Lab Techs Required to Provide In-Court Testimony, For Now

Last year, I prepared and argued a series of appeals for a man convicted in Washtenaw County of sexual assualts near Eastern Michigan University.  He received life sentences in six separate cases.

The primary issue in each case was identification.  Due to the way the victims were raped, they never saw their attacker's face.  Condoms and other precautions minimized physical evidence left at the respective crime scenes.

In one of the cases, however, Washtenaw County Sheriff detectives were able to recover a small semen sample.  The Michigan State Police crime lab contracted with an out-of-state forensic laboratory that produced a report concluding the sample matched the defendant's DNA.

At defendant's trial, the Washtenaw County Prosecutor called the MSP lab tech and the out-of-state lab tech to testify about the matching DNA.  On appeal, I argued that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated because the out-of-state lab tech relied on procedures and internal reports created from other technicians that were not present in court to testify.

Defendant's convictions were affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals and his petitions for writs of certiorari to the Michigan Supreme Court were denied last summer.  Around the same time, however, the United States Supreme Court decided Melendez-Diaz -v- Massachusetts.

In the Melendez-Diaz case, Suffolk County, Massachusetts law enforcement utilized lab "affidavits" concluding that a seized substance was cocaine.  The Supreme Court held that such an affidavit was insufficient to convict and that the lab technician must testify in open court.

In the few short months since the Melendez decision, law enforcement and prosecutors have raised an outcry about the increased costs and difficult logistics associated with producing the in-court testimony of lab techs.  The defense bar, on the other hand, has hailed the decision as a victory for individual constitutional rights.

In a rare move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for January 2010 in Briscoe -v- Virginia; a case raising the same issue the high court so recently decided in Melendez-Diaz.  The New York Times has speculated that Briscoe will not overturn but rather, simply explain and clarify the Court's earlier ruling on lab technicians.  One such procedure would be to make lab technicians available for cross-examination rather than requiring their testimony in the prosecutor's case-in-chief.

At this date, my client is left with only a series of federal court habeas corpus petitions based on the Sixth Amendment.  Although his state-court remedies have been exhausted, the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, discussed above, will have a significant impact on his habeas petitions soon to be pending in federal court.

The slightly increased cost to the state of securing the in-court testimony of all the lab techs that worked on his DNA sample is a small price to pay for our collective constitutional liberties.

The goal of a criminal defense at trial is to force the government to prove the elements of their case.  The goal of all criminal appellate representation is to ensure that the defendant's trial and sentencing were fair. Without these safeguards, our Sixth Amendment right to counsel is meaningless.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: criminal attorney Oakland County Michigan,DNA,Eastern Michigan University,habeas corpus,Michigan State Police,Sixth Amendment,Washtenaw County Circuit Court

Judges Cannot "Friend" Lawyers Via Social Media Says Florida Supreme Court

A few of my Facebook friends are judges.  They've taken a low profile on the news feed.  Will Michigan's Judicial Tenure Commission, formed in 1968 via constitutional amendment, seek to outlaw such social network connections like the State of Florida?

In Florida, the Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued a 11/17/2009 decision, holding that judges may not connect with attorneys on Facebook, or similar social networking media.  The Committee's decision is based on a Florida's judicial canon prohibiting the appearance that a lawyer, or anyone else, is in a special position to influence the judge.

Floridian judges, however, remain free to post comments to their non-lawyer "friends", and can develop "fan pages" to help with their reelection campaigns.  Only the attorney-judge connection is now taboo in Florida.
The Ethics Advisory Committee stated that, "judges cannot isolate themselves entirely from the real world and cannot be expected to avoid all friendships outside of their judicial responsibilities, some restrictions upon a judge’s conduct are inherent in the office."


Ethics are catching-up slowly with attorneys and judges in the web 2.0 world.  Some states, like Louisiana, New York, and now Florida, have taken a restrictive view of lawyer's and judge's permissible activities on such sites.  


Linked-In, Twitter, and Facebook remain available to our judges.  You can expect Michigan's never shy Judicial Tenure Commission to address the situation as soon as the right case rolls around.  Shouldn't be too long... Stay tuned.


info@clarkstonlegal.com


www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Facebook,Florida Supreme Court,Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee of Florida,Linked In,Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission,Twitter

Washtenaw County Guardianship Spotlights Problematic Surrogate Arrangements

A recent Washtenaw County Probate matter received national attention over the weekend by appearing on the front page of the Sunday NYT, in an "above-the-fold" article by Stephanie Saul.  The guardianship case involved a surrogacy contract between a Kent County couple and the surrogate mother from Ypsilanti.

Amy Kehoe and her husband contracted with both egg and sperm donors, then arranged for Laschell Baker to serve as the gestational surrogate.  The Grand Rapids couple located Baker from the surromomsonline web site.  The would-be parents also contracted for services with IVF Michigan, a fertility clinic.

Neither the Kehoes nor Ms. Baker had any legally recognized biologic connection to the babies; twins born in July.  The babies spent their first month with their would-be parents, the Kehoes, but were then removed by the surrogate's successful probate petition for temporary guardianship.

Problems arose when the Kehoes appeared in the Washtenaw Probate Court for the agreed upon guardianship transfer from the surrogate to the Kehoes.  According to the NYT, Mr. Kehoe disclosed at the hearing that his wife had been treated for a mental disorder. 

In Michigan, the Surrogate Parenting Act prohibits contracts for gestational surrogacy services in exchange for fees as void on public policy grounds.  In addition, surrogacy for profit is a five-year felony.  The Act does not create parental rights for would-be parents who arrange for the creation of a baby.

In 1992, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Act in the case of John Doe -v- Michigan Attorney General, holding:

As overwhelmingly repugnant as the thought may be, unbridled surrogacy for profit could encourage the treatment of babies as commodities. Whatever sense of idealism that may motivate a fertile woman into hosting a pregnancy for an infertile couple is rent asunder by the introduction of the profit motive. It could be only a matter of time before desirable, healthy babies would come to be “viewed quantitatively, as merchandise that can be acquired, at market or discount rates.” O'Brien, Commercial Conceptions: A Breeding Ground for Surrogacy, 65 NCLR 127, 144 (1986). As the New Jersey Supreme Court commented in In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396, 440, 537 A.2d 1227 (1988): “In a civilized society, there are some things that money should not be able to buy.” In our opinion, babies ought to be one of those things.

Ohio's Ninth Appellate District, in J.F. -v- D.B., 116 Ohio St 3rd 363 (2007), discussed but declined to follow the Michigan Court of Appeal's Doe case.   To date, only California allows enforcement of surrogacy contracts where the inchoate parents have no biological connection to the baby.

In the Washtenaw County case, the surrogate mother denies there was a commercial surrogacy contract, claiming she carried the twins gratutiously, only seeking reimbursement for her medical expenses.  Ms. Kehoe disputes this, blames Michigan's poor laws on this subject, and views Ms. Baker as a child-thief.

The Washtenaw Probate case draws attention to the lack of laws or guidelines relating to custody issues for children born under such circumstances.  In this case, although neither set of competing parents had a biological connection to the child, although neither set of parents filed for adoption, the surrogate was awarded custody.  

Ms. Kehoe has stated that her health issues are under control, but can no longer afford a sustained legal challenge to the surrogate's petition for guardianship of the twins.  She also claims that lawyers have advised her that custody of the twins is unlikely.  For her part, Ms Baker asserts that she never would have agreed to be the gestational carrier had she known about Kehoe's mental health history.

The case begs the question: does a surrogate mother have parental rights superior to those of a would-be parent that contracts for the creation of an infant?  Intermediate appellate review of the Washtenaw Probate Court, or perhaps some different procedural maneuvers, could have improved Kehoe's chances for temporary guardianship and possible custody.

This issue is sure to surface repeatedly in the context of gay couples, as the battle over gay marriage is waged on a state-by-state basis.  More gay couples want to complete their families with children of their own.  Surrogacy and adoption are the primary means to this end.  For an excellent introduction on the subject of gay surrogacy agreements, view this NYT video clip.  The American Bar Association, offering assistance to state legislatures and family court judges, has published a Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Updates: The NYT's Ms. Saul stays on the case, reporting on a decision issued in the New Jersey surrogacy case over the holidays.  The New Jersey family court judge ruled that the gestational surrogate was the "legal mother" thus, she had the right to challenge custody of the twin girls she delivered in 2007.  Also see Nathan Koppel's posting on the case in the WSJ's Law Blog.  Stay tuned on this one, as the trial is scheduled for this spring.

With the 21st Century marching forward, some of our more traditional institutions, i.e. "family" and "marriage", are coming under pressure to evolve; to become more inclusive and less exclusive.  Litigated surrogacy contracts are but one marker in this social evolution.

What will the definition of "Mother" be at the end of this new decade?

More Updates: Check out local Detroit WDIV television's coverage of the Washtenaw County surrogate twins case on Sun. January 10, 2010.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

Read more »

Posted in: adoption,American Bar Association,Amy Kehoe,Assisted Reproductive Technology,Laschell Baker,Nathan Koppel,Stephanie Saul,surrogacy,surrogate,Washtenaw County Probate Court

Congress vs NCAA

As the holidays approach, college football fans once again work up their annual lather over how to end the season, and crown a national champion; or not.

Last year was controversial.  This year features two undefeated teams (Boise State and TCU) that have no chance of playing each other under the present Bowl Championship Series.  So now, our Congress is getting involved?

This week, Joe Barton, (R-Texas) introduced a bill that would proscribe the promotion, marketing, or advertising of any post-season Division I college football game as a "championship" unless it is the final game of a single-elimination tournament.  Good luck with that.

One criticism of the proposed legislation is that it may violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  While commercial speech may be closely scrutinized to prohibit untruthful or misleading messages, regular speech has the full protection of the First Amendment.

Some of you may be wondering, what is the government interest protected by this proposed bill?  Should Congress be discussing and debating college football?  Will President Obama sign it into law?

Perhaps we should simply put this down as another fine "slice of life" in the workings of our Democracy.  Besides, the annual debate among professional sports writers over who's best in football adds spice to the holiday season.

Read more »

Posted in: 1st Amendment,BCS,Congress,constitution,First Amendment,Joe Barton,NCAA

Supreme Court Makes Getting Your Day in Federal Court Much More Difficult

The case of Ashcroft -v- Iqal involved the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks in 2001.  The case is quickly becoming known, however, for placing significant procedural hurdles in the way of a litigant's access to federal court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, left, wrote the 5-4 opinion for the high court, published last May.

The case was brought by federal detainees held, and allegedly abused, in make-shift detention centers in the Bronx shortly following the attacks on the World Trade Center. 
Javaid Iqball and other detainees filed suit in the United States District Court in New York City against former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and former FBI Director Robert Mueller. 

Unlike most cases, the plaintiffs in Iqbal had the benefit of over 100 depositions prior to filing their suit.  Thus, the initial complaint has many pages of detailed allegations. 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a complaint must contain, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the Supreme Court has ruled in earlier cases that Rule 8 does require sufficient factual allegations, assumed to be true, that state a claim that is "plausible on its face."

Ashcroft and Mueller asserted their official acts were cloaked with "qualified immunity" and moved to dismiss the suit. The federal trial judge in Manhattan, in denying the FRCP 8 motion for summary judgment, held Iqbal's detailed allegations of abuse were sufficient to survive dismissal. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, rejecting a heightened pleading standard in a well-reasoned 92-page opinion, concluding:

Nevertheless, as a result of the Supreme Court’s precedents interpreting Rule 8(a), it is possible that the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a former Attorney General of the United States will have to submit to discovery, and possibly to a jury trial, regarding Iqbal’s claims. If so, these officials -FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft -may be required to comply with inherently onerous discovery requests probing, inter alia, their possible knowledge of actions taken by subordinates at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Prisons at a time when Ashcroft and Mueller were trying to cope with a national and international security emergency unprecedented in the history of the American Republic.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Second Circuit's rationale, reversing the intermediate appellate court's decision. Many legal professionals now fear that Iqbal's failure to state a claim will be the blue print for federal judges to routinely prune their dockets of all-manner of plaintiff's claims.

In reversing the Second Circuit, Justice Kennedy's opinion stated:

Iqbal’s pleadings do not comply with Rule 8... Several of his allegations—that petitioners agreed to subject him to harsh conditions as a matter of policy, solely on account of discriminatory factors and for no legitimate penological interest; that Ashcroft was that policy’s “principal architect”; and that Mueller was “instrumental” in its adoption and execution—are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true. Moreover, the factual allegations that the FBI, under Mueller, arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men, and that he and Ashcroft approved the detention policy, do not plausibly suggest that petitioners purposefully discriminated on prohibited grounds. Given that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated by Arab Muslims, it is not surprising that a legitimate policy directing law enforcement to arrest and detain individuals because of their suspected link to the attacks would produce a disparate, incidental impact on Arab Muslims, even though the policy’s purpose was to target neither Arabs nor Muslims. Even if the complaint’s well-pleaded facts gave rise to a plausible inference that Iqbal’s arrest was the result of unconstitutional discrimination, that inference alone would not entitle him to relief: His claims against petitioners rest solely on their ostensible policy of holding detainees categorized as “of high interest,” but the complaint does not contain facts plausibly showing that their policy was based on discriminatory factors.

In the 18-months since the Iqbal decision, the case has attracted the attention, and ire, of many legal professionals fearful this precedent will block access to federal court. In particular, plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination now face a higher hurdle at the pleading stage.

Case in point: last month the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled the former U.S. Solicitor General (the government's litigator) about the case. The Democratic senators complained that the case will prevent legitimate cases from seeing the light of day in federal court.

Michigan Connection: U.S. Representative John Conyers has co-sponsored a bill seeking to re-write FRCP 8(a) such that litigants bringing their claims will not face sure dismissal based on the high court's Iqbal decision. Stay tuned.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: 9-11,John Ashcroft,Justice Anthony Kennedy,Robert Mueller,summary judgment,United States Supreme Court

Second Amendment May Gain Some Ground

Nearly a decade post-9/11, the forgotten amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, may gain some ground here at the beginning of the 21st Century.  Several state attempts to erode this right have been subjected to successful constitutional challenges.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Robert Ord -v- District of Columbia, reversed a trial court's dismissal of one such gun owner's challenge, remanding the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Robert Ord, a licensed investigator, also licensed to carry a weapon in Virginia, will now be able to develop his case; a case that asserts that the mere threat of prosecution in nearby District of Columbia, where he frequently works, constitutes damages.  One interesting aspect of this case is that Ord was never arrested, nor were his weapons seized.  He claims the objectionable government action was the issuance of a warrant; a warrant Ord claims was obtained by the police in bad faith.

This spring (March 2010), the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a gun-ordinance case from Illinois, McDonald -v- Chicago.   Michigan's Attorney General recently filed an amicus brief in the case.  In the Chicago gun case, the issue for determination by the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment is incorporated (thus applicable) to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause such that Chicago's gun-ordinance banning guns in private homes is unconstitutional. 

A good primer on this age-old issue can be found on the official blog of the U.S. Supreme Court; known as SCOTUS.  The high court's blog post surveys the historical context of the Second Amendment with a focus on the modern ordinances and state laws that attempt to limit gun possession due to it's correlation with violent crime.

The high-court petitioner(s) in these gun cases are citizens claiming a constitutionally-protected right to bear arms. They assert that the state cannot unreasonably restrict this right with its laws or ordinances.

These cases pit the power of the government against the fundamental liberty interests of the individual.  The tension between the two continues to be the glue of our Democracy, just as it was in colonial times when these concepts were debated in Philadelphia, Boston and Washington.

In the decade since 9/11, various powers of the federal government have expanded under President Bush. At the state level, however, the individual right to bear arms may hold ground. The McDonald and the Ord cases are crucial milestones for the highly revered Second Amendment.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: District of Columbia,McDonald,Robert Ord,Second Amendment,U.S. Court of Appeals,U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Juvenile Lifer Cases from Florida

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases from Florida involving life sentences for juvenile offenders: Graham v Florida and Sullivan v Florida. What makes these cases interesting, and thus important, is that the victims in the cases were not killed, yet the offenders received life sentences without parole. A published decision will follow soon.

Here in Michigan, pursuant to a network of statutes, a juvenile may be tried as an adult. Michigan also has a variety of offenses which call for life sentences. There are no juvenile offenders, however, serving life sentences for non-leathal offenses in Michigan.

The question before the Supreme Court this week was whether a life sentence should be flat-out banned for non-lethal juvenile offenders. Chief Justice Roberts seemed to be lobbying his fellow-justices to provide the juvenile offender the opportunity to emphasize his "youth" under an 8th Amendment "cruel and unusual punishment" analysis. Roberts' approach was an alternative to the outright ban sought by the attorneys for the youths. He seemed to favor a "proportionality" analysis.

Full analysis of Justice Roberts' approach to the argument in this case is found on the SCOTUS blog.

There are about 100 such youth sitting in prisons on life sentences for non-lethal convictions; most of them in Florida, which has approximately three quarters. A recent NYT article suggests that tourism in the state may have been a factor in so many harsh sentences handed down to youths committing serious crimes in Florida.

Professional court watchers sensed sympathy for the youthful convicts from some of the Justices. A few seemed to favor a constitutional prohibition of such sentences. The rationale for the ban is cruel and unusual punishment. A secondary argument is that such youthful offenders could benefit from habilitation.

Other (more conservative) Justices seemed less sympathetic, wondering where the age line should be drawn.

Without a clear majority on this issue, our prediction is that the court will decide the case down ideological lines, resulting in a plurality decision (i.e. no clear majority in the opinion, with several justices writing separately from their colleagues).

The case also calls into question the age-old tension between states' rights to define their own criminal laws in accord with local mores and sentiments, and the constitutionally guaranteed rights of all citizens, regardless of the criminal code of the state in which they are convicted.

We will await the high court's decision and keep you posted on the result along with some of the other cases we are following. In the meantime, if a juvenile member of your family has been accused of a serious crime, contact our firm to discuss your options.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Chief Justice Roberts,Florida,juvenile law,sentencing,U.S. Supreme Court

Two Day Jury Trial in Oakland Circuit Results in Not Guilty Verdict

Just before the holiday, I heard the words that a defense attorney craves; "not guilty". I was in a two-day jury trial before Oakland County Circuit Judge John McDonald. I think he's a great judge, mostly because I've never lost a trial in his courtroom. This one made four straight.

The odds seemed stacked against acquittal, as usual. The principal charge was assault with intent to do great bodily harm (less than murder). The second count, commission of a felony with a firearm, carried a mandatory two-year minimum prison sentence upon conviction.

My client was a middle-aged woman with no criminal record. The alleged victim, however, had done 15-years in prison for armed robbery. After an evening of drinking and socializing, the two (in an on-again off-again relationship) retreated to my client's home. An argument boiled over and two shots were fired from a revolver. One shot hit the victim in the foot.

At trial, my client took the stand and testified she shot the weapon toward the "victim" in self defense. The jury believed her, and she avoided the two-year mandatory prison sentence.

One of the keys to the acquittal was effective cross-examination of the so-called victim. He was made to look foolish, admitting to contact with and agression toward my client.

The case illustrates how the tough plea policies of the Oakland County Prosecutor's office can sometimes force a jury trial.  In this case, the client was most concerned about doing two years in prison. She could appreciate the seriousness of the gun shots, and the significant injury one of the bullets did to her former boyfriend. Willing to do some jail time on an assault guilty plea, she could not bring herself to sign-up for two years in prison. But that's what the prosecutor wanted her to do.  They did not offer to drop the felony-firearm charge.

So the defendant rolled the bones and exercised her right to trial. In this case, it was worth the effort. This client saved two years of her life.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

Read more »

Posted in: assault with intent to do great bodily harm,felony firearm,Judge John McDonald,Oakland Circuit Court,Oakland County Prosecutor

Child Support Reduction & Collection Requests Flood Friend of Court

The pain is inflicted on both sides of the fence in family court cases across the state.  For those paying child support, and for its recipients, the depressed economy in Southeast Michigan is taking a toll.   

As a recent article in the Detroit News makes clear, the Friend of the Court in counties accross Michigan are scrambling to field the flood of requests filed to reduce child support, or to enforce an existing support order.  Most of the parents seeking a support reduction are doing so because they've either lost their job or have been handed a pay-cut.

Child support in Michigan is calculated using an algorithmic equation known as the Michigan Child Support Formula.  This formula is based on three main inputs: the payor's income, the recipient's income, and the number of overnight parenting sessions for the payor.  A payor's support obligation is modifiable if there is a "change in circumstance" to justify the request.  One such justification is when a payor, through no fault of his own, loses a job or suffers a significant decline in income. 

In difficult economic times, county Friends of the Court (the administrative arm of the family court) experience an increase in the volume of motions from payor's and custodial parents alike, seeking relief from the financial pain.  In the case of a payor, the support automatically deducted from his paycheck may exceed more than half of his take-home, especially when that "take home" is an unemployment check.  Across town, the custodial parent is used to receiving a certain amount of support to help make ends meet for the children.

When a party files a motion to modify his or her support, the matter is reviewed by a Friend of the Court Referee (a quasi-judicial official) before it goes to the family court judge.  Most FOC Referees utilize support specialists; professionals trained in the application of the child support formula.  The court rules provide for the Referee to make a recommendation to the judge regarding whether the payor's support should be reduced or not.

Each November, as the year-end approaches, parties realize there are only a few weeks left to get their matter heard before the courts shut down for the holidays.  Many scramble to file motions, hoping they can obtain some financial relief.  Wanting to save money, they forego hiring an attorney.  When a party files a motion on their own behalf, however, it can take quite a long time before the FOC grants them a hearing.

One advantage to hiring legal counsel is that the attorney knows how to get a client's motion on the dockett by the end of the year.  In addition, family law attorneys know the many angles and tricky aspects of the support formula, and how to apply that formula to a variety of compensation packages and parenting schedules.

According to the Detroit News, child support arrearages rose by approxiamtely $113 million from 2005 to 2008, although the number of support payors decreased.  These support arrears are expected to increase as unemployed payors lose their state benefits.  The situation has attracted the attention of Congress, which is proposing legislation designed to extend unemployment benefits for child support payors.

If you or a family member need relief from an acute child support situation, contact our law firm for immediate relief.  Our firm handles dozens of such cases throughout the year.  Our service is excellent and our fees reasonable.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

Read more »

Posted in: child support enforcement,Detroit News,Michigan Child Support Formula,unemployment

MIP Probation Violation Should Not Result in Jail

This post was originally uploaded to the electronic criminal lawyer in February 2009.  It has regained some relevance given the perennial campus law enforcement sweeps for underaged drinking.  Re-posted for your consideration:

Recent discussions between criminal defense attorneys comparing notes about district court judges in Oakland and Genesse counties have revealed that many of their MIP clients are subjected to jail sentences when they subsequently plead guilty to a violation of probation. The law prohibits any jail sentence for a minor that pleads guilty to possession of alcohol. In recent years, some district court judges have characterized violations as contemptable conduct, a misdemeanor that carries up to 93-days in jail. Other judges have simply ignored the law, tossing the probation violators in jail despite the protestations of their attorneys.

As the practice has spread among some judges in both Oakland and Genesse counties, members of the Criminal Defense Association of Michigan have began to organize a coordinated defense to the wrongful jailings.

The absurdity, on both sides of this coin, is never more manifest than in the annual law enforcement ritual of underage drinking sweeps, especially on college campuses. On the one hand, the sweeps advance the goal of reducing alcohol-related damage and injury. On the other hand, it can be viewed as an exploitive device designed to raise revenue for university heights. College binge drinking has been with us for a long time; perhaps a fresh look, prompted by criminal justice statistics, will tell us something about our college-age children and thus, something about ourselves.

If you or your family member is faced with a violation of probation charge and the underlying conviction was an MIP, contact a criminal defense lawyer before going to court. You could very possibly save you or your family member some jail time.

Read more »

NPR Critiques Michigan's Court-Appointed Defense Lawyers

National Public Radio recently ran a segment on its "All Things Considered" program which was highly critical of the way lawyers are appointed by county circuit courts to defend the indigent accused here in Michigan.  Click here to link to the full story.

The piece attracted dozens of comments.  NPR focused on one of the "bad apples"; Attorney Bob Slamenka from Detroit.  Slamenka just never seems to have sufficient time, energy or resources to pull-off competent representation of his court-appointed felony clients. 

In addition to a series of grievances, Slamenka is now notorious for his appellate representation of wrongfully-convicted sex offender, Eddie Lloyd.  Attorney Slamenk's appeal failed, as do the overwhelming majority of all appeals from criminal convictions in Michigan.  This is nothing new.  The problem arose, however, when Lloyd filed a grievance against Slamenka prompting the following response from the attorney:

"This is a sick individual who raped, kidnapped and strangled a young woman on her way to school. His claim of my wrongdoing is frivolous, just as is his existence. Both should be terminated."

Ultimately, Lloyd was proved innocent by DNA evidence but died just two years after his release from 17-years in prison.  Consequently, Slamenka's ill-worded grievance rejoinder is now "exhibit a" for  what is wrong with the court-appointed criminal defense system.

All attorneys represent criminal clients they suspect are guilty.  When the client loses his case, the attorney is often the first to blame.  The criminal defense attorney functions as a "constitutional warrior", forcing the government to prove its case, even when the odds are against success (for the accused).  If the criminal appellate attorney does his/her job properly, a convicted felon benefits from a well-researched and well-reasoned brief from which his conviction can be tested in the appellate courts.  This principle is fundamental to our system of criminal justice and separation of powers:  everyone gets the opportunity to appeal a conviction.

Unfortunately, Michigan does rank near the bottom of all states in the category of public resources devoted to indigent criminal defense.  In this era of fiscal short-falls, this will not change soon.  Roster attorneys with the Michigan Assigned Appellate Counsel System receive as many as one assignment each week from the Wayne Circuit Court.  These attorneys are paid about twenty five cents on the dollar for what their services are worth in the world of privately retained-counsel.  This type of public legal service is essential if our constitutional principles are to be sustained into the 21st Century.

It sure would be nice if cutting edge defense tools, such as DNA analysis, and the use of court-appointed experts, were available to exonerate the truly innocent.  Yet, unless the court-appointed attorney is focused on his game, all the funding in the world won't save the client.

If you, a family member or friend are in need of quality criminal representation, contact our law firm to discuss your options:
www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: criminal defense,Eddie Lloyd,National Public Radio,Slamenka

Mich Supreme Court Passes on DNA Paternity & Parenting Case

Every so often, the seven Justices of the Michigan Supreme Court have a golden opportunity to consider momentous legal issues arising from our county family courts.  As recently as last week, the Supreme Court had the chance to decide a crucial case involving the use of DNA to determine the rights of competing Fathers.

Suprisingly, however, the high court passed on the Genesse County Family Court's Lipnevicius case, remanding the matter to the Michigan Court of Appeals for a determination of parenting-related legal issues.

Months earlier, the Michigan Court of Appeals likewise took a pass on the case when it denied leave to appeal one of the lower court's orders. Essentially, by remanding the case, the Supreme Court is now forcing the intermediate appellate court to decide the issues, despite that court's earlier reluctance to do so.

The case arose in October 2006 when Mother filed for divorce and sought a determination that her husband was not the biological Father of their minor son.  (Note: In Michigan, there is a rebuttable presumption that children born during a marriage are the biological issue of that marriage for purposes of a divorce proceeding.)  DNA testing confirmed that husband was not the biological Father of the boy.

Complicating matters procedurally, bio-Dad (the "other man") was allowed to intervene in the divorce.  Also, Genesse Family Court Judge Michael Theile determined that Mother effectively rebutted the presumption of her husband's paternity with the DNA test.  For his part, Husband requested the family court judge to determine that he was the equitable father of the child, thereby granting him all the rights and responsibilities of a natural father.

The case came close to a trial in November 2008. Interlocutory appeals have since tied the matter up; the case has yet to have a divorce judgment entered as the matter runs its course. The tortous proceedings have included several collateral issues such as drug-testing for the parents, psychological evaluations for everyone, discovery motions, show cause hearings, and a change of domicile to Ohio.  Michigan's jurisdiction over the child also may be tested in the pending appeal.

Meanwhile, Bio-Dad has married Mother and the parents currently live together with their minor son.  The ex-husband has lost significant contact since the child, now 5, was only two years old at the time the divorce was filed. What a mess. 

In Michigan, the equitable parent doctrine was formally established more than 20-years ago in a Michigan Court of Appeals case, but has it's roots in the "equitable adoption" doctrine from over a century ago.  The doctrine seeks to take into account the love and support of a man serving as the true, day-to-day father of a minor child.  In the well-known 1987 divorce case of Atkinson v Atkinson, the Court of Appeals established the following test for application of the doctrine:

[W]e adopt the doctrine of equitable parent and find that a husband who is not the biological father of a child born or conceived during the marriage may be considered the natural father of that child where (1) the husband and the child mutually acknowledge a relationship as father and child, or the mother of the child has cooperated in the development of such a relationship over a period of time prior to the filing of the complaint for divorce, (2) the husband desires to have the rights afforded to a parent, and (3) the husband is willing to take on the responsibility of paying child support.

The equitable parent doctrine has a long tradition here in Michigan and is recognized in many other states.  Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, New York, Kansas, Oregon and Massachusetts all apply this paternity doctrine in one form or another.  The doctrine is for the benefit of the child, not the parent. 

The Lipnevicius case is destined to return to the Michigan Supreme Court.  Justice Marilyn Kelly, among others, believes the Supreme Court should decide the unique questions of law presented in the case rather than leaving development of the equitable paternity doctrine to the intermediate appellate court.

The case goes to the heart of what constitutes a family and a parent.  Unfortunately, in the modern era of no-fault divorce, given the seemingly ubiquitous nature of contemporary adultery, our family law jurisprudence needs devices such as the equitable parent doctrine in order to protect our children from ourselves.

If you need legal guidance in matters of a parenting schedule, paternity or custody, contact our office to discuss your legal options.

clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: DNA,equitable parenting doctrine,Judge Michael Theile,Justice Marilyn Kelly,Lipnevicius,Mich Court of Appeals,Mich Supreme Court,paternity

Oakland Prosecutor Sticks with Decision to Quit Sobriety Courts

From its inception in 2003 until January 2009, this Blogger (Timothy Flynn) was a member of the 52/2nd District's Sobriety Court.  This post is an update on a blog our firm posted back in May 2009.

In the earlier post, The LawBlogger addressed the situation with the Oakland County Prosecutor refusing to participate in sobriety courts across the county.  Jessica Cooper has stuck to this decision and she has been receiving much (negative) attention from discrict court judges and now, the Oakland Executive, Brooks Patterson.  Click here for the full article from the Oakland Press. 

In the article, Cooper makes clear that she does not think the sobriety court program is worth the expenditure.  Her comments, however, seem more directed to the Oakland Circuit Drug Court, which was a recent victim of budget cuts.  The statistics she cites (i.e. only 10 graduates) do not apply to the hugely successful district sobriety courts; they graduated thousands of defendants, sustain sobriety throughout the community and may have saved dozens of lives.  No one was ever sitting around singing "kumbaya" as Cooper imagines.  Rather, her APAs were working day after day, session after session, keeping people sober and out of jail.  I often found myself in discussions where I would be arguing for more jail time than the APA.

Here is the original post:

Jessica Cooper has demonstrated a top-down command structure since taking over the prosecutor's office in January. One of the commands from the top is that first-time drunk drivers charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI) are no longer offered the customary plea reduction to operating while "impaired". This new policy may result in unnecessary jury trials.


Having an OWI reduced to "impaired" provides two advantages: less stringent mandatory driver's license sanctions ordered through the Secretary of State (60-90 day restricted license compared to a 6-month hard suspension), and a lower driver's responsibility fee ($500 for two consecutive years, compared to $1000 each year). Other fines, costs and attorney fees are higher in the OWI context.

Even for first-time offenders, a reduction to impaired is not always offered in cases where the blood-alcohol level (BAC) far exceeds the legal limit. With the proscutor's new policy, however, there are no apparent exceptions, even where the BAC is relatively low.

The new policy has been informally acknowledged by numerous Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys over the past several weeks. Defense attorneys are now considering jury trials, where a simple plea to impaired would have resolved the case.

For repeat offenders, alcohol abuse treatment is mandatory and other punishments are increased. Sobriety or "drug courts" have sprang-up in the past several years to address the problem.

In another important policy development from Cooper's office, the Oakland County Prosecutor will no longer participate in these sobriety courts, now spread throughout Oakland County. A sobriety court emphasizes drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation over incarceration. Such courts utilize a team approach to manage the intensive probation process. Obviously, the "team" includes the prosecuting attorney, along with a therapist, probation officer, defense attorney, and judge.

The statistics emerging from these courts have forged a consensus among professionals throughout Michigan, and the nation; sobriety-style courts are effective in dealing with drug and alcohol abuse crimes. The Oakland County Prosecutor's office should be participating in society's effort to address irresponsible addictions. The end-result is safer public roadways.

Post Script: The public should not be confused by Cooper's blunt commentary regarding sobriety and drug courts. In the felony context, theraputic courts are dealing with a much tougher customer; in most cases such defendants are three-time felons with serious drug addictions. In the district courts, most defendants are simply struggling with alcohol and overall, have less troubling criminal records.

To contact our firm, click below:

clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Brooks Patterson,district court,Jessica Cooper,Oakland County Prosecutor,sobriety court,The LawBlogger,Timothy P. Flynn

Chief Justice Roberts to Attend Notre Dame Game at Big House

According to the Michigan Daily, the on-campus newspaper at the University of Michigan, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will speak today at Hill Auditorium as part of the events surrounding the UM Law School's 150-year anniversary; he will also attend the football game tomorrow versus Notre Dame.

In accepting the invite from the Law School, Justice Roberts apparently turned-down a $15,000 honorarium which UM says it never expected him to accept in the first place.  Talk about Ivory Tower politics...

Most of the impressive Law School events are “sold-out”.  Nevertheless, for the 100,000 plus fans expected to attend the classic fall matchup at the Big House, it’s nice to know you’re in supreme company.

Go Blue!

Read more »

Posted in: Go Blue,Justice John Roberts,Notre Dame,U.S. Supreme Court,University of Michigan Law School

The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act

Last November, Michiganders legalized the use of marihuana for medicinal purposes. The resulting legislation, known as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMA), has been widely criticized for being vague and confusing. This blog post summarizes the act and addresses some of the questions now arising in communities with licensed users and care providers.

Shortly after last fall's election, the Michigan Legislature passed the MMA on December 4, 2008, making Michigan the 13th state to allow the cultivation and possession of marihuana for medical purposes. The Act cited a series of findings related to the beneficial uses of marihuana in treating nausea, pain and other effects from a variety of debilitating medical conditions. The Act also notes that according to the FBI, 99% of all marihuana possession arrests nationwide are done pursuant to state, rather than federal law. It is important to note that possession of the drug remains illegal under federal law.

The MMA defines a "debilitating medical condition" as cancer, glaucoma, HIV, hepatitis C, and other diseases along with other chronic afflictions which cause pain and nausea.  A "primary caregiver" is defined as, "a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs."  A "qualifying patient" is "a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition."

The basic mechanics of the Act provide that qualifying patients and primary care providers (marihuana growers) must possess a "registry identification card", issued by the Department of Community Health.  Cardholders are not subject to arrest or prosecution for marihuana possession/distribution provided the patient keeps less than 2.5 ounces of smokeable pot.  Care providers are allowed to maintain up to 12 plants for each qualified patient; stems, seeds and unusable roots do not count toward the plant limitation.

Physicians also have immunity from prosecution relative to their certification of the patient's need for the drug, so long as they conduct an assessment of the patient's medical history.  A legitimate physician-patient relationship is required.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Conant vs Walters in 2003, physicians have been able to recommend a patient's use of marihuana (but cannot prescribe pot by placing the recommendation on a prescription form). Doctors can also make notes regarding their recommendations in the patient's chart and can testify on behalf of a patient's medical use of marihuana in a court of law. The Supreme Court's Conant decision paved the way for passage of the MMA.

Primary care providers may receive compensation for their marihuana.  Selling marihuana paraphernalia also is allowed under the MMA, and such paraphernalia cannot be seized.

Persons merely present during the use of marihuana for medical purposes likewise are not subject to arrest.

Sound too good to be true?  When marihuana is distributed to persons other than qualifying patients, the registration card is revoked, and the provider is subject to a 2-year felony.  Also, driving while under the influence of marihuana remains illegal, as does smoking in public. Use or possession of pot on school premises or on school buses remains prohibited. And yes, it remains illegal to smoke in a jail or a penitentiary, regardless of your medical condition.

The Act sets a short timetable (120-days) for the Department of Community Health to promulgate regulations for the administration of the possession/distribution credential.  The delay of these regulations is giving way to some confusion among law enforcement and the public as to the parameters of legal vis a vie illegal pot possession. 

For example, a recent case out of   Madison Heights involved a couple arrested in March during a drug-raid. The couple had applied for their certification cards prior to their arrest and received the cards a month after their arrest. In dismissing the case brought against the two defendants, 43rd District Judge Robert Turner characterized the MMA as, "the worst piece of legislation I've seen in my life", according to the Detroit News.  Judge Turner's dismissal was appealed by the Oakland County Prosecutor where it is currently pending before Oakland Circuit Judge Lisa Gorcyca.

If you have been charged with use, possession or distribution of marihuana, or are interested in obtaining an identification card, contact our office to discuss your options.

Post Script:  This topic made the front page of the Sunday NYT on 11/29/2009.  Take a look.

Read more »

Posted in: Judge Lisa Gorcyca,Judge Robert Turner,marihuana,marijuana,Michigan Medical Marihuana Act

U.S. Supreme Court to Re-Hear Argument on the "Hillary Movie" Case

On September 9th, the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court will end their summer recess early to return to Washington for a rare re-argument in what has turned out to be a momentus case: Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission.

The case involves federal regulation of the political documentary titled, "Hillary, The Movie", which took a critical look at the character and career of Ms Clinton back in her pre-presidential candidate days. The documentary was produced by a conservative advocacy group; Citizens United. The issue in the case arose when the group was denied permission from the FEC to distribute the short film via "on-demand" cable services.

Re-arguments at the high court are very rare, giving rise to speculation that the Supreme Court may be getting ready to issue a momentus decision. Such a decision comes at a critical time in our history relative to government control and influence over private business.

The chief issue in the case concerns application of the McCain-Feingold law which bans the use of corporate money in elections. Some argue this restriction puts a stake in the heart of free speech; others assert that the ban is necessary to avoid a flood of corporate election funding which would corrupt and pollute our democratic process. The FEC banned the Clinton documentary on the basis it was produced, in part, with corporate profits. Direct corporate-funding of political campaigns has been banned for more than 100-years in America (Tillman Act 1907).

The case also has a Michigan connection in that it could overturn a 1990 decision of the high court, Austin vs Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending in election campaigns.

The Supreme Court's decision to re-hear oral argument has prompted the filing of more than 40 "amicus" briefs from such disparate groups as the NRA and the ACLU. Stay tuned.

Read more »

Posted in: federal election commission,Hillary Clinton,McCain-Feingold,U.S. Supreme Court

The Legal Watercooler: Law School. Worth the gamble??

The Legal Watercooler: Law School. Worth the gamble??

Read more »

Passport Denied When Parent Owes Support Arrears

You are a non-custodial parent planning a vacation to Cancun with your kids. Your passport has lapsed and you apply for a new one, along with your children. Instead of receiving your passport, you get a letter from the Secretary of State denying your applications. Why?

Because you owe more than $2500 in child support, and because the custodial parent must assent to the passports for the kids. Child support enforcement has had a federal component for several years now.

Back in 2001, the U.S. government mandated that states align their child support accounts with state-wide computer programs. In Michigan, all county Friends of the Court have implemented the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES). MiCSES then certifies the support owed and reports those in arrears over $2500 to the Office of Child Support Enforcement, which is under the U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services (DHS). Next, DHS notifies the State Department which denies the passport application.

Also, in cases of divorce or custody disputes, both parents must execute passport applications for children under age 14 pursuant to the federal Two Parent Consent Law passed back in July 2001.

Once you are on the State Department's list, you do not automatically come off, even when the arrears are paid. Eventually, your passport will lapse and you will be unable to get a new one without a hassle. In addition, you may be stopped at the boarder unable to leave or re-enter the country. If this occurs, the DHS has summarized the steps you should take on its useful website: http://tinyurl.com/mdael3.

The MiCSES state-wide computer program has several automatic enforcement components in addition to passport denial. The computer automatically reports certified arrears to the U.S. Treasury and the State of Michigan for tax refund intercepts. Arrears are also automatically reported to credit bureaus.

If you are owed child support, or want to address an arrearage, contact our law office to discuss your options.

Read more »

Posted in: child support arrearage,Health and Human Services,passport,State Department

Law Firms Going Paperless, Slowly

Slowly but surely. That cliche best describes the pace at which area law firms are eliminating the paper clutter from their law offices.

As Southeast Michigan touts innovations such as "Automation Alley", the sluggish pace of paper elimination is frustrating to many legal practitioners. Colorado and a handful of other states already have state-wide paperless court systems. The federal courts have been paperless for years. In Oakland County, however, only a few judges have electronic filing as an e-pilot program. Fortunately, the experiment seems to be working.

In March 2003, Judge Joan E. Young, then the chief judge of the Oakland Circuit's family court, offered a standing-room-only presentation on the timeline for the court's so-called e-filing system. The audience consisted of attorney members of the Oakland County Bar Association, and courthouse staffers. In her presentation, Judge Young cautiously predicted that e-filing would be in place, in some form, by the end of 2004. She warned, however, that budget issues, tech contracts and other variables could slow the process.

Judge Young's timeline proved accurate and her concerns, well-founded. A partial implementation of the e-filing system took root in late 2004, with several circuit judges actively participating in the e-filing system. After lengthily budget debates, Oakland County hired a different IT contractor than the federal court's outstanding PACER system. The WIZNET system, selected by the Oakland County courts, works very well. Unlike PACER, however, users "pay per use" when accessing documents. PACER is free.

During the past 18-months, law firms have attempted to close the technology gap, and get their offices on board with e-filing. Despite court-ordered e-filing requirements, problems persist.

While a simple matter to transmit a basic pleading via email to the court and parties, complicated exhibits in a variety of sizes and shapes pose challenges. Also, some tribunals (such as case evaluators and mediators) will not accept e-filings. Some attorneys have not upgraded their Adobe Acrobat programs, essential for e-filing compatibility. Other attorneys cling to hard-copy files as a form of legal security blanket. Still other attorneys, incredibly, do not have computers. Many insurance defense attorneys refuse to sign stipulated orders with an agreed upon electronic protocol for filing pleadings and transmitting documents.

Perhaps the biggest frustration for attorneys is they have to maintain both file media, paper and electronic, while they wait for the "standard of care" to catch-up. This wastes effort and savages efficiency.

Despite these challenges, some cutting-edge practitioners are rising to the occasion. The paperless-file is not a trend but rather, reality. Law firms can eliminate wasteful consumption of paper and cut the costs of processing, storing and eventually eliminating paper files.

The flow of information comes ever-faster in the modern law office. Attorneys can manage this information much better if they do not have to worry about old-fashioned paper.

Read more »

Posted in: e-filing,Judge Joan E. Young,paperless

Oakland Sheriff's Marine Division Downsizing

You had to see this coming. In this era of government funding shortfalls, and given Brooks Patterson's ever watchful budgetary eye, the Oakland County Sheriff's Marine Division takes a funding hit.

Watercraft enthusiasts using Oakland County's many navigable lakes have all seen the Sheriff's white runabouts (with blue flashing stem-light) patrolling the county waterways on busy weekends and holidays. These units have probably kept a dampener on serious drunk driving by watercraft operators.

Such patrols will be eliminated after this season, according to the Sheriff's Department. This cutback does not mean the end of the Marine Division. But now, townships and municipalities will have to contract with the Sheriff if their waterway(s) are to be patrolled by the Marine Division.

The Macomb and Wayne County Sheriff Marine Divisions have international waterways to patrol as part of their mission. They both work with the U.S. Coast Guard and now, Homeland Security. In Oakland County, however, the primary focus of the Sheriff's Marine Division is safe boating. That goal has been achieved by enforcing the drunk driving laws on the lakes.

One of the challenges to this enforcement is the patchwork of local ordinances governing alcohol on the various lakes. Some Oakland County lakes, like Orchard Lake, prohibit alcohol. Many others, however, not only allow alcohol, the boat driver can have a beverage in his lap while operating the vessel.

Now, with the removal of most Oakland County Marine Division patrols, our waterways may become more dangerous, as some boaters (by nature, out there to have a good time) elect to imbibe more alcohol.

If you've recently been ticketed by one of the Oakland County Sheriff's Marine patrols, and would like to discuss your options, give us a call.

Read more »

Divorce in the NFL

Maximum temptation; continuous travel; lots of money. These are just some of the factors that contribute to the excessive divorce-rate among players in the NFL.

There are no solid statistics, but an unofficial poll along with anecdotal evidence puts the divorce-rate for NFL players at 70% according to a recent NYT article; significantly higher than the overall divorce-rate of about 50%.

Another statistic, perhaps correlated to the high rate of divorce among players, is that within two-years of their retirement, a shocking 78% of these NFL players are bankrupt, unemployed or divorced. There are good reasons for this.

Among professional athletes, football players have a rough row to hoe. They suffer more physical pain on average than in other sports due to the aggressive high-speed nature of their game. They have the shortest average career among all pro athletes; three and a half seasons according to the Players' Association. Contracts for the average player, while lucrative, are usually non-guaranteed and contain significant injury clauses. These stressors can transfer to the player's marriage.

The recent shooting death of one of the league's preeminent quarterbacks, Steve McNair, brings to a head the significance of an NFL player's retirement. McNair was widely perceived as the consummate family man. Married, but killed by his girlfriend, he is one player who sadly will not be adding to the NFL divorce-rate.

Most of us would blame McNair for his own fate. Some insiders, on the other hand, point to several factors that increase the toxicity of marriages among NFL players: rampant infidelity, the "trophy-wife" concept, women who target professional athletes, player entourages that tend to suppress the intimacy required if a marriage is to work.

Perhaps most significant is the painful transition of the athlete from the gridiron to retirement. Issues of self-worth come into play among a group of macho athletes not used to focused self-awareness and who have a seemingly genetic resistance to counseling.

Mothers, don't let your girls grow-up to be NFL wives...

Read more »

Prescription Privacy Rights

When we fill a prescription, most of us believe that action, along with our identity, is private. In fact, the name and dosage of the drug, the prescribing physician, and your own name and social security number become a commodity bought and sold in the medical data-mining industry.

A little-known provision buried in February's federal stimulus legislation, however, now requires pharmacy benefit managers, bankers, and medical claim processors to comply with Federal privacy and security regs. The new law is being fitted with federal regulations designed to give private rights some teeth; and violations a real bite.

Both Walgreens and CVS have been defending recent litigation claiming violations of patients' rights to privacy relative to their medical prescriptions. These corporate defendants have asserted that the information sold either has been encrypted or "de-identified"; a process where the patient's name is removed from the rest of the data.

In addition, the data-mining industry asserts that de-identified health data is critical for medical as well as for quality assurance measures such as tracking the side effects of drugs. The problem is manifest when computer-savy lawbreakers "re-identify" the data by cross-referencing several databases to link one's identity to one's roster of prescriptions. Once repackaged in this manner, the data becomes a valuable commodity in the medical data industry.

Another portion of the stimulus package of note to this post is the $20 billion incentive for physicians to digitize their records over the next five-years. Companies such as Google, Microsoft and WebMD all stand to gain from the information processing aspects of this digital push. Both WebMD and Microsoft acknowledge that the new Federal privacy rules apply to their companies. Google asserts, on the other hand, that its users are subject only to their privacy policy which is agreed to as a precondition to logging on.

Thus, the stage is set for a clash between the proponents of national medical database digitization and our basic right to privacy. The recent high-profile case of Farah Fawcett brought attention to the problem posed by data thieves. Ms Fawcett's cancer treatment records were illegally obtained and sold to the media.
While the digitization and transfer of data are now crucial to the health industry, strict privacy safeguards are needed. The question is, will they be enforced?

Read more »

Posted in: CVS,health care,prescription,privacy,stimulus legislation,Walgreens

Driving While Distracted by Cell Phone

Has the time come for drivers to give-up cell phones while operating their vehicles? In Michigan, more municipalities and jurisdictions are saying, "maybe". The cell phone lobby, however, says, "not yet", and continues to block state-wide cell phone bans.

Despite the efficiencies achieved by the now-ubiquitous cell phone, Royal Oak, Southfield and other jurisdictions have considered outlawing this form of "multitasking". Many other Oakland County municipalities have enacted "driving while distracted" provisions which enhance the fines assessed when a cell phone factors into a traffic violation.

Many would say, "it's about time." Even the cell phone lobby may be coming around. A recent Sunday New York Times front-page article describes how the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association recently changed its position opposing cell phone bans, to a more "neutral" stance. The Sunday Times article, which summarizes the scientific data compiled about distracted driving, can be found at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/mq6r4x

Although mounting statistics compare cell phone driving to drunk driving, eight states have enacted legislation that prevent municipalities from passing ordinances that prohibit cell phone use. Other states like California, New York and New Jersey, have banned hand-held devices while driving. Royal Oak and Southfield may be next.

If you have suffered injuries from a driver distracted by a cell phone, or have had a traffic citation enhanced because of it, contact us to discuss your options.

Update:  See comment below regarding an OP update.

Read more »

Posted in: distracted driving,drunk driving,fines,Karen Workman,ordinance

Custody and the 100-Mile Rule

The Michigan Legislature long-ago codified the rules of divorce in the Child Custody Act. One of the provisions in the Act addresses when one parent proposes to move:

"a parent of a child whose custody is governed by court order shall not change a legal residence of the child to a location that is more than 100 miles from the child's legal residence at the time of the commencement of the action in which the order is issued."

A recent published (thus binding) decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals provides guidance as to how those 100-miles are calculated.

In Bowers -v- VanderMuellen-Bowers, the parents had joint legal custody of their son. Father, who had been awarded so-called "physical custody", wanted to move from Big Rapids to Byron, Michigan. The distance was very close to 100-miles.

The lower court adopted a "radial-miles" calculation, rather than using "road-miles" as the Mother asserted. The radial-mile method of calculation involves a simple calculation using a ruler and a map to connect two points, "as the crow flies"; not as a vehicle would travel on actual roads. In the Bowers case, the distance would be more than 100-miles if actual road-miles were calculated, and the move could have been disallowed by the family court judge.

In affirming the lower court's radial-miles decision, the Court of Appeals borrowed analysis from a 2007 Michigan Supreme Court case interpreting the 20-mile restriction of a public employee's residence in the Public Officers & Employees Act. Therefore, Michigan Courts do not calculate miles the way they are calculated by Google Maps or Mapquest.

If you have a case that involves a proposed move of your child which you do not think is in the best interests of the minor child, contact our office to discuss your options.

Read more »

Posted in: 100-mile rule,change of domicile,custody,parenting time

Divorce and Facebook: Privacy Be Gone

Is there any privacy among partners in a marriage; among parties to a divorce proceeding? In this web 2.0 era, some people are their own worst enemy.

Photos or statements posted on the web lose all aspects of privacy. Deleting a post does not remove it from cyberspace. The Internet is rich terrain for discovery-seeking divorce lawyers.

In a divorce, it is advisable to maintain privacy and restrict confidences to one's professional counselors. Why then, are so many people drawn to plastering their every move -including their horrible gaffs- on the Internet via the web's easily accesible variety of social networking platforms?

A recent Time magazine article analyzes this trend in the divorce context:
http://tinyurl.com/m9n6lh
The article includes a link to five "Facebook Don'ts":
http://tinyurl.com/nml7vq

No doubt, lawyers can and do take advantage of web postings in custody battles and in the property division contest. If you need to have a web posting preserved, or have the source of a post tracked, contact our firm to assess your options.

Read more »

Posted in: divorce,Facebook,privacy,Web 2.0

Casino Winnings & Lawsuit Proceeds to be Attached for Child Support Arrears

The Michigan Senate is expected to pass a pair of bills designed to utilize proceeds derived from lawsuits and casino winnings, to satisfy past-due child support. The new law will require the recipient to provide notice of the expected windfall to the custodial parent.

In the case of lawsuit proceeds, the child support-payor's family court lawyer, or the litigator that obtains the proceeds for the payor, will be responsible to provide notice via ordinary mail of the payor's gains to the custodial parent. Gambling proceeds would be tapped when the casino checks a winner's name against a list of "deadbeats" supplied by the Michigan Support Disbursement Unit.

The bills, currently under consideration in the Senate's Family and Human Services Committee, may be submitted to Governor Granholm yet this legislative session.

The new provisions will provide modest indeterminate relief to the State of Michigan by replacing expenditures for other "means-tested" assistance programs. The proceeds gained from gambling and litigation windfalls are also expected to reduce administrative costs involved in tabulating and collecting child support.

If you are receiving child support or alimony, and are aware that the payor in your case has experienced a windfall, contact us to explore your rights to these proceeds.

Read more »

Posted in: casino winnings,child support arrearage,lawsuit proceeds

Identity Theft Concerns in Family Court Orders

The Michigan House of Representatives introduced a trio of bills which will require judgments of divorce, orders of filiation (between non-married parents) and child support orders, to omit parents' personal information.

Note: a parent's name and address are deemed outside the scope of the phrase "personal identifying information", as that term would be used in the legislation. Personal information is defined as: telephone number, driver license or state personal identification card number, Social Security number, place of employment, employee identification number, employer or taxpayer identification number, government passport number, health insurance identification number, mother's maiden name, demand deposit account number, savings account number, financial transaction device account number or the person's account password, stock or other security certificate or account number credit card number, vital record, or medical records or information.

These bills continue the Legislature's efforts to combat identity theft. Several years ago, social security numbers (once routinely included in a variety of support-related orders and divorce decrees) were precluded from being submitted to family court, even where a form or order contained a field for the information. Now, only the last four-digits are used, as it is a misdemeanor to include a person's social security number on a public document. The bills also come on the heals of the passage of the Identity Theft Protection Act in 2004.

The new privacy legislation, introduced to the House in April, was recently considered by the House Judiciary Committee at a meeting on Wednesday, June 3, 2009.

Family law attorneys are becoming increasingly sophisticated and creative in drafting family court orders in such a fashion that avoids telling the public too much about their clients. If you have additional questions on this or other family law topics that may affect your case, feel free to give us a call to discuss your situation.

Read more »

Posted in: child support information,identity theft,privacy

Oakland Prosecutor Rejects "impaired" Plea Bargains and Declines Sobriety Court Participation

Jessica Cooper has demonstrated a top-down command structure since taking over the prosecutor's office in January. One of the commands from the top is that first-time drunk drivers charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI) are no longer offered the customary plea reduction to operating while "impaired". This new policy may result in unnecessary jury trials.

Having an OWI reduced to "impaired" provides two advantages: less stringent mandatory driver's license sanctions ordered through the Secretary of State (60-90 day restricted license compared to a 6-month hard suspension), and a lower driver's responsibility fee ($500 for two consecutive years, compared to $1000 each year). Other fines, costs and attorney fees are higher in the OWI context.

Even for first-time offenders, a reduction to impaired is not always offered in cases where the blood-alcohol level (BAC) far exceeds the legal limit. With the proscutor's new policy, however, there are no apparent exceptions, even where the BAC is relatively low.

The new policy has been informally acknowledged by numerous Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys over the past several weeks. Defense attorneys are now considering jury trials, where a simple plea to impaired would have resolved the case.

For repeat offenders, alcohol abuse treatment is mandatory and other punishments are increased. Sobriety or "drug courts" have sprang-up in the past several years to address the problem.

In another important policy development from Cooper's office, the Oakland County Prosecutor will no longer participate in these sobriety courts, now spread throughout Oakland County. A sobriety court emphasizes drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation over incarceration. Such courts utilize a team approach to manage the intensive probation process. Obviously, the "team" includes the prosecuting attorney, along with a therapist, probation officer, defense attorney, and judge.

The statistics emerging from these courts have forged a consensus among professionals throughout Michigan, and the nation; sobriety-style courts are effective in dealing with drug and alcohol abuse crimes. The Oakland County Prosecutor's office should be participating in society's effort to address irresponsible addictions. The end-result is safer public roadways.

Read more »

Posted in: addiction,impaired,Oakland County Prosecutor,OWI,sobriety court

Michigan Senate Seeks to Repeal Adultery as Felony

State Senator Ron Jelinek (R - Berrien County) has introduced a bill in Lansing to repeal adultery as a crime. The bill, which has a companion in the Michigan House, has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill, expected to be presented for the Governor's signature sometime during this legislative session, could become law in 2009.

The Michigan Penal Code has long-contained a chapter on adultery, defined as, "the sexual intercourse of 2 persons, either of whom is married to a third person." The scope of the criminal conduct includes divorced but cohabiting persons. The statute requires the cuckolded spouse to swear-in as the complaining witness and has a brief statute of limitation; one year.

The adultery statute was codified into the penal code back in 1931. The caselaw on this "consensual" crime goes back to 1884, in a case coming out of Senator Jelinek's own Berrien County. The case, People v Hendrickson, stands for the evidentiary proposition that the testimony of the un-married participant in an adulterous union can supply the requisite evidence to support a conviction.

In the here and now of 2009, Michigan's family courts have adhered to the "no-fault" provisions of the divorce statutes. Adultery is now a matter of private morals, with family court judges free to exercise their discretion regarding the weight to put on allegations of adultery and their attendant consequences in matters of child custody and property division.

Senator Jelinek's proposed legislation seeks to align the penal code with the unfortunate reality of post-modern society. Immoral, but all to common, adultery has always posed the biggest threat to the traditional family unit. Adultery is a rarely charged felony, however, thus, it's persistent inclusion within the penal code, particularly the anti-cohabitation provision, bloats the Michigan Compiled Laws with anachronistic provisions. Transgressions are best addressed within the discretion of the family courts.

Read more »

Posted in: adultery,Michigan Compiled Laws,Michigan Penal Code,Ron Jelinek

Same Sex Union Gains Ground in Midwest

In a highly controversial ruling from the Iowa Supreme Court, same sex couples received a green-light for marriage when a state law banning such marriages was determined unconstitutional. In a 63 page decision (the first 6-pages of which listed a series of opposing amicus groups that had legal representation in the briefing of the case), the Iowa Supreme Court held that the state law banning gay marriage violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by treating same-sex couples differently than other couples without a sufficient government interest justifying the classification.

The full decision of the Iowa Supreme Court is attached in the link below:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20090403iowa-text.pdf

The case moved the battle over same sex marriage from the coastal metropolitan centers of the U.S. to its heartland. To date, only Massachusetts and Vermont allow same sex marriages; California did so for about six-months until that law was repealed by voter initiative in the last election in November.

The case also comes on the heels of an unusual ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals which allowed a same-sex couple to present evidence to a family court judge relative to the partners/parents parenting time requests once their homosexual relationship terminated following their mutual adoption of three children. That case, itself the subject of an entry in this lawblog, is discussed in the attached article from the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-gayadoption,0,2545662.story

Read more »