Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
There is no doubt that distracted driving is a deadly problem. In 2015 alone, 3,477 people were killed in car accidents involving a distracted driver, and 391,000 more were injured. Police have increased their efforts to prevent these needless tragedies by catching drivers illegally using their cell phones while driving, In Connecticut, for example, using a hand-held cell phone is a primary offense which means drivers can be pulled over if they are seen texting or holding a phone to their ear while driving. Now, an emerging technology promises to help police find distracted drivers, but many think the technology is superfluous and a serious invasion of privacy.
The Breathalyzer of Distracted Driving
Textalyzer is a play on the word Breathalyzer and like a breathalyzer, the technology can help police ascertain if distracted driving contributed to an accident. The Textalyzer technology has the ability to analyze data within a person’s cell phone in order to determine whether the phone was used immediately prior to an accident. Bills have been introduced in several states that would authorize law enforcement officers to confiscate a driver’s phone after a crash so they could run the Textalyzer analysis on it. If the driver refuses to hand over their phone for this analysis their license would be automatically suspended – similar to drivers who refuse Breathalyzer tests. If the driver submits to the Textalyzer analysis and it shows that he or she was using the phone prior to a car accident, it can be used as evidence of distracted driving.
When a person is convicted of committing a crime, it is understandable that the government might have interest in seizing proceeds generated by the commission of that crime. For example, if a drug dealer is arrested and convicted, the money he or she made selling drugs can reasonably be seized and kept by law enforcement and other state agencies—with proper reporting, of course. It also reasonable for the state to seize and keep other property that may have been used in the commission of the crime. A good example might be the computer used by a convicted scammer to defraud unsuspecting victims.
For many years, state and federal government agencies had wide discretion to seize assets that were allegedly linked to criminal activity. The problem, however, was that the agencies could—in many cases—keep the assets even if the assets’ owner was never convicted or even charged. The process for getting seized property back was often difficult, time-consuming, and expensive, and many owners simply gave up.
A recent post on this blog talked about concerns that are being raised across the country regarding the application of due process in cases of alleged sex crimes on college campuses. While nobody would suggest that allegations of rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct should be taken lightly, there have been many anecdotal examples of alleged discrimination against those accused of such behavior. One such situation stemmed from allegations made against a Yale student in 2012, and earlier this month, the Ivy League university reached a settlement with the student who says he was wrongfully and unfairly expelled. The settlement comes even as another lawsuit is continuing against Yale over virtually the same issues.
A Complicated Plot
According to several news sources, a young man—identified only as John Doe—was accused of sexual assault in 2012. In the lawsuit, Doe admitted to having a sexual relationship with the accuser but that all activity was consensual. He said that the accuser fabricated sexual assault allegations in an effort to gain control over the school’s Native American Cultural Center. Doe identifies as Lakota Sioux while the accuser identifies as Navajo. The young man and his attorneys indicated that accusations were designed to remove Doe and the center’s director—who also identifies as Lakota Sioux—so that Navajo students could benefit.
It is amazing to think of how far the technology in cars has come. From Henry Ford’s Model T in 1908 to driverless cars in 2018, car manufacturers are always inventing new ways to use technology to better the driving experience. Vehicles now have the ability to allow drivers to control the car via touch screen. Other vehicles allow drivers to access GPS navigation directions, play music, listen to the radio, and more, all on a screen within the car. About one in three U.S. adults uses “infotainment” systems like these while they while driving. These advances in car technology are meant to make the driving experience more intuitive and efficient, but are these infotainment systems safe?
Driving Blind
According to a study commissioned by the American Automobile Association (AAA), infotainment systems may be putting drivers, passengers, other motorists, and pedestrians at serious risk. Because infotainment systems take drivers’ eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel for potentially dangerous periods of time, they cause drivers to essentially be driving blind. Research from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that individuals who use in-vehicle technologies like voice-based and touch screen features were dangerously distracted. The average user of infotainment features is visually and mentally distracted for over 40 seconds when using the system to do things like program navigation, find a radio station, or send a text message. The risk of getting into a car accident doubles by drivers taking their eyes off the road for only 2 seconds, and infotainment users are distracted for 20 times that long!
It is virtually impossible right now to browse news stories without coming across another report of a high-profile individual accused of rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct. Of course, sexual misbehavior is not a new problem, but recent months have seen an explosion of new allegations against movie producers, actors, comedians, and other influential people. Almost none of these cases have seen the inside of a courtroom yet—or even a formal filing—but careers have already been ruined, and lives have been turned upside down. Alleged offenders are being found guilty in the court of public opinion, with little regard for the nuances of each situation.
Unfortunately, concerns about the lack of due process are not limited to accusations of misconduct by prominent individuals. Over the last few years, the issue has presented itself on college campuses across the country. Students—male students, mostly—have found themselves suspended, expelled, and generally excoriated solely on the basis of allegations of sexual misconduct.
When a person is accused of committing a crime, he or she is afforded a number of rights. Most of them have their basis in the U.S. Constitution and the guarantee of due process of law. The Constitution, however, does not address each and every right that a person may or may not have and is rather silent regarding the rights of those who have been victimized by the accused’s alleged crimes. Thus, the rights of crime victims have long been a topic for debate in legal circles and among the general public. Last month, the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down a ruling one such disputed right—a ruling that has left some people concerned about the transparency of criminal legal proceedings.
An Ongoing Criminal Matter
The issue was brought before the state’s highest court as the result of a ruling by a lower court in a sexual assault case. The defendant—a 46-year-old former teacher’s aide—is charged with sex crimes related to an ongoing sexual relationship she allegedly had with a 15-year-old boy, beginning when the boy was under her care at a preschool. She is also charged with molesting the boy’s 16-year-old friend.
The state of Connecticut—like every other state—requires motorists to carry a minimum amount of liability coverage. Liability insurance is designed to help you cover any damages or injuries that may result from accidents for which you are at fault. Specifically, a driver must have at least $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident for bodily injury liability and $10,000 per accident for property damage liability.
Connecticut also requires drivers to carry uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage with the same minimums. Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is intended to protect the driver and his or her passengers in the event of an accident in which the at-fault driver is either uninsured or does not have sufficient insurance to cover all of the injuries sustained.
Sometimes, however, an injured driver’s own insurance carrier may stall or delay when it comes time to pay up. Such was the case for a Niantic woman who recently reached a settlement with her insurance company after being involved in a crash caused by an underinsured driver.
When most people think about a personal injury lawsuit, an auto accident dispute between two strangers may come to mind first. Or, their thoughts may turn to a slip-and-fall incident at a retail store, leading to months of litigation by the victim against a large corporation and their insurance companies. Sometimes, however, a personal injury case may begin as a disagreement between friends which escalates to unnecessary violence. Such was the case between two college students whose case was recently decided by a Derby Superior Court jury.
A Physical Altercation
According to court documents, the incident took place in April of 2014 following a party at Quinnipiac University in Hamden. The plaintiff was riding in the front seat of the defendant’s car when he reportedly became concerned about the defendant’s ability to drive. The driver had allegedly been drinking and his driving had become erratic. The plaintiff claims that he repeatedly asked the driver to pull over, and the driver got angry and violent, punching the plaintiff in the head.
For decades, drug dealers have faced serious criminal consequences if they were caught selling illegal substances like cocaine, heroin, prescription pills, marijuana or other drugs. Now, because of a disturbing increase in drug overdoses, those who sell drugs may be facing even more severe penalties.
Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for those under the age of 50. In 2016, overdoses were linked to the death of approximately 64,000 people in the U.S. Some states have already been able to legally charge dealers of drugs like cocaine or heroin with first-degree murder if the drugs they sold led to a person’s death through overdose. However, the proliferation of a new drug called fentanyl has caused legislators to sanction even stricter laws.
Fentanyl is a drug up to 50 times more powerful than heroin. It is often combined with heroin—sometimes without the dealer or buyer’s knowledge. Fentanyl is intended to be used for anesthesia or for managing chronic pain. When prescribed and monitored by a medical professional, it can be a beneficial drug, but when recreational users underestimate the amount of fentanyl they are consuming, it can be deadly. Fentanyl caused 20,100 deaths in 2016 in the United States alone. This represents a staggering 540% increase in overdose deaths caused by the drug in the last three years.
When a person is convicted on charges of certain sex crimes, he or she may be required to register on the state’s sex offender registry for a period of time following any applicable prison term. Depending on the severity of the offense, registration may be required for 10 years or for the rest of the offender’s life. Because such a registry is considered by most people to be important in maintaining public safety, there is a common belief that every person on the list still poses a danger to his or her community.
Members of the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, however, say that a “one-size-fits-all approach to registration of sex offenders” is not always in the public’s best interest. In 2015, the Connecticut General Assembly directed a Commission subcommittee to consider a risk-based alternative to the current offense-based system.
The subcommittee announced a risk-based proposal in October that would require an in-depth evaluation of each individual convicted of a sex crime. Alex Tsarkov, the sentencing commission’s executive director, said, “We’re not trying to make life easier for offenders. We’re trying to focus on public safety.”
50 Founders Plaza
