Law Blog

June of 2005. Mariah Carey’s We Belong Together was number 1 on the Billboard charts. Batman Begins was the number 1 movie at the box office, for the second week in a row. The U.S. Supreme Court had just decided a case called Kelo v. City of New London.

This was one of those rare Supreme Court cases that grabbed the public’s attention.

And why not? Its facts hit close to home for a lot of people: private homes and small businesses were bought by the government, without the owners’ consent in some cases, and demolished, in order to build a new business district (with a corporate campus for the Phizer drug company being the centerpiece), with the hopes of revitalizing an economically depressed city. Some owners brought their case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the government’s eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation”) did not extend to the taking of private property, for the purpose of transferring it to another private party (in this case, Phizer and some private developers), and that “public use” meant that the land taken must actually be used and owned by the public.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, disagreed, and found that the taking served a “public purpose”, in that the new development would attract businesses, create jobs, and increase tax revenue, which would be used to expand or maintain public services. As a result, the taking went forward, the last few holdouts were removed, and the complex was built.

The reaction to this case was almost universally negative, across the political spectrum. Conservatives and libertarians argued that it allows governments to take private property for almost any reason, with barely a pretense of the taking serving some public necessity. Liberals argued that the decision amounts to a handout to any big private developer which happens to have some political connections. In short, the decision made almost nobody happy. As a result, many states passed laws limiting the use of eminent domain by local governments.

Being almost 5 years old, this case hasn’t garnered much attention lately, until now. It was just announced that Phizer is closing the facility that was the center of this dispute, taking with it 1,400 jobs, and leaving a vacant office park and a bunch of empty lots where homes and businesses used to be.

What does this say about the merits of the Kelo decision? Well, from a strictly legal standpoint, not much. The Supreme Court, if it ever decides to revisit the issues raised in Kelo, would probably say that it doesn’t matter what happens after the fact, even if the taking ends up not benefiting the public in any significant way. After all, developers and governments can’t see the future.

As a practical matter, this might be an indication that governments aren’t very good at making these kinds of decisions.

However, if LegalMatch case statistics from the last 12 months are any indication, the average person probably has little reason to fear the government swooping in and condemning their property. According to our data, relatively few clients sought lawyers for eminent domain issues in the last year. Of those, a plurality of cases are still in their early stages (the property has been appraised or the government has made an initial offer to buy). At this point, it is far from a sure thing that a taking will actually occur.

This may reflect more the changed state of the economy (not too good, in case you haven’t noticed), and less a governmental policy switch on the use of eminent domain.  Stay tuned.

Everyone has a mother.  Whether you’re a person, dog, or cat, if you exist on this green earth, then you have a mother who was responsible for popping you out into it.  It’s no surprise then why so many of us are attached to our mothers and try our hardest to please them (that’s right, two lolcats in one paragraph because they are awesome).

However, most of the time, for some reason, no matter what we do, it never feels like we’re doing quite enough to please our beloved matriarchs and we always end up feeling like we’re nothing more than a constant source of disappointment to them.  We never call home or visit enough, we’re not eating enough vegetables, and don’t even get started on the career, which can never seem to outshine your cousin’s gig at Google.  It can all be very maddening, sometimes to the point where you wished you just didn’t care as much as you do.  Wouldn’t that be great?  To not care what your mother thought of you?  Well if that’s what you want (not me of course because I have a wonderful relationship with my mom), then you should ask Cheng Saelee.

Why ask him?  Well, because the dude definitely doesn’t seem to have a problem cutting the proverbial cord.  It takes guts to stand up to your mom’s authority, but it takes a really big pair to rob her at gunpoint after she refuses to give you $430 to pay off your parking ticket.

That last part sound a little nuts?  Well it should, but that’s exactly what Saelee, 27, did to his mother back in 2008.  He was convicted last week for the armed robbery of his mother, as well as for illegally soliciting her while he was in jail to drop the charges against him.

I love human drama, as I’m sure everyone does since that seems to be the only thing selling newspapers these days.  His own mother turned him in??  In the words of Dave Chappelle impersonating Rick James, “that was cooold bloodeeeeed.”

But honestly people armed robbery is a very serious crime.  It’s considered a crime of moral turpitude, meaning a conviction has a far greater impact in your life beyond being a huge blemish on your permanent record.  It often can lead to being barred from obtaining membership in and expulsion from government employment and professional organizations – which spreads across the gamut, ranging from the American Bar association to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.  And membership in these organizations is usually a prerequisite to employment their respective industry.  Moral turpitude crimes are also grounds for deportation, which is a possible fate awaiting Saelee.  Armed robbery is also a felony, which means a conviction will strip you of your right to vote.  And in this economy, having a say about what direction this country should be headed makes having the right to vote all the more important.

For these reasons, it’s easy to see why you shouldn’t commit moral turpitude crimes or crimes in general.  Conversely, it’s also even easier to understand how important it is to defend yourself against a moral turpitude criminal charge.  LegalMatch receives a very high number of criminal defense cases every year, and with good reason (in case you’ve forgotten them, scroll up).

And most important of all, don’t forget that mother knows best and apparently is also not above turning you in to the cops, so please don’t rob her.

“Murder.”  “Unnatural.”  “Frightening.”

Those are the adjectives that the neighbors of British couple Caroline and Steve Cartwright use to describe the couple’s sex life.  Yes, you read that last sentence correctly.  More specifically, the neighbors have been complaining that the noise keeps them up at all hours of the night, thus causing them to oversleep in the morning and make them late for work.  The problem happens almost every night.

So what do they do about this problem?  The neighbors decided to charge the wife with noise violations and seek an abatement, which they subsequently won.  The noisy couple appealed, but despite their best arguments that their Human Rights were being violated, their appeal was denied.  Since the initial ruling, Caroline has been found to be in violation of the noise abatement order three times.

Aside from the humor of this situation, there are some interesting legal issues dealing with noisy neighbors.  According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey, American consistently rate noise ahead of traffic and crime as their primary reason for wanting to move.  LegalMatch has a helpful recommendation for dealing with the problem of unreasonably noisy neighbors: approach them about the problem before seeking legal recourse.

I totally agree with this approach and the rationale that friendly communication should be used before the police and the courts get involved.  After all, theses are your neighbors and if you can salvage a friendship or at least a peaceful relationship then you should try.   There are also simple solutions such as caulking and sealing the edges of windows, doors, and outlets that face the noise source.

If that still doesn’t work, then you may be forced to hire a lawyer to seek your own noise abatement and/or money damages.  So for all you readers who have annoying neighbors who start construction too early, let their dogs bark at all hours, and have loud late-night parties, just think how much worse it can be!

I was thinking the other day how there are a lot of things that I don’t know.  For example, I don’t know why the staff at Chipotle constantly puts cilantro in my burrito despite how much I tell them I don’t want it (though from the looks of it, that place has got a whole other set of problems).  I don’t know why $50 shampoo is better than the generic stuff I get at Walgreens because it works just fine despite what my sisters tell me, seeing as how my hair has yet to fall off or cause me to contract cancer.  I also don’t know why I occasionally see a squiggly line in my eye fluid.  The list goes on and on, and continuing it any further in this post will do nothing but increase my already growing depression.

Anyway, the reason why I was thinking about my intellectual inadequacies is because sometimes you just see a news story and realize how much there is to know in this world and also how little of it that you actually know.  For instance, is there any reason why regular people like you and me can’t keep chickens as pets?  Because apparently there’s a movement in Ann Arbor, MI to get the city to pass an ordinance that would allow its residents to keep chickens as pets.

Really, is this an issue?  I had no idea there was even a problem with doing this, let alone that it was illegal.  I remember when I was a wee lad my neighbor had a couple of chickens in his backyard.  He’d feed them corn, harvest their eggs, and occasionally even allow them to berth a couple of chicks.  This all wouldn’t be so strange except that I grew up in a major urban California city.  Though I never thought twice about it when I was a kid, I just thought my neighbor really liked fresh organic eggs and playing farmer.

Coincidentally, the organic food movement is what Stephen Kunselman, the Ann Arbor councilman spearheading the move to pass the ordinance, is using as the basis to promote chickens as pets.  Supposedly, fresh eggs are a lot tastier and healthier for you than what you get at the supermarket.

Sounds great right?  Except that a lot of residents and the local Ann Arbor government are clucking (HA, I’m so witty) about the health and safety issues that come with owning chickens.  Apparently there’s a concern that allowing people to keep chickens as pets will encourage or at least not help to stem the spread of avian bird flu – which I hear is pretty nasty.  There’s also the issue of noise disturbance – less we forget what it is roosters are known for besides providing hours of entertainment (I’m joking, please no letters).

Anyway, all this got me thinking about chicken laws in other cities, specifically what’s the penalty for owning chickens?  Well, it ranges from fines to a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances (e.g. number of chickens, sanitation issues, etc.).  For those of you interested in keeping a chicken(s) as a pet(s), I strongly suggest you check your local laws to find out whether it’s legal.  The internet is an amazing place, by the way, so be sure to use it.

What would you do if you came home one day and found your male neighbor sleeping in your house or apartment without your permission or knowledge?  To further complicate matters, let’s say your neighbor is not armed and is also a sleepwalker, however you’re unaware of the latter fact.  Would you:

1. Wake him up and tell him to get out
2. Call the police and have them remove him from your home or arrest him
3. Let him be because he’s tired and in the morning make him breakfast
4. Wake him up and beat the crap out of him with the help of two of your friends to the point that your neighbor needs hospitalization

If you picked D and you live in Iowa City, Iowa, then you and your friends would be arrested for willfully causing bodily injury to a person.  How do I know that?  Because that’s exactly what happened to three men who found themselves in that very same situation (see how clever I am?)  By the way, if you picked C please refer me to your shrink/religion/cult/voodoo-method-to-keep-you-calm because I have no idea how anyone would be able to stay cool if they found themselves in that situation.

According to the report, the three men, Jonathan Chun, Derryk Berger, and Kevin Lee, came back to Chun’s apartment after a night of drinking to find Chun’s neighbor sleeping in the apartment.  After they woke him, they proceeded to lay what I imagine to be an incredible beating on their neighbor since he had to be hospitalized afterward.  Chun then reported his neighbor for trespass to the police where he was promptly arrested for willful battery.

Now I’m not saying these three men were justified in their actions, but personally I’d be pretty terrified if I found a person in my house who I didn’t allow to be there, regardless of whether he was my neighbor or if I knew he was a sleepwalker.  However, I’d still fall in the A or B answer category since I’m not insane and also because I know the law.  It’s a wonderful field of study if you want to stay out of trouble.  Someone should’ve suggested taking it up to Chun and his friends because any lawyer or law student worth his salt knows that in a case like this, getting physical can only lead you to a felony.

From a legal perspective, self-defense is only allowed when you are under attack or imminent harm.  And in most jurisdictions, even if you are under attack, if you can escape the harm without resorting to violence, you have a duty to do so – unless the attack is happening in your home, then you don’t need to retreat (the so-call king-of-the-castle rule).

Even though Chun was in his home, his neighbor posed no threat to him since he was sleeping.  Though Chun could argue he felt threatened by his neighbor’s mere presence, most courts have held that trespass alone with the threat of imminent harm is not enough to justify self-defense.  Broad self-defense usage is a common misconception, as evidence not only by national criminal statistics on the matter, but also by the large number of self-defense claims received by LegalMatch every year.

So the moral of this story is: when in doubt, call the police, because they’ll have a much easier time justifying their beatings than you.