A lengthy correction was published on the Courant's op-ed page today about Kevin Rennie's Sunday column. Wow.
Opensecrets.org shows that Nancy Johnson has raised a lot more money out of state than Chris Murphy. According to the chart on their site, 44% of Johnson's money comes from out-of-state donors, compared to 10% for Murphy.
The clock is ticking on the legislative session.
What else is going on?
18 comments:
Quinn - unless you host a party for minors in your home and run afoul of the law, you don't have standing to sue.
Three things about the constitutionality of the House Party law:
First, the law does not give the police any greater right to enter a home than is currently available to the police for any crime. So bursting into a house to arrest parents for violating this law without a warrant or probable cause would still be an unconstitutional violation of their rights (but does not render the law itself unconstitutional - if the police burst into someone's house without a warrant or probable cause and arrested them for murder, it would be an unconstitutional violation of their rights, but the law against murder would not be unconstitutional). That does not render the law unenforceable, however. Here are three scenarios for enforcing the law without a violation of the rights of the parents:
1. A cop witnesses 30 obviously inebriated minors staggering out of a house where there are the obvious signs of a party are evident - probable cause.
2. Similiarly, cops get called to a party on a noise complaint and witness alcohol being consumed by minors - plain view; probable cause.
3. Other parents find out about the party, get mad, and report the crime. Multiple party goers are used as witness in a case that involves no state enterance into the home.
Second, and BRubes (or any of the other actual lawyers), correct me if you think I am wrong, but the constitutionality of this law, assuming you are saying it would run afoul of the due process clause of the 14th A, involving no protected classes, would be evaluated under the rational basis test. Since the rational basis of preventing teenage alcohol consumption exists (butressed by the claims in this press release), and the rational basis test almost never overturns legislation, this law would be judged to pass muster.
Finally, Quin said: Acts taking place in the privacy of the home, not in the purview of public space or commercial regulation, or clearly infringing upon anothers rights without their assent, are not susceptable to state prosecution.
Now I'm just being snarky but: Should a pot smoker feel confident that if the police arrest him for smoking in his private home, he will be let off based on teh constitutionality of the law that renders marijuana illegal?
If I can just tag onto what you said, bluecoat, its why the problems on 95 will never be fixed...
Rennie should Resign,
This correction is just to massive to ignore.
He Smeared Lawlor in order to try to convince readers that the corruption being exposed was a bipartisan issue when it was really entirely owned by Republicans just like the national Republican goons in the media tried to portray the Abramoff scandal.
BRubenstein,
Please send me those thoughts you had on Lamont's webpage -- ttagaris at yahoo dot com.
Tim
I can't always promise I'll be this timely... but, replied.
Tim
I'm not a lawyer... but am curious if anyone has any comments about this scenario... if an 18 yr old is drinking, it's illegal, but he/she is an adult. What if a 13 yr old is drinking? Does that start to infringe on the rights of his/her parent(s)? From what I understand, cell phones now carry tracking devices. What if a parent calls the police and says they believe their child is drinking? And thru the child's cell phone, the police have pinpointed the location of the child inside another family's home. Does that give the police the right to simply enter the home without a search warrant?
I realize this may be a stretch, but I think it's plausible (assuming that story about tracking devices in cell phones is true.)
hypothetically... would a 13 yr old's parent(s) have the right to disclose that information/technology?
Does this get similar to arguments that are used for/against "parental notification" laws?
bluecoat... hahaha... I don't know either. But based on all the discussion here, it seems to me that this law is probably, at least to some extent, in a grey area.
Sorry I missed a good discussion (three hour study group for Employment Discrimination)!
Here is my disclaimer: I am a law student and not a lawyer; I'm a 1L and thus haven't taken some of the necessary classes to address these questions (i.e. Crim Pro); DO NOT rely on anything that I say as legal advice!
That said, here is my belated $0.02: I am in agreement with mod.dem.jfk and TSCowperthwait above in that there are different rules for what a police officer can and can't constitutionally do with respect to someone's home when they have probable cause to believe that a crime is in process or to prevent an immenant threat.
CCLU would likely not be that interested in case like this because of their limited resources.
Quinn, in your example above regarding plain sight, I believe that for a crime like this, the cops would not just be restricted to seeing alcohol; if they saw drunk minors they would be able to prevent the crime in progress.
BRubenstein - What you said above tweaked my interest (especially since I will be taking my Con Law exam in a few short weeks).
Two things:
1. Are you saying that a hypothetical lawyer with a client in a protected class would try to argue that a stricter test should be used? Wouldn't they also have to show a) that the law had a discriminatory effect and b) that the law had a discriminatory purpose? It seems that this law would apply evenly to all adults and that the legislature had no intention to discriminate; how would you make that argument? (If I understand you correctly)
2. Even if the strictest level of scrutiny was used, and with the understanding that laws viewed with this level are scrutiny are almost always overturned and the government will have the burden of persuasion, couldn't a case be made that the legislation is necessary to the compelling state interest of preventing teenagers from drinking illegally?
Sorry to unload on you like that, but I really enjoyed this discussion!
Destefano visited Southern Connecticut State University Monday see article
Gary Holder-Winfield,
Thats Embarrassing.
For Southern.
Its the worst written article I've seen in a college Newspaper.The Editor of that newspaper should return to his freshman year in High School and start over.
Gary Holder-Winfield,
Do you really believe that knowing the percentage of people in jail on "technical violations of Parole" is the most important thing The mayor of New Haven should know?
Shilling for Malloy is fine but please don't take us as fools.
Fair enough, but I can't seem to get past two things:
1. That this law would disproportionately affect a protected class.
2. That discriminatory intent could be shown (as opposed to discrimnatory effect).
It is not whether he knew the stats or not it is that he did not know anything. By the way after admitting he had no idea what to do about the situation with recidivism he turned to me and asked if I had a plan. I am not running for governor, he is.
And by the way a mayor who has to deal with this issue now being clueless about it is important. Call me what you like that is important. I do support malloy but that is because I was involved in politics in New Haven. Not a ringing endorsement of Destafano.
Post a Comment