Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
With the winter holidays fast approaching, many workplaces and organizations are starting to schedule Christmas parties and other celebratory gatherings. Many such parties are held at bars, restaurants, and clubs and involve substantial drinking. When a person drives under the influence of alcohol, he or she is generally responsible for any injuries or deaths caused by his or her decision to drive drunk. The law in Connecticut, however, provides that other parties may also share the liability, particularly if the driver was overserved at a bar or restaurant.
What Are Dram Shop Laws?
Laws that permit injured parties to seek compensation from bars, clubs, and other sellers of alcoholic beverages are known as “dram shop laws.” In fact, the applicable law in Connecticut is actually titled the “Dram Shop Act.”
The term “dram shop” traces its roots back several centuries to when small stores sold liquor and spirits—often homemade—in small measures known as “drams.” While most people do not use the phrase to describe bars, taverns, or other such establishments today, the name has stuck on the laws that govern purveyor liability.
In many areas, the day before Thanksgiving is quickly becoming one the biggest partying days of the entire year. Bar owners and news outlets began noticing an uptick in food and liquor sales on “Thanksgiving Eve” several years ago, earning the day the ominous-sounding nickname of “Blackout Wednesday.” The moniker is a play on Black Friday—the retail boom that takes place on the day after Thanksgiving—but the word “blackout” implies the overconsumption of alcohol. Unfortunately, many of those who overindulge on Blackout Wednesday will still try to drive home, placing themselves, their passengers, and others on the road in serious danger of injury or death.
A Perfect Storm
There are many factors that come together on the day before Thanksgiving that makes it such an appealing day to party. Blackout Wednesday revelers often include a large number of college students who have returned home for the holiday and who make plans to celebrate with high school and childhood friends—usually at bars or similar establishments. In addition, most adults do not have to work or otherwise be up early on Thanksgiving Day, giving them the freedom to drink more the night before than they otherwise might. Some begin as soon as work ends on Wednesday and continue well into the night.
It has been five years since the Connecticut legislature added 17-year-old criminal defendants to the state’s juvenile court system. When the reform was first enacted, many feared that the change would overwhelm the juvenile courts and have virtually no effect on the likelihood of juveniles returning to criminal activity in the future. While the doomsday predictions have largely proven to be inaccurate, there is still concern among law enforcement and prosecutors that restrictions on detaining juvenile suspects and transfers to adult court have made their jobs more difficult and placed the public at risk.
The debate was reignited by Governor Dannel Malloy’s continued efforts to create an extension of the juvenile court system that would be used for most defendants up to 20 years old. For the last two years, Governor Malloy has touted his “Second Chance Society” initiatives, citing emerging research on brain development in adolescents and young adults.
When a person is arrested in a home or an apartment, it is understandable for the law enforcement officers making the arrest to conductive a protective sweep of the residence to ensure that nobody is hiding or waiting to attack the officers. While protective sweeps are considered a type of search under the Fourth Amendment, they are often permitted without a warrant.
Sometimes, however, the police overstep their bounds and use such sweeps as a justification to conduct evidentiary searches. When evidence is uncovered as the result of such a search, it may be considered tainted and the court may rule that the evidence is inadmissible. A recent ruling by a federal court in Connecticut highlights the importance of limiting the scope of protective sweeps.
Sweep Following an Arrest
In May 2016, members of the U.S. Marshals’ Violent Crime Fugitive Task Force showed up to execute an arrest warrant for Connecticut man wanted in connection with an armed robbery and two domestic disputes. Eight officers, including representatives from several local police departments, arrived to arrest the man at his girlfriend’s apartment where they knocked on the door. The man kept the police waiting for a short time before he emerged and surrendered without incident. He was taken outside to a police car while other officers conducted a protective sweep of the apartment.
When you legally enter onto property owned by another person or entity, the owner of the property assumes a certain level of responsibility for keeping you safe. The degree of responsibility depends on why you are on the property, but unless you are trespassing, you have the right to assume that the property will be reasonably free of hazards that could cause you to slip and fall. Unfortunately, not all property owners are as vigilant as they should be, and thousands of people are injured in slip and fall accidents each year.
Invitees and Licensees
There are two types of visitors that are generally offered protection under Connecticut’s premises liability laws. The first category consists of invitees who, as the name suggests, are on the property by implied or express invitation by the property owner. Perhaps the most common example of an invitee is a customer at a retail store. Invitees are afforded the highest level of responsibility by the property owner.
Another court has issued a ruling that effectively tells police, “Just because you are able to track people does not mean that you are allowed to do so.” The decision was handed down by an appeals court in Washington D.C.—the District’s equivalent of a state appellate court—and addressed the use of cell-site simulator devices. The devices are more commonly known by the brand name StingRay and allow law enforcement to locate a cell phone by sending and receiving signals that imitate the performance of a cell tower. The ruling is the latest in a string of similar court decisions that have held the use of StingRays without a warrant to be a violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights in most cases.
Great Power
Cell-site simulators give the police the ability to track a cell phone and, sometimes, intercept phone calls and text messages. The problem, however, is that the simulators collect the same information from any other phone in the vicinity. As a result, the police can, in effect, track any cell phone without a person’s knowledge or consent. Civil liberty advocates say that such capabilities must be limited by requiring a warrant, as tracking a person’s cell phone without approval from the court constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
When you have been involved in an auto accident, most advice from attorneys and insurance companies recommends against admitting fault or apologizing to the other party or parties involved. This is because car, truck, and motorcycle accidents are often the result of many factors in addition to your own behavior. Apologizing or admitting fault could cause the police, insurance claims adjusters, and investigators to take you at your word instead of looking more deeply into the circumstances the crash. The other drivers are also less likely to voluntarily take responsibility if you have already done so.
Sometimes, a more in-depth investigation into an accident may lead to the discovery of evidence from unexpected sources, including security cameras installed on homes, government buildings, and private businesses in the vicinity of the crash. Footage from one such camera recently provided the proof a Prospect man needed to collect a large settlement following a motorcycle accident in Bethany.
When a person is facing criminal charges and his or her case goes to a jury trial, there is a long list of rules that Connecticut courts must follow to ensure the trial is handled properly. Such rules address not only a suspect’s rights but also the process of the trial itself, including collecting a pool of potential jurors and selecting the appropriate number of jurors to decide the case. Jury selection is an important part of the criminal justice process, but at least one Connecticut judge believes that the current rules that govern jury selection should be amended to be more inclusive.
Peremptory Challenges
During jury selection, attorneys for both sides—prosecutors and defendants in a criminal trial—have a tool at their disposal known as a peremptory challenge. A peremptory challenge gives the attorney the ability to strike a prospective juror without a detailed explanation. Compared to a challenge for cause, peremptory challenges may be limited by jurisdictional rules. While a peremptory challenge does not require a justification, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that such challenges could not be used to strike a prospective juror solely on the basis of race.
The moments after an auto accident can be extremely important in determining which driver’s insurance company should be paying for the resulting damages or injuries. In most cases, each driver provides a reasonably accurate account of what happened to the responding police officer, and the officer uses that information to file an accident report. Sometimes, however, the information provided by one or both drivers conflicts with the physical evidence or other individuals’ accounts of the accident. When this happens, crash investigators may need to find other ways to figure out exactly who was responsible.
Event Data Recorders
You are probably aware that commercial airplanes are generally equipped with an electronic device that records flight data and other important details that could be important when a crash or an unexpected mechanical failure occurs. Commonly known as a “black box”—despite being bright orange so that it can be found more easily at a crash site—the device is actually called an “event data recorder” or EDR.
The state of Connecticut is presently on pace to set a tragic record of more than 1,000 opioid-related deaths in 2017. If things continue on their current pace, 2017 will surpass last year’s record of 917 by a rather large margin. According to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, an average of nearly three residents are dying from accidental drug overdoses every single day. While the word is not one that should be used lightly, but experts throughout the state and across the nation have rightfully identified the country’s opioid problem as a true “epidemic.”
Connecticut Governor Dannell P. Malloy has refused to sit quietly and let the issue go unaddressed. In fact, last month, he signed legislation for the fourth consecutive year aimed at curbing the crisis. This year’s new law may not be as far-reaching as those from the previous two years, it is a step in the right direction and was unanimously passed in both chambers of the state legislature.
50 Founders Plaza
