Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
When you hear the phrase “distracted driving,” what comes to mind? Do you picture a teenager in the driver’s seat with one hand on the wheel and the other on a cell phone typing out a text message? Over the last decade or so, texting while driving has become synonymous with distracted driving, and states all over the country, including Connecticut, have enacted laws to prohibit sending and receiving messages while driving. There are, however, countless other ways for a driver to be distracted and, while many of them are perfectly legal, a distracted driver is always dangerous, as even a single moment’s inattention can lead to a serious car accident.
Staggering Numbers
According to estimates from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), nearly one out of every five injury-causing auto accidents in the United States involves at least one distracted driver. While one in five may not sound like very many, this number equates to an average of 1,160 injuries and eight fatalities every single day as a result of distracted driving accidents. Recent studies show that more than 90 percent of drivers realize the dangers of distracted driving, yet the statistics suggest that millions continue to ignore the risks behind the wheel.
The law can be very complicated. For this reason, among others, the American legal system consists of several tiers, each designed to catch mistakes and prevent inconsistencies. Still, there is always the possibility that a court’s decision could have serious unintended consequences, as the scope of a such a decision is not always immediately evident. Such was the scenario with a ruling by a federal appeals court last month—a case in which the dissenting opinion expressed concern that millions of people may have just become “unwitting federal criminals.”
United States v. Nosal
The case in question involved a defendant who was charged with conspiracy, trade secret theft, and computer fraud against his former employer. The man, along with co-conspirators—accessed a database maintained by his former company using the login credentials of another person. As a result, the man was convicted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with the case when the defendant challenged the trial court’s decision.
Even if you have never been inside a courtroom for a criminal trial, you have probably seen dramatized versions in movies and on television. As such, you are likely familiar with the concept of a courtroom identification. While a witness—often the alleged victim or an eyewitness to the crime—is being questioned, he or she is asked by the district attorney a question along the lines of “Is the person who committed this offense present in the courtroom today?” If the response is affirmative, the witness is then asked to point out that individual for the record.
New Guidelines
Last week, the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down a ruling that places a limit on such in-court identifications. Going forward, the state must notify the court that a witness will be identifying a suspect in court for the first time, without having identified the suspect via a photo-lineup or other, non-suggestive manner prior to trial. The presiding judge is only permitted to allow a first-time identification in court if “there is no factual dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator, or the ability of the particular eyewitness to identify the defendant is not at issue.”
Thanks to public awareness campaigns and personal experience, most people are aware of the dangers of texting while driving. Studies show that an estimated one out of every four motor vehicle crashes involves cell phone usage. As many as one in three drivers admit to reading or sending text messages while driving. Using a cell phone while driving, whether conducting a voice call or texting, significantly increases the likelihood of a crash. Most disturbingly, nine Americans die in crashes related to distracted driving every day on average.
These sobering numbers should discourage most drivers from texting or reading texts while on the road. However, a study from Florida State University suggests that there is more to distracted driving than previously thought. The majority of drivers believe that if they put their cell phone away while driving and refrain from answering text messages that they are safe. Although it is commendable to resist the urge to send or read a quick text while driving, the study suggests that just hearing a cell phone notification or feeling the vibration can be just as dangerous.
The moments after a serious car accident or truck crash can be chaotic and overwhelming. Your heart is racing, you are likely a bit disoriented, and, in many cases, your vehicle is severely damaged and unable to be moved. Of course, there is also the possibility that you have been injured. In more obvious situations, broken bones, intense pain, blood, and other evidence may be proof that you are hurt. In others, however, you may feel no indication of an injury. One of the most important elements of any auto accidents is making sure that you get the medical care you need, even if you are not sure that you have been hurt.
Work With First Responders
Depending on the severity of the accident, local authorities often respond with fire trucks and ambulances, even if there have been no reports of injuries. If emergency medical technicians (EMTs) are on the scene, it is a good idea to submit to a precursory examination. You may not feel like you are hurt, but a trained EMT may be able to identify a possible problem. Based on the symptoms you are showing, the EMT may suggest transporting you to the hospital for further tests and observation. While an EMT is not a doctor, he or she is a professional whose job is to make sure that you get the medical attention you need. If he or she feels that a hospital evaluation is a good idea, complying with the request is probably in your best interest.
When the police are trying to track down a suspect, they will often stop at nothing to find him or her. In many cases, such determination is understandable, as it is focused on getting a potentially dangerous individual off the street in the interest of public safety as well as enforcing the law. Sometimes, however, law enforcement officials can become overzealous, venturing into territory that risks violating a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights. With the rise of digital technology, it can be difficult for criminal suspects to even know that their rights have been compromised, but a federal judge in New York recently issued a ruling that could prove to be very important to the future of criminal investigations.
United States v. Lambis
The case in question was the result of a drug investigation by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). According to court records, the DEA legally acquired a suspect’s cell phone information, then obtained a warrant to access cell tower records in an effort to locate the phone. The cell tower data was only able to give DEA agents the general vicinity of the phone. The DEA then employed the use of a cell-site simulator, commonly known as a Stingray, to further track the suspect’s mobile device. The Stingray mimicked a cell tower, gathering information from the man’s phone, leading DEA agents to knock on his door while he slept. A subsequent search of the apartment led to the discovery of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The man was arrested but sought to have the evidence suppressed based on the manner in which he and the evidence were found.
When a person is attempting to cross a busy street, he or she is in a very vulnerable position. Thousands of pounds of steel, rubber, and plastic are flying past, each vehicle capable of inflicting serious injury or death with just a single moment of inattention. In less than a second, the pedestrian’s life can be changed forever, and, in many cases, the results are beyond tragic. Pedestrian safety, however, is not entirely the responsibility of car and truck drivers; when you are walking, it is also up to you to ensure that you are following the rules of the road to help prevent unnecessary injuries and fatalities.
Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks
Downtown and urban areas can be incredibly frustrating for drivers and pedestrians alike. Too often, cars and trucks simply refuse to yield to those who are walking, while far too many pedestrians dart out into traffic. In many cases, neither drivers nor pedestrians really understand the applicable laws and who is supposed to have the right of way.
Nobody is perfect. Every person makes mistakes from time to time, and, as such, human institutions are not perfect either. Law enforcement can be particularly challenging, with the wide range of variables and stressors with which officers must deal on a daily basis. When law enforcement agencies make an error, however, the lives of innocent individuals are often greatly affected in a negative way. Most reasonable people are willing to forgive an honest mistake, even if it causes a relatively significant inconvenience. But, what if the same mistake happens three times? That is exactly the situation facing a Bridgeport man who has been wrongly arrested three times by local police due to mistaken identity.
Same Name, Different Men
Pedro Martinez, a 52-year-old man living in Bridgeport, has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the city of Bridgeport and its police department after he was wrongly arrested for the third time and detained for four days last summer. It seems that there is another man by the name of Pedro Martinez from Texas with an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Somehow, the suit alleges, Bridgeport police cannot seem to remember that the local Martinez is not the same man wanted in Texas and, during the most recent arrest, refused to use simple identification techniques to avoid a mistake.
Millions of times each day, Americans both young and old share a part of their lives on some type of online social media outlet. Social media use has become so culturally pervasive that nearly two-thirds of the adult population in the United States use Facebook or other networking sites. The number is significantly higher in certain demographics, with younger age groups reporting that 90 percent of them use social media. Sharing life’s big moments can certainly be a good thing, but oversharing can sometimes cause problems, especially if a post contradicts claims being made in a personal injury lawsuit for negligence and product liability.
The Injury
In late March 2011, a woman was shopping at a mall in Trumbull when she set off security alarms leaving a store. Instead of stopping, the woman reportedly walked away and began going down an escalator near the store’s exit. When the store security called to her and asked her to come back, she turned and started walking up the downward-moving escalator. The woman fell, fracturing her right ankle, which required several surgeries and left her with a permanent partial disability. Claiming the escalator was defective and dangerous, the woman sued the mall for negligence and the escalator manufacturer for product liability.
In late April, the nation’s high court heard oral arguments in a case whose impact could be felt around the country. At issue before the Supreme Court is whether or not criminal penalties for refusing blood-alcohol content (BAC) test without a warrant violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights. As it currently stands, 13 states maintain laws that make the refusal of such tests a crime, separate from the offense of driving under the influence (DUI). Many other states, like Connecticut, provide administrative penalties for refusing such a test rather than criminal prosecution.
Driving as a Constitutional Right
While the United States Constitution was drafted before the advent of the automobile, many believe that the ability to drive should be considered a right, not merely a privilege. The distinction is very important, as a privilege can more easily be conditional, while a right must be protected. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that driving is a constitutional right, but has explicitly recognized the right to travel. If driving is a right, then a driver cannot be asked to waive his or her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable warrantless searches as a condition of driving.
50 Founders Plaza
