Law Blog

Ever get that feeling when you first slip into the driver’s seat of your car that today’s the day you’ll get into an accident?  That despite all those hours you endured being belittled by your driving instructor, aka mom and/or dad, on the importance of safe driving that your spotless driving record, and possibly even life, may all come to an end because someone was trying to catch a green light or was too busy chatting on their phone?  If you have, then you’re not alone.

According to a new study conducted by the Obvious Police, aka the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, over a third of drivers feel less safe driving today than they did in 2004.

What’s gotten people so scared?  Apparently, AAA says it’s you — John Smith (it’s not really due to just that one guy, I just like the image of all the John Smiths reading this collectively furrowing their eyebrows in anger).  Specifically, the report cites drivers who text or email while driving as the numero uno factor causing motorists to feel unsafe, and with good reason.

It’s no secret that texting while driving is incredibly dangerous (second news flash, smoking causes cancer).  What’s surprising is that over sixty percent of people do it and nearly a fifth of drivers do it despite knowing the risks.  Coming in second on the list of fears is distracted driving, e.g. people putting on make-up or writing that big presentation while driving, followed by the infamous cell phone-yapping driver.

The odd part is that the current number of driving-related fatalities in America is actually at it’s lowest since 1961 and has been declining since this wonderful recession we’re (still) in hit. Theories abound as to why this is the case.  Most analysts say it’s the bad economy coupled with high gas prices that are keeping people from driving and opting to bus it everywhere instead.  More aggressive traffic ticketing from highway patrol may be another cause keeping drivers off the road.  And ironically enough fear of getting into an accident due to the aforementioned distracted driver may all play a large part in reducing driving deaths and car crashes, as well.

Our own in-house statistics seem to support this newly reported trend, too.  The number of automobile accident cases received by LegalMatch has gradually decreased since 2004.  An interesting side note is that the number of divorce cases LegalMatch has received have slowly increased in close portion.  Maybe the bad economy coupled with that old adage of strength and comfort in numbers has caused couples to carpool and hence want to scratch each other eyes out.  People, there’s something called personal space, you need it.

Despite the seemingly lower chances of getting into a fatal car accident, the fear of texting cell phone-talking drivers is still keeping many once-proud motorists at bay, or more specifically on buses and bicycles.  Ba-da-bump…  I would recommend that you all have nothing to fear, but I’m just as worried as the majority of Americans.  On the bright side, at least my legs will get ripped from biking 12 miles everyday.

With the arrest and recently announced dropped charges against renowned black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., the world seems to be once again entrenched in the subject of racial prejudice.  Actually that’s a bit of a stretch.  I seem to recall another semi-important event that may have helped bring the spotlight back on race before this whole Gates debacle.

However, unlike the election of our new black president, the disorderly conduct charge levied by the Cambridge Police Department against the distinguished director of Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African American Studies probably wouldn’t demonstrate to most people how much our country has evolved since the Civil Rights Movement.  If anything it seems to show how stunted this country can still be in matters of racial tolerance.

The exact details of the case are still subject to debate.  The only fact corroborated by both sides is that Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct outside of his home after Cambridge police responded to a 911 call from a woman stating she saw two black males attempting to break into Gates’ house.  The men were Gates and his driver, and they were attempting to push the front door open because it was stuck in its frame.  Gates eventually got in through the back door when he was confronted by a Cambridge officer.  Gates claims he repeatedly asked for the arresting officer’s name and badge number, and when he followed the officer outside of his home, he was arrested.  The officer claims Gates accused him of racism and refused to calm down after several warnings that his conduct was becoming disorderly.

Well, it’s all moot now because the charge has been dropped.  So we’ll never get to know the juicy details or witness the spectacle of a public trial.

In this humble blogger’s opinion (because I’m sure you’re all waiting with bated breath to hear it), I suspect both sides decided not to pursue the case because it probably would’ve ended up making both parties look pretty bad.  As great as our country’s adversarial court system is, in cases of “he said, she said” it becomes the job of the prosecution and defense to put down the other side.  So in the end, no matter who wins, everyone ends up getting dragged through the mud.

So what’s the point of this post?  Well, aside from giving me yet another chance to hear myself talk, reading this case got me thinking.  Regardless of who was the one actually responsible for escalating the situation, ultimately this case was started because of race and was given the amount of attention it has received because it involved the presumption of wrongdoing due to the race of a prominent scholar.  It really made me wonder, if someone with Gates’ level of achievement can still face such prejudices, how’s the rest of the country faring?  According to the latest statistics from LegalMatch, apparently not so well.

In the last quarter alone, the number of race discrimination cases received by LegalMatch has increased by nearly 50 percent over the previous quarter.  Approximately 30 percent of these cases stem from being fired due to race and over half of them come from employees in the food service and retail industries.  Even more shocking is that the next highest instances of discrimination originate from those employed in the education field.  Stranger still, the statistics regarding gender discrimination almost exactly mirror those regarding race.

It’s a little disconcerting to see these trends.  Perhaps America isn’t exactly the melting pot it’s cracked up to be.  Either that or maybe someone just needs to turn down the burner a little…

It’s odd how a person’s priorities and interests can shift with the passage of time.  One day you love video games, the next you’re suddenly enthralled by This American Life.  This jump is especially pronounced when comparing what’s seen as important as a teenager versus what’s important as an adult.  Remember in high school the cool kids were usually the ones who didn’t care about school?  Then once you hit college, suddenly those same people were seen as losers for wasting their time and money?  How’d that happen?  Man, they used to be cool, man…

But there are some things that have always been viewed as important.  The necessities, you know, like making sure you have food to eat, a place to sleep, or clothes to wear.  Oh, and not getting arrested.

Getting popped by the police and hauled down to the pokey can be a traumatic event.  The only thing worst is actually being convicted and sentenced by a judge afterward.  This is usually true.  I say usually because even in this seemingly clear-cut territory, another one of life’s oddities can sometimes rear its head (I know, I know, I really need to cut back on the clichés).  Because for some people (probably the cool kids) as long as the conviction isn’t a felony than there’s nothing to worry about, right?  Umm… no, not right.  Oh, misguided cool kids, and to think I once wanted to be like you.

A misdemeanor is no laughing matter (there I go again).  Misdemeanor offenses range from vandalism to petty theft to narcotic possession and more.  Penalties vary from state to state, but in general a misdemeanor conviction can result in fines up to $1000, a year in jail, and/or community service.  And depending on the type of offense, you can also be ordered to complete a rehabilitation program or have your driver’s license suspended or even revoked.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg (ugh, another one).  The negative byproduct effects of a misdemeanor can cause chaos in the rest of your life, as well.  Depending on the severity of the offense, a misdemeanor conviction can limit what jobs are available to you or even get you expelled from college depending on your school’s student conduct policy, not to mention the embarrassment of having a blotch on your otherwise clean record (last one, I swear).  The cost of contracting an attorney, though helpful in resolving a misdemeanor criminal case, can be high, too.

The sheer amount of conduct that can be categorized as a criminal misdemeanor is often confusing, as well.  Once again, laws and what is considered illegal vary from state to state.  LegalMatch has received misdemeanor cases for everything from skate boarding on school grounds to noise violations.  Though the vast majority of LegalMatch’s misdemeanor cases still involve drug and theft offenses, it’s important to note the caveat of obscure laws.

So what can be done?  A good way to keep yourself out of the big house is to stay knowledgeable about changes in your local laws, especially those that concern you or your particular industry.  You can do this by contacting your local city hall, law library, or do the modern thing and research on the internet.

What else can you do, you ask?  Well, you can also stay out of trouble by doing the most obvious thing and not commit well-established crimes, such as robbery.  Duh.  That’s you’re best bet (dammit…).

Almost 1200 out of every 100,000 people are on active probation in California. Although lower than the national average, California has more probationers than any other state. Ideally, probation is meant to monitor people convicted of a crime without having them being incarcerated. The alternative to probation would either be reducing sentencing laws or simply locking everyone up, neither of which are likely to happen any time soon.

I was curious about who was being arrested while on probation in California, and what their history was. Every year in California, LegalMatch gets tens of thousands of clients seeking criminal defense attorneys. I decided to look at LegalMatch statistics for the last 12 months for clients who were being charged with misdemeanors and felonies in California. Particularly, I compared the figures for both misdemeanor clients and felony clients according to their probation status:

Probation Status of Felony Suspects in California:

• No Probation: 70%
• Yes, currently on Probation: 18%
• I don’t know: 12%

Probation Status of Misdemeanor Suspects in California:

• No Probation: 77%
• Yes, currently on Probation: 14%
• I don’t know: 9% 

More suspects were being re-arrested for felony charges than misdemeanors. Conversely, more misdemeanor suspects were not already on probation, and more were aware of their probation status.

These statistics mirror national statistics showing that of those arrested while on probation, more were being arrested for felonies than misdemeanors. Is this a sign that the system isn’t working? Not necessarily, but considering that in California there are double the arrests for misdemeanors than felonies, one has to wonder why more of those who are being arrested again are being arrested for serious crimes. As California’s prison over crowding crisis continues to shake out, how California decides to continue its probation process will have an important effect on the future of the system.

According to LegalMatch.com data, 27% of the victims of domestic violence in the past 12 months did not report the incident to the police. These figures come from an analysis of anonymous customer intake reports between now and April 2008. Studies by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) show that victims of crime are less likely to report incidents involving non-strangers than strangers. Together these figures make sense: because domestic violence involves intimate partners and family members, people may not want the police involved.

Other reasons such as those brought up here may further contribute to a lack of reporting. Mandatory policies based on political grandstanding plus the limited repertoire of tools available to the Police may make people hesitant to call the boys in blue. When a cop’s toolbox is generally limited to handcuffs and a gun, there are only so many things they can do.

What is the exact problem we are looking at when over a fourth of victims are not reporting crimes to the police? That cops should be better trained to deal with these issues, and people should therefore be more encouraged to call them?

I’m skeptical of a solution that sees more police involvement in family disputes as an improvement. Obviously there are situations where the police should show up: a large amount of murders occur between spouses where the offender should have already been in jail, or should have been under more rigorous supervision from law enforcement officials.

On the other hand, there are also situations where police presence might have done more harm than good. The recent murder of 3 officers in Pittsburgh occurred after the shooter’s mother requested that the police come and kick her son out of her house. The police shouldn’t have to expect that an armed lunatic is going to greet them at the door of a domestic disturbance call, but situations like this will stay in the back of officers’ minds and make dealing with these calls all the more difficult.   

Should more people be reporting domestic violence? If there is a genuine crime occurring, yes. But like so many other issues in the criminal justice system, the law is often called on to fix situations it is ill-equipped to handle. Domestic violence and domestic disturbance runs the gamut from genuine crimes that warrant incarceration or arrest, to family disputes where guns and handcuffs may serve to only make matters much worse. Although there are serious problems associated with the non-reporting of violent crimes, there is a context. Should the police be involved in each and every domestic dispute? Does the use or threat of violence always warrant the involvement of the police and of the courts? I do not think so.