indicted officials, used his $10 million dollars worth of bribe money to pay off credit card debts. This scandal has further tarnished FIFA’s already poor reputation, and has forced FIFA’s president Sepp Blatter (who was not arrested)to step down after being re-elected in the aftermath of the arrests.

The day of the arrests Attorney General Loretta Lynch along with the I.R.S Criminal Investigation unit and the F.B.I explained their involvement in the indictment and arrests made in Switzerland. According to the New York Times interview with Lynch, “United States law allows for extradition and prosecution of foreign nationals under a number of statutes, and court documents say that the activity affected interstate and foreign commerce, and took place in part in New York’s Eastern District.” As far as U.S officials are concerned, the indictment is only the beginning of their effort to remove corruption from the sport.

It is ironic to most that the United States was behind the investigation considering the unpopularity of the sport in the country. John Oliver put it best on his late night show when he said, “I don’t know what I’m more surprised by, that FIFA officials were actually arrested, or that America was behind it. It took the country that cares the least about football to bring down the people who have been ruining it.” Regardless, all can agree that this is a step in the right direction but that progress still needs to be made so that we can all go back to enjoying The Beautiful Game.

______________________________________________________________

1. Clifford, Stephanie, and Matt Apuzzo. "After Indicting 14 Soccer Officials, U.S. Vows to End Graft in FIFA." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 May 2015. Web. 07 June 2015. 2. Locker, Melissa. "Watch John Oliver's Rematch With FIFA on 'Last Week Tonight'" Time. Time, 1 June 2015. Web. 07 June 2015. 3. "Report: U.S. Investigating Outgoing FIFA President Sepp Blatter For..." BuzzFeed. N.p., 28 May 2015. Web. 07 June 2015 4. Thomas, Ed. "Fifa Corruption: Documents Show Details of Jack Warner 'bribes' - BBC News." BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 June 2015.