Tuesday, December 15, 2009
By Lisa Cornwell
ASSOCIATED PRESS
CINCINNATI -- Allegations that workers at a church day care put an over-the-counter dietary supplement in candy to help children sleep at nap time are under investigation, police said today.
Springfield Township police Lt. Dave Schaefer confirmed that police are looking into allegations that some workers at Covenant Apostolic Church Daycare in suburban Cincinnati gave melatonin to some children there. He did not give the ages of the children. Police have sent a letter to parents and guardians of children who attend the day care, informing them of the investigation.
The letter dated yesterday says the investigation had just begun and police did not know which staff members allegedly gave the supplement to children or how many of the 40 or so children who attend the day care allegedly received the supplement.
The letter said the information was being provided to parents and guardians so that they could "take whatever actions you deem necessary to protect your child or children in the event that they were given melatonin on one or more occasions." It suggested parents or guardians contact their family physician or the Poison Control Center if they have questions about the effects of melatonin.
The letter also said the Hamilton County prosecutor's office had been notified and the day care is cooperating in the investigation. Messages seeking comment were left today at the church and at a phone number listed for the church pastor in the letter police sent to parents. Schaefer referred calls seeking any additional information to the prosecutor's office in Cincinnati. Prosecutor spokeswoman Julie Wilson said she only could confirm that there was an ongoing investigation into the day care.
Melatonin is a hormone made by a small gland in the brain. It helps control sleep and wake cycles and is not FDA-approved or regulated, according to the Mayo Clinic Web site. Possible side effects include dizziness, abdominal discomfort, headaches, confusion, sleepwalking and nightmares.
The site also says that long-term effects of melatonin are not known and it may not be safe for anyone who is pregnant, breast-feeding or younger than age 20.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Sheriff finalizing plans to demote lieutenants
By Mark Puente, The Plain Dealer
November 28, 2009, 5:02AM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A plan to demote seven sheriff's lieutenants has taken longer than expected, but it is moving forward and could occur in January, Sheriff Bob Reid said.
The seven lieutenants were promoted from sergeant and given a $7,000 pay raise in January, when former Sheriff Gerald McFaul abolished the entire rank of sergeant and laid off 18 deputies. Several of the sergeants promoted to lieutenant had personal ties to McFaul and his family.
Reid announced in August that he planned to force the lieutenants back to their former rank of sergeant because they should not have been promoted without a competitive process under those circumstances.
He plans to only have four lieutenants. Only one of the remaining two lieutenants will remain in his position and another retired. A promotional exam will be offered for all sergeants to compete for the other three lieutenant positions, Reid said in August.
Reid said this week that he plans to meet with the lieutenants and sergeants next week to discuss the reclassification and promotional exam. Agreements needed to be reached on the process with the unions before the moves could be made, Reid said.
Without the agreements, he feared union grievances and unfair labor charges could burden the process. He is hopeful the moves will occur in January.
"I am disappointed that we haven't done the promotional process," Reid said. "I want a very clean process. It's better to move a little cautiously on this."
The office is finalizing an agreement with a company to provide the promotional exams. The deputies will be given about three weeks to study for the exam, Reid added.
The lieutenants attempted to unionize this year after a state labor board ruled that McFaul violated the law by axing the sergeants when they were trying to unionize. They eventually voted to join the Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. The union called Reid's plan "a fair and viable resolution."
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Former Parma police officer guilty of theft in office, tampering with evidence
By Donna J. Miller, Plain Dealer reporter
Cleveland Plain DealerPARMA, Ohio — Former Parma patrolman Mark McCombs pleaded guilty today to theft in office and tampering with evidence. He will be sentenced Jan. 11 to up to 7½ years in prison.
McCombs, when he was a Parma patrolman, stole night-vision goggles worth nearly $3,000, flashlights and chargers, a 30-round magazine, 23 bags of gun parts and three lasers, prosecutors said.
McCombs, when he was a Parma patrolman, stole night-vision goggles worth nearly $3,000, flashlights and chargers, a 30-round magazine, 23 bags of gun parts and three lasers, prosecutors said.
He then removed serial numbers from the goggles. The thefts occurred from June 2000 through May 2007, when he was fired. McCombs, 47, has already served time in prison for tampering with evidence. He tried to destroy photographs that were evidence in a rape allegation filed against him. He was accused of raping a drunken woman in his patrol car.
He was acquitted of rape, but found guilty of tampering with evidence. He was sentenced June 12, 2008, to two years in prison, but on June 17 was granted an early release.
He was acquitted of rape, but found guilty of tampering with evidence. He was sentenced June 12, 2008, to two years in prison, but on June 17 was granted an early release.
He still faces charges in federal court, where he's accused of owning two unregistered machine guns and a silencer with scratched off serial numbers.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
High court to look at life in prison for juveniles
By MARK SHERMANAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Joe Sullivan was sent away for life for raping an elderly woman and judged incorrigible though he was only 13 at the time of the attack.
Terrance Graham, implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17, was given a life sentence by a judge who told the teenager he threw his life away.
They didn't kill anyone, but they effectively were sentenced to die in prison. Life sentences with no chance of parole are rare and harsh for juveniles tried as adults and convicted of crimes less serious than killing. Just over 100 prison inmates in the United States are serving those terms, according to data compiled by opponents of the sentences.
Now the Supreme Court is being asked to say that locking up juveniles and throwing away the key is cruel and unusual - and thus, unconstitutional. Other than in death penalty cases, the justices never before have found that a penalty crossed the cruel-and-unusual line. They will hear arguments Monday. Graham, now 22, and Sullivan, now 33, are in Florida prisons, which hold more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for nonhomicide crimes. Although their lawyers deny their clients are guilty, the court will consider only whether the sentences are permitted by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's latest look at how to punish young criminals flows directly from its 4-year-old decision to rule out the death penalty for anyone younger than 18.
In that 2005 case decided by a 5-4 vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion talked about "the lesser culpability of the juvenile offender." "From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed," Kennedy said. Yet Kennedy also acknowledged the possibility that for the worst crimes and the worst offenders, "the punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person." Both sides point to the same basic facts - the rare imposition of Draconian prison terms on people so young - to make their point.
The state of Florida, backed by 19 other states, argues it should retain flexibility in sentencing so that "particularly heinous acts that stop short of causing death" can be punished vigorously.
Life without parole "is appropriately rare and reserved only for the worst of the worst offenders," crime victims' groups said in court papers. Most victims of juvenile violence also are young, the victims groups said, citing Justice Department statistics. "Softening sentences for juvenile offenders puts actual children in harm's way - innocent ones, not those who have committed violent crimes," the victims' groups said.
Opponents of such sentences said, however, that most states have in practice rejected life terms for juveniles when no one was killed. The 109 juveniles serving terms of life without parole are in Florida and seven other states - California, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska and South Carolina - according to a Florida State University study. More than 2,000 other juveniles are serving life without parole for killing someone.
Only 9 people in the country are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were 13. The number rises to 73 when 14-year-olds are added in. No other country allows life sentences for young offenders, opponents say. Beyond the infrequency of such punishment, lawyers for Graham and Sullivan argue that it is a bad idea to render a final judgment about people so young. "They are unfinished products, works-in-progress," said Bryan Stevenson, who will argue Sullivan's case at the high court.
Actor Charles Dutton, former U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson and others who committed crimes as teenagers have weighed in against life without parole sentences. Corrections officials, psychologists, educators and even some victims also have taken Graham's and Sullivan's side.
"The crimes that these guys committed were grotesque," Simpson said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "I'm sure people will say Simpson's gone soft in the head."
The Wyoming Republican served 18 years in the Senate, but as a teenager, he pleaded guilty to setting fire to an abandoned building on federal property and later spent a night in jail for slugging a police officer.
Simpson said he sees no good argument for refusing even to review their sentences after the passage of time. "When they get to be 30 or 40 and they been in the clink for 20 years or 30 or 40 and they have learned how to read and how to do things, why not?"
If a prisoner shows he is not fit to be released, "throw him back in," he said. "That's better than saying 'Sorry, we can't look at that file because you were sent here for life.'"
As their cases come to the court, Sullivan's and Graham's interests are not strictly aligned. The justices could, for example, decide that life sentences may be inappropriate for 13-year-olds, but allow them for older teenagers.
Such a decision could help Sullivan and another Florida inmate, Ian Manuel, who wounded a woman in a shooting when he was 13. But it could leave Graham with his sentence unchanged.
The cases are Sullivan v. Florida, 08-7621, and Graham v. Florida, 08-7412.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Students who question murder convictions under investigation
Picture 1: Students at Northwestern University's innocence project have been investigating the case of Anthony McKinney
Picture 2: Anthony Porter, left, hugs Northwestern University journalism professor David Protess after his release
By Nicole Lapin, CNN
On CNN.com
Editor's note: Nicole Lapin is an anchor and reporter based at the CNN Headquarters in Atlanta. She graduated from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.
(CNN) -- It was two-and-a-half days before Illinois Gov. George Ryan was to leave office in 2003. I sat in a crowded auditorium in Northwestern University's Law School in Chicago, where Ryan was expected to make a major announcement on capital punishment. "Half, if you will, of the nearly 300 capital cases in Illinois have been reversed for a new trial or for some re-sentencing." he said, his voice tired but clear.
Wrongful convictions had been all over the papers around that time -- the Anthony Porter case, the Ford Heights Four, Rolando Cruz. "How in God's name does that happen? In America, how does it happen?" Ryan continued. "How many more cases of wrongful conviction have to occur before we can all agree that this system in Illinois is broken?"
On that day, the governor commuted the sentences of all death row inmates in the state and credited an unlikely source for helping him make his decision: Professor David Protess' undergraduate Investigative Journalism class at Northwestern University's Medill School.
In the previous decade, Medill students had uncovered some of the most high-profile wrongful convictions in the city. The class had worked to secure the release of 11 innocent prisoners, five of whom were scheduled to be executed.
In the previous decade, Medill students had uncovered some of the most high-profile wrongful convictions in the city. The class had worked to secure the release of 11 innocent prisoners, five of whom were scheduled to be executed.
As a wide-eyed journalism student at Northwestern, I remember feeling proud of my classmates, proud of my school and proud of the profession I was entering.
Today, six years later, Protess' class is far from the center of the same praise. Presented with evidence in a new case, the state attorney's office is questioning the motivations of the messenger -- the class itself.
Today, six years later, Protess' class is far from the center of the same praise. Presented with evidence in a new case, the state attorney's office is questioning the motivations of the messenger -- the class itself.
The students have raised questions about the murder conviction of Anthony McKinney. In response, the state attorney's office issued a subpoena for the students' grades, grading criteria, expense reports, syllabi and e-mail messages -- mine included.
The year after Gov. Ryan's speech, I signed up for Protess' class. I was assigned to the team working on McKinney's case, who was convicted in 1978, when he was 18, for shooting a security guard in Harvey, Illinois. On the night of September 15, 1978, a white security guard named Donald Lundahl was killed at close range by a shotgun blast while sitting in his car.
Later that evening, a police officer noticed McKinney, an African-American, running down the street. He was arrested.
Later that evening, a police officer noticed McKinney, an African-American, running down the street. He was arrested.
McKinney had no violent criminal history and was not in possession of a weapon. He was briefly released after telling police he was watching the Muhammed Ali-Leon Spinx heavyweight championship fight when the murder took place and was running from "gang-bangers" when the officer saw him. Authorities questioned another teenager, who told police that he saw the murder, claiming he saw McKinney, from 50 yards away, say, "Your money or your life," and shoot Lundahl.
McKinney was picked up again, and after a second lengthy interrogation, he signed a confession, typed by police. During his trial, he recanted the confession, and said it was coerced.
But based on officers' testimony and that of the teenager, McKinney was convicted of murder.
Prosecutors sought the death penalty, but because he had no record, McKinney was sentenced to life in prison. Had his sentence been death, McKinney would have been executed long before the commutation of death row cases in 2003. He would have been dead well before Protess even took up his case.
But based on officers' testimony and that of the teenager, McKinney was convicted of murder.
Prosecutors sought the death penalty, but because he had no record, McKinney was sentenced to life in prison. Had his sentence been death, McKinney would have been executed long before the commutation of death row cases in 2003. He would have been dead well before Protess even took up his case.
Since Protess started the course in 1992, his classes have investigated about 50 cases.
Although the ones that are chosen have major red flags, like lack of physical evidence, not all convictions are found to be unjustified. Of the 50, 11 led to exonerations. Two indicated solid evidence of guilt. The rest are under review by the judiciary or were inconclusive, Protess said.
Protess made clear to all of his classes that the coursework was about pavement-hitting journalism, the process behind discovering the truth -- guilt or innocence. I went into the class to learn that process.
Although the ones that are chosen have major red flags, like lack of physical evidence, not all convictions are found to be unjustified. Of the 50, 11 led to exonerations. Two indicated solid evidence of guilt. The rest are under review by the judiciary or were inconclusive, Protess said.
Protess made clear to all of his classes that the coursework was about pavement-hitting journalism, the process behind discovering the truth -- guilt or innocence. I went into the class to learn that process.
During the two quarters I took the course, I lived the McKinney case. My team and I spent nights and weekends doing things I never told my family or friends because they wouldn't believe me. Some times it was a matter of staking out a source's house or going to smoky, seedy bars to fish for information on the decades-old case. Those times, a professional private investigator and another team member would be in the car listening for the words "winter wedding" -- the "safe word" we were supposed say into the cell phones in our pockets if something dangerous ever went down. (It never did.)
Unlike other Medill classes, this course was hands-on, gritty and raw. I gained more practical skills in those months than in all of my other college courses combined. The experience prepared me to do the work I have done professionally and will continue to do throughout my career.
In our investigation, we reenacted the crime scene and determined it was impossible to discern any words spoken or shouted from 50 yards away. Later, we tracked down the then-teenage witness who said he saw McKinney that night. The man recanted his testimony on videotape, and told us police beat him.
In our investigation, we reenacted the crime scene and determined it was impossible to discern any words spoken or shouted from 50 yards away. Later, we tracked down the then-teenage witness who said he saw McKinney that night. The man recanted his testimony on videotape, and told us police beat him.
We also found a fire department document that indicated the paramedics were called to the police station during McKinney's interrogation, raising the question of whether he was roughed up during his interrogation as he said he was. We interviewed the "gang-bangers" who chased him that night. They acknowledged they chased him after the Ali fight because they were angry he had damaged their car earlier. Finally, we identified alternate suspects, one of whom stated on videotape that he was there when the murder was committed -- and that McKinney wasn't.
After I graduated, the investigation continued. Once Protess felt there was enough evidence, after nine teams of student reporters had worked on the case, the information was shared with the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern's Law School and McKinney's legal team.
The audio and videotaped interviews, affidavits and other on-the-record interview transcripts we worked on also were presented to the district attorney's office. Last year, the new evidence was submitted to the Cook County Circuit Court in an effort to exonerate McKinney.
I am still haunted by the case. I am still haunted by my visit to see McKinney in prison -- the gentle face of a man who still has hope after so many years.
After I graduated, the investigation continued. Once Protess felt there was enough evidence, after nine teams of student reporters had worked on the case, the information was shared with the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern's Law School and McKinney's legal team.
The audio and videotaped interviews, affidavits and other on-the-record interview transcripts we worked on also were presented to the district attorney's office. Last year, the new evidence was submitted to the Cook County Circuit Court in an effort to exonerate McKinney.
I am still haunted by the case. I am still haunted by my visit to see McKinney in prison -- the gentle face of a man who still has hope after so many years.
A spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office, Sally Daly, told me that we, as students, were "conducting these interviews for a grade in this class." She went on to say the "request for the grades goes to explore any possible bias, interest or motive." The claim is that we, as students, were motivated to get witnesses to play into a preconceived thesis of innocence in order to get good grades. I think I speak for my fellow alums when I say this class was never about grades.
It has always been about searching for truth and justice for people whose cases didn't get due diligence from a bogged-down system. This was about journalism in its purest and most passionate form.
It has always been about searching for truth and justice for people whose cases didn't get due diligence from a bogged-down system. This was about journalism in its purest and most passionate form.
For years, the class has been a check on the work of police and other law enforcement officials. Protess has seen and dealt with his fair share of heat for more than a decade, but never anything like this attempt to investigate the investigator. Northwestern is not complying with the request for documents. A court hearing on November 10 will decide if the subpoena will stand. While we were students at the time, we "took reporting to the Nth degree," as the dean of the school told The Chicago Tribune. We functioned as journalists and should be protected by reporter's privilege laws.
About 50 similar programs across the country are watching to see what precedent could be set if the state is entitled to these materials. Will programs like Northwestern's continue if the volunteers are worried about attorneys' fees to handle requests for documents?
Recently, Judge H. Lee Sarokin, the federal judge who famously freed Ruben "Hurricane" Carter on a murder conviction that proved to be unfounded, wrote in support of all former members of "Team McKinney." "If a reporter hopes to win a Pulitzer or an investigator for the defense hopes to obtain further business," he wrote, "how can those motives possibly be relevant to the evidence obtained?" The focus should be on the evidence, not grades. Student information is irrelevant to Anthony McKinney's case. Being forced to hand over private information will not only compromise the integrity of the program, but create a chilling effect on free speech and investigative reporting.
Recently, Judge H. Lee Sarokin, the federal judge who famously freed Ruben "Hurricane" Carter on a murder conviction that proved to be unfounded, wrote in support of all former members of "Team McKinney." "If a reporter hopes to win a Pulitzer or an investigator for the defense hopes to obtain further business," he wrote, "how can those motives possibly be relevant to the evidence obtained?" The focus should be on the evidence, not grades. Student information is irrelevant to Anthony McKinney's case. Being forced to hand over private information will not only compromise the integrity of the program, but create a chilling effect on free speech and investigative reporting.
I recently went back and watched Gov. Ryan's speech on YouTube. I got the same chill I did watching it in person that day. I can only hope that a new generation of students has the opportunity to feel that, too.
Lawyers fight law on sex offenders before Ohio Supreme Court
Thursday, November 5, 2009 3:29 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Thousands of registered sex offenders would be subject to less-stringent reporting requirements if defense lawyers succeed in challenging parts of a 2007 state law intended to crack down on sexual criminals.
The attorneys told the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday that the get-tough law was applied illegally to more than 26,000 sex offenders who were sentenced before it took effect.
In addition, the lawyers said, the measure penalizes people who commit sex offenses before they turn 18 by requiring them to continue to register as sex offenders well into adulthood.
The state's highest court heard four cases yesterday challenging Senate Bill 10, which created a new system for classifying sex offenders based more on the severity of the crime than the likelihood of committing future offenses. More than half of the offenders were placed in the most-serious category -- sexual predators -- who are required to register every 90 days for life.
Jeffrey M. Gamso, a Toledo lawyer who argued one of the cases, said the law had more to do with securing federal funding under the Adam Walsh Act than protecting Ohioans.
"Is the sheriff really keeping tabs on all those people?" Gamso asked in an interview. "We know that some people will re-offend, and we want to be able to target those people.
"You want to find the needle in the haystack, and what this does is build a bigger haystack."
State Sen. Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland, said the law makes it easier for the public to monitor the whereabouts of registered sex offenders on the Internet and through mandatory notices to neighbors. "The policy decision, from my perspective, was based on protecting public safety," Grendell said. "The timing was based on us being told we'd get an additional 10 percent (in Adam Walsh funding) if we did this by a certain time. We would not make public policy just to get money."
The four cases:
• Three adult sex offenders from Huron County who were classified as sexual predators under the 2007 law say it's unconstitutional to subject them to a "punitive" law that didn't exist when they were sentenced.
Gamso, who represented the men, said lawmakers can't step in and redo classifications for sex offenders that already were determined by judges.
David M. Lieberman, an assistant attorney general who represented the state, said lawmakers had no choice but to revise the state law to comply with the Adam Walsh Act.
• Roman Chojnacki, who was convicted of sex with a minor in Warren County in 2006, was reclassified from a low-risk sex offender under the old law to a medium-risk offender.
His attorney, Jason A. Macke, argued that Chojnacki and others who were reclassified should have had access to lawyers during that process.
Lieberman, who again represented the state, said defendants are entitled to legal representation only when they face the deprivation of liberty or fundamental rights such as privacy. That isn't the case here, he said.
• Darian J. Smith, who was convicted in Allen County of three counts of rape at age 14, contends that he shouldn't be subject to the same registration requirements as adult sex offenders.
Brooke M. Burns, his attorney, said studies have shown that there's a better chance of rehabilitating youthful sex offenders than adults.
Christina L. Steffan, the attorney for the Allen County prosecutor's office, said juvenile offenders are given adult legal protections -- such as the right to lawyers and a jury trial -- before their names are added to the sex-offender database.
• A juvenile sex offender known only as Adrian R. was classified as a sexual predator and must report to authorities into adulthood even though he has responded very well to treatment, said Burns, who also represented Adrian.
She said the rigid classifications "disincentivize children from doing well in treatment."
Assistant Licking County Prosecutor Alice L. Bond said the current sex-offender law allows people convicted as juveniles to petition a judge to be declassified as sex offenders in three years.
jnash@dispatch.com
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Thousands of registered sex offenders would be subject to less-stringent reporting requirements if defense lawyers succeed in challenging parts of a 2007 state law intended to crack down on sexual criminals.
The attorneys told the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday that the get-tough law was applied illegally to more than 26,000 sex offenders who were sentenced before it took effect.
In addition, the lawyers said, the measure penalizes people who commit sex offenses before they turn 18 by requiring them to continue to register as sex offenders well into adulthood.
The state's highest court heard four cases yesterday challenging Senate Bill 10, which created a new system for classifying sex offenders based more on the severity of the crime than the likelihood of committing future offenses. More than half of the offenders were placed in the most-serious category -- sexual predators -- who are required to register every 90 days for life.
Jeffrey M. Gamso, a Toledo lawyer who argued one of the cases, said the law had more to do with securing federal funding under the Adam Walsh Act than protecting Ohioans.
"Is the sheriff really keeping tabs on all those people?" Gamso asked in an interview. "We know that some people will re-offend, and we want to be able to target those people.
"You want to find the needle in the haystack, and what this does is build a bigger haystack."
State Sen. Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland, said the law makes it easier for the public to monitor the whereabouts of registered sex offenders on the Internet and through mandatory notices to neighbors. "The policy decision, from my perspective, was based on protecting public safety," Grendell said. "The timing was based on us being told we'd get an additional 10 percent (in Adam Walsh funding) if we did this by a certain time. We would not make public policy just to get money."
The four cases:
• Three adult sex offenders from Huron County who were classified as sexual predators under the 2007 law say it's unconstitutional to subject them to a "punitive" law that didn't exist when they were sentenced.
Gamso, who represented the men, said lawmakers can't step in and redo classifications for sex offenders that already were determined by judges.
David M. Lieberman, an assistant attorney general who represented the state, said lawmakers had no choice but to revise the state law to comply with the Adam Walsh Act.
• Roman Chojnacki, who was convicted of sex with a minor in Warren County in 2006, was reclassified from a low-risk sex offender under the old law to a medium-risk offender.
His attorney, Jason A. Macke, argued that Chojnacki and others who were reclassified should have had access to lawyers during that process.
Lieberman, who again represented the state, said defendants are entitled to legal representation only when they face the deprivation of liberty or fundamental rights such as privacy. That isn't the case here, he said.
• Darian J. Smith, who was convicted in Allen County of three counts of rape at age 14, contends that he shouldn't be subject to the same registration requirements as adult sex offenders.
Brooke M. Burns, his attorney, said studies have shown that there's a better chance of rehabilitating youthful sex offenders than adults.
Christina L. Steffan, the attorney for the Allen County prosecutor's office, said juvenile offenders are given adult legal protections -- such as the right to lawyers and a jury trial -- before their names are added to the sex-offender database.
• A juvenile sex offender known only as Adrian R. was classified as a sexual predator and must report to authorities into adulthood even though he has responded very well to treatment, said Burns, who also represented Adrian.
She said the rigid classifications "disincentivize children from doing well in treatment."
Assistant Licking County Prosecutor Alice L. Bond said the current sex-offender law allows people convicted as juveniles to petition a judge to be declassified as sex offenders in three years.
jnash@dispatch.com
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Ohio OKs Casinos:
Political leaders now must decide whether to challenge the issue in court or try to pass another amendment
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 3:04 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Battered by a grim economy, job-hungry Ohioans approved casinos for Columbus and three other cities yesterday.
Voters broke a streak of four failed gambling measures in Ohio by approving Issue 3 with about 53 percent voting yes. The measure benefited from a strong appeal by unions and urban politicians to get voters in the four casino cities -- Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo -- to the polls. The measure carried by large majorities in the Cleveland and Cincinnati areas, won with a smaller majority in Toledo, and lost in Franklin County.
"We're going to deliver something very special, and we're going to work very hard with a lot of people," said Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers and owner-to-be of two of the casinos. "This is not going to be a savior by any means, but it's another brick in the wall."
Gilbert will have the rights to casinos in Cleveland and Cincinnati. His partner on Issue 3, Pennsylvania-based Penn National Gaming Inc., will develop casinos in Toledo and Columbus' Arena District. Construction could begin by late 2010, and the new facilities would open in 2012.
It's now up to Ohio's political leaders to decide whether to mount a legal challenge or launch an effort to pass another constitutional amendment next year to replace parts of the measure approved yesterday.
Gov. Ted Strickland, who opposed Issue 3, was noncommittal on the latter possibility.
"While I am personally disappointed, I understand why Ohioans, who are struggling under the weight of this global recession, were willing to give this proposal a chance," Strickland said in a statement. "The voters have spoken, and state leaders and legislators must now implement the constitutional amendment while making sure it benefits the people of this state and puts more Ohioans to work."
Ohio House Speaker Armond Budish, a Beachwood Democrat who reluctantly supported Issue 3, is committed to passing legislation that ensures the best deal for the state, spokesman Keary McCarthy said last night. But Budish has not broached the possibility of putting another amendment on the ballot to change the casinos' terms. Tenenbaum declined to comment on the possibility of another ballot try that could put the state in charge of bringing casinos to Ohio and generate more revenue for state coffers. "It would depend entirely on what the proposal was," he said.
Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman, who opposed Issue 3, said lawmakers should move quickly to put a new amendment on the ballot to raise the tax rate, put the casino licenses up to bid and let cities regulate their locations and operations. "If this passes, my hope is that the legislature will step in," Coleman said last night. It would take a three-fifths majority of the legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the May ballot. The measure would have to be filed with the secretary of state's office at least 90 days before the election, or Feb. 3.
Rob Walgate, co-chair of Vote No Casinos, conceded shortly after 11 p.m. "They won and we lost," he said. "Thankfully, the commercials are over and they can sit back and deliver on all their promises."
Proponents of the issue mounted a big push to get voters to the polls and to vote by absentee ballot. Indeed, Franklin County voters stomped the measure on Election Day, but heavily favored it in early voting. About half of the total vote cast for the issue in Cuyahoga County, the state's most populous and where the issue had strong political support, came from early ballots.
Sandy Theis, spokeswoman for the opposition group TruthPAC, said the heavy pro-casino turnout in urban counties helped the issue.
Many voters who cast "yes" ballots noted that thousands of Ohioans gamble in other states without benefiting their home state. The casinos would jump-start economic development in the state's largest cities and retain tax money in Ohio, they said. "I don't go to casinos, but lots of people go elsewhere to gamble, so they might as well keep the money here," said Regina Lee, 35, of Westerville. "We need the tax dollars and the jobs."
Some who voted against Issue 3 cited the potential for crime and other social problems as well as exaggerated promises of jobs from casino proponents. John Goettler, 45, an Upper Arlington consultant for nonprofit organizations, said he is opposed to expanded gambling in Ohio. He is worried the casinos could bring more crime and other problems and thinks the pro-casino television ads promising thousands of jobs contained "blatant lies." "As bad as the economy is legalizing casino gambling is not the answer," he said.
Ohio voters had rejected gambling issues four times before, including twice in the past three years. Last year, nearly 63 percent of voters rejected a proposal for a casino in Clinton County.
Dispatch Senior Editor Joe Hallett and reporters Mark Niquette and Jim Siegel contributed to this story.
jnash@dispatch.com
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 3:04 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Battered by a grim economy, job-hungry Ohioans approved casinos for Columbus and three other cities yesterday.
Voters broke a streak of four failed gambling measures in Ohio by approving Issue 3 with about 53 percent voting yes. The measure benefited from a strong appeal by unions and urban politicians to get voters in the four casino cities -- Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo -- to the polls. The measure carried by large majorities in the Cleveland and Cincinnati areas, won with a smaller majority in Toledo, and lost in Franklin County.
"We're going to deliver something very special, and we're going to work very hard with a lot of people," said Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers and owner-to-be of two of the casinos. "This is not going to be a savior by any means, but it's another brick in the wall."
Gilbert will have the rights to casinos in Cleveland and Cincinnati. His partner on Issue 3, Pennsylvania-based Penn National Gaming Inc., will develop casinos in Toledo and Columbus' Arena District. Construction could begin by late 2010, and the new facilities would open in 2012.
It's now up to Ohio's political leaders to decide whether to mount a legal challenge or launch an effort to pass another constitutional amendment next year to replace parts of the measure approved yesterday.
Gov. Ted Strickland, who opposed Issue 3, was noncommittal on the latter possibility.
"While I am personally disappointed, I understand why Ohioans, who are struggling under the weight of this global recession, were willing to give this proposal a chance," Strickland said in a statement. "The voters have spoken, and state leaders and legislators must now implement the constitutional amendment while making sure it benefits the people of this state and puts more Ohioans to work."
Ohio House Speaker Armond Budish, a Beachwood Democrat who reluctantly supported Issue 3, is committed to passing legislation that ensures the best deal for the state, spokesman Keary McCarthy said last night. But Budish has not broached the possibility of putting another amendment on the ballot to change the casinos' terms. Tenenbaum declined to comment on the possibility of another ballot try that could put the state in charge of bringing casinos to Ohio and generate more revenue for state coffers. "It would depend entirely on what the proposal was," he said.
Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman, who opposed Issue 3, said lawmakers should move quickly to put a new amendment on the ballot to raise the tax rate, put the casino licenses up to bid and let cities regulate their locations and operations. "If this passes, my hope is that the legislature will step in," Coleman said last night. It would take a three-fifths majority of the legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the May ballot. The measure would have to be filed with the secretary of state's office at least 90 days before the election, or Feb. 3.
Rob Walgate, co-chair of Vote No Casinos, conceded shortly after 11 p.m. "They won and we lost," he said. "Thankfully, the commercials are over and they can sit back and deliver on all their promises."
Proponents of the issue mounted a big push to get voters to the polls and to vote by absentee ballot. Indeed, Franklin County voters stomped the measure on Election Day, but heavily favored it in early voting. About half of the total vote cast for the issue in Cuyahoga County, the state's most populous and where the issue had strong political support, came from early ballots.
Sandy Theis, spokeswoman for the opposition group TruthPAC, said the heavy pro-casino turnout in urban counties helped the issue.
Many voters who cast "yes" ballots noted that thousands of Ohioans gamble in other states without benefiting their home state. The casinos would jump-start economic development in the state's largest cities and retain tax money in Ohio, they said. "I don't go to casinos, but lots of people go elsewhere to gamble, so they might as well keep the money here," said Regina Lee, 35, of Westerville. "We need the tax dollars and the jobs."
Some who voted against Issue 3 cited the potential for crime and other social problems as well as exaggerated promises of jobs from casino proponents. John Goettler, 45, an Upper Arlington consultant for nonprofit organizations, said he is opposed to expanded gambling in Ohio. He is worried the casinos could bring more crime and other problems and thinks the pro-casino television ads promising thousands of jobs contained "blatant lies." "As bad as the economy is legalizing casino gambling is not the answer," he said.
Ohio voters had rejected gambling issues four times before, including twice in the past three years. Last year, nearly 63 percent of voters rejected a proposal for a casino in Clinton County.
Dispatch Senior Editor Joe Hallett and reporters Mark Niquette and Jim Siegel contributed to this story.
jnash@dispatch.com
Red-light Cameras Shot Down in Heath, Chillicothe
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 3:11 AM
By Josh Jarman
The Columbus Dispatch
Voters yesterday ended a contentious debate between Heath officials and a group of residents upset by the city's installation of 10 red-light and speed-enforcement cameras this summer. A ballot issue to restrict the use of the cameras passed with 51 percent of the vote yesterday, according to final, unofficial results.
Heath Mayor Richard Waugh, who narrowly lost his re-election bid after a campaign that focused on the camera issue, said the drop in tickets resulting from the cameras between their installation in June and last month show that they are working to reduce speeders.
Camera opponents say the numbers actually reflect a growing number of motorists who are avoiding the city.
"I hope our group gains some credibility," camera opponent Ronnie Kidd said. "We want a safer Heath, but we want it done the right way."
Chillicothe voters approved a similar issue against the cameras, with 72 percent choosing yesterday to limit them in final, unofficial results. Several members of the group, Citizens Against Photo Enforcement, also sought election to City Council seats, and many said public anger about the cameras is sure to work against the incumbents.
In Heath, where cameras generated $554,729 in fees in their first two months of operation, Waugh said he thinks the council should leave $100,000 in the city's general fund and devote another $100,000 to safety improvements along Rt. 79. The rest should be used to pay down debt, he said.
By Josh Jarman
The Columbus Dispatch
Voters yesterday ended a contentious debate between Heath officials and a group of residents upset by the city's installation of 10 red-light and speed-enforcement cameras this summer. A ballot issue to restrict the use of the cameras passed with 51 percent of the vote yesterday, according to final, unofficial results.
Heath Mayor Richard Waugh, who narrowly lost his re-election bid after a campaign that focused on the camera issue, said the drop in tickets resulting from the cameras between their installation in June and last month show that they are working to reduce speeders.
Camera opponents say the numbers actually reflect a growing number of motorists who are avoiding the city.
"I hope our group gains some credibility," camera opponent Ronnie Kidd said. "We want a safer Heath, but we want it done the right way."
Chillicothe voters approved a similar issue against the cameras, with 72 percent choosing yesterday to limit them in final, unofficial results. Several members of the group, Citizens Against Photo Enforcement, also sought election to City Council seats, and many said public anger about the cameras is sure to work against the incumbents.
In Heath, where cameras generated $554,729 in fees in their first two months of operation, Waugh said he thinks the council should leave $100,000 in the city's general fund and devote another $100,000 to safety improvements along Rt. 79. The rest should be used to pay down debt, he said.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Cuyahoga County reissues Blake report on corruption
By Laura Johnston, The Plain Dealer
October 29, 2009, 12:22PM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cuyahoga County commissioners today approved a revised version of an internal report that delved into the financial impact of the federal corruption investigation.
But first, the county removed eight names from a list of "individuals in question" prepared by the auditor's office.
That was after two prominent Cleveland attorneys attacked the report -- compiled by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Blake and released last week -- that listed them, as well as individuals who have pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges or have been named in federal search warrants.
The attorneys' names appeared in a story published earlier this year in the Plain Dealer, in which both were asked about search warrants that had been served.
A footnote was added to the report: "The Auditor’s Office conducted a broad review of properties of owners who were mentioned in any way in one or more of the foregoing sources, i.e., articles appearing in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, federal grand jury subpoenas and FBI search warrants, or whose owners were mentioned in those same sources."
The attorneys' names were removed, along with people uninvolved in the corruption investigation, such as a couple whose last name is the same as a Plain Dealer reporter's.
Blake's 76-page report compiled information from internal investigations by seven county departments, interviews with 22 county employees, several contractors, and nearly 400,000 pages of e-mails and attachments.
The report concludes that with a $1.5 billion budget, any money lost through corruption-related crimes does not affect the county’s overall financial health. It should not affect the county's ability to borrow money, the report said.
October 29, 2009, 12:22PM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cuyahoga County commissioners today approved a revised version of an internal report that delved into the financial impact of the federal corruption investigation.
But first, the county removed eight names from a list of "individuals in question" prepared by the auditor's office.
That was after two prominent Cleveland attorneys attacked the report -- compiled by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Blake and released last week -- that listed them, as well as individuals who have pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges or have been named in federal search warrants.
The attorneys' names appeared in a story published earlier this year in the Plain Dealer, in which both were asked about search warrants that had been served.
A footnote was added to the report: "The Auditor’s Office conducted a broad review of properties of owners who were mentioned in any way in one or more of the foregoing sources, i.e., articles appearing in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, federal grand jury subpoenas and FBI search warrants, or whose owners were mentioned in those same sources."
The attorneys' names were removed, along with people uninvolved in the corruption investigation, such as a couple whose last name is the same as a Plain Dealer reporter's.
Blake's 76-page report compiled information from internal investigations by seven county departments, interviews with 22 county employees, several contractors, and nearly 400,000 pages of e-mails and attachments.
The report concludes that with a $1.5 billion budget, any money lost through corruption-related crimes does not affect the county’s overall financial health. It should not affect the county's ability to borrow money, the report said.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach holds swearing-in ceremony at Cleveland school
By Peter Krouse, The Plain Dealer
October 26, 2009, 1:46PM
October 26, 2009, 1:46PM
Photo by Lisa DeJong / The Plain Dealer
CLEVELAND, Ohio — Fighting public corruption and upholding civil rights will be among Steven Dettelbach's priorities as the new U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio.
Dettelbach, 43, was privately sworn in as U.S. attorney in September but chose Martin Luther King Jr. High School at East 71st Street and Hough Avenue in Cleveland for a public ceremony this morning. U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown administered the oath of office. Dettelbach selected the school because of its emphasis on law and municipal careers. He plans to begin an internship program between his office and the school.
Among the morning's speakers was 16-year-old sophomore Dontea Gresham, who proclaimed his intention to one day run for U.S. president. Dontea reminded the few hundred invited guests of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous admonition, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Dettelbach comes to his new job with extensive civil rights experience, having served in the criminal section of the Justice Department's civil rights division. One noteworthy case he prosecuted involved Thai immigrants brought illegally to the United States and enslaved in a southern California sweatshop. Dettelbach will serve as chairman of the subcommittee on civil rights for the U.S. Attorney General's advisory committee.
As a former federal prosecutor in Cleveland, Dettelbach helped prosecute Nate Gray, a close friend to former Cleveland Mayor Michael White. Gray was convicted of paying bribes to public officials in several cities, including former East Cleveland Mayor Emanuel Onunwor. Dettelbach has been recused from his office's ongoing probe of public corruption in Cuyahoga County because his former firm, Baker & Hostetler, represented parties involved in the investigation. His pick for first assistant U.S. Attorney, Carol Rendon, will likely have to do the same when she comes on board because of her representation of probe targets at her firm. In his speech, Dettelbach promised to root out public corruption to ensure taxpayer money is spent "on the best product, not someone's best friend."
While there were plenty of glowing comments about Dettelbach, friend and former federal prosecutor Craig Morford offered up some lighter insight. He called Dettelbach "a bit of a goofball" who took his job seriously, but not himself. He recalled a story from Dettelbach's former Harvard Law School roommate who said Dettelbach once recorded the sound of a vacuum cleaner to play while going to bed because the white noise helped him sleep.
Dettelbach went to Dartmouth College before entering Harvard Law School, where he became friends with another future lawyer named Barack Obama. Dettelbach did not stay in touch with Obama over the years, but he did become active in his presidential campaign.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sentencing Errors Might Spring Inmates
More than 14,000 ex-prisoners also might be affected
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:04 AM
By Alan Johnson
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Thousands of ex-offenders could be released from state supervision and more than 200 current inmates might get out of Ohio prisons early because of a sentencing glitch. Many of the affected current and former inmates committed felonies -- and some are sex offenders, an official said.
Ohio prisons director Terry Collins said yesterday that rulings in three related lawsuits handed down by the Ohio Supreme Court this year are forcing the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to review more than 14,000 other cases. The glitch affects only offenders sentenced after the state's 1996 "truth-in-sentencing law" took effect.
"If the sentencing order didn't say they had mandatory supervision and the number of years, the order was void," Collins said. The judges' sentencing oversight was cited in three specific cases and expanded, by virtue of the Supreme Court rulings, to cover thousands of similar cases.
The ruling directly affects three groups: 14,816 former prisoners sentenced to "post-release control" (the post-1996 successor to parole); more than 208 inmates sent back to prison for violating post-release control rules, and an undetermined number of inmates currently in prison. Collins said he didn't know the number of cases affected, or how many have sentencing problems. "My concern is that we may well have to take some people off supervision by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority," he said. "We would no longer have the ability to supervise them from a legal perspective."
Agency officials are in contact with common pleas judges statewide. A telephone hot line has been set up to help schedule re-sentencing hearings, by teleconference when possible.
In addition, the agency's victim-services department is contacting crime victims and family members to inform them that offenders who they thought were under state supervision might not be supervised for much longer. "I'm always concerned about the victims of crime," Collins added. "Every time something happens with one of these cases, it opens up memories again."
In a related development, an advocacy group representing prisoners and their families demonstrated yesterday outside the prison system's central offices, 770 W. Broad St., seeking release of inmates incarcerated under pre-1996 sentencing laws.
CURE-Ohio said that many of the 4,000 old-law prisoners who are eligible for parole should be released because many are serving longer terms than those sentenced for the same crimes under the new law. In addition, that move could save $100 million and help alleviate prison crowding, now at 32 percent over stated capacity, a CURE spokeswoman said.
Prison officials said it's doubtful the savings would be anywhere near $100 million, even if all 4,000 were released.
ajohnson@dispatch.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:04 AM
By Alan Johnson
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Thousands of ex-offenders could be released from state supervision and more than 200 current inmates might get out of Ohio prisons early because of a sentencing glitch. Many of the affected current and former inmates committed felonies -- and some are sex offenders, an official said.
Ohio prisons director Terry Collins said yesterday that rulings in three related lawsuits handed down by the Ohio Supreme Court this year are forcing the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to review more than 14,000 other cases. The glitch affects only offenders sentenced after the state's 1996 "truth-in-sentencing law" took effect.
"If the sentencing order didn't say they had mandatory supervision and the number of years, the order was void," Collins said. The judges' sentencing oversight was cited in three specific cases and expanded, by virtue of the Supreme Court rulings, to cover thousands of similar cases.
The ruling directly affects three groups: 14,816 former prisoners sentenced to "post-release control" (the post-1996 successor to parole); more than 208 inmates sent back to prison for violating post-release control rules, and an undetermined number of inmates currently in prison. Collins said he didn't know the number of cases affected, or how many have sentencing problems. "My concern is that we may well have to take some people off supervision by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority," he said. "We would no longer have the ability to supervise them from a legal perspective."
Agency officials are in contact with common pleas judges statewide. A telephone hot line has been set up to help schedule re-sentencing hearings, by teleconference when possible.
In addition, the agency's victim-services department is contacting crime victims and family members to inform them that offenders who they thought were under state supervision might not be supervised for much longer. "I'm always concerned about the victims of crime," Collins added. "Every time something happens with one of these cases, it opens up memories again."
In a related development, an advocacy group representing prisoners and their families demonstrated yesterday outside the prison system's central offices, 770 W. Broad St., seeking release of inmates incarcerated under pre-1996 sentencing laws.
CURE-Ohio said that many of the 4,000 old-law prisoners who are eligible for parole should be released because many are serving longer terms than those sentenced for the same crimes under the new law. In addition, that move could save $100 million and help alleviate prison crowding, now at 32 percent over stated capacity, a CURE spokeswoman said.
Prison officials said it's doubtful the savings would be anywhere near $100 million, even if all 4,000 were released.
ajohnson@dispatch.com
Monday, October 26, 2009
States Pressed Into New Role on Marijuana
New York Times
Published: October 25, 2009
Published: October 25, 2009
Photo by Dana Romanoff for NY Times
GREELEY, Colo. — Health and law enforcement officials around the nation are scrambling to figure out how to regulate medical marijuana now that the federal government has decided it will no longer prosecute legal users or providers.
Mayor Ed Clark supported a ban on marijuana dispensaries in Greeley, Colo., which the City Council passed last week. Medical marijuana is legal in Colorado, as cards in a Garden City dispensary explain, but some cities ban distribution.
Mayor Ed Clark supported a ban on marijuana dispensaries in Greeley, Colo., which the City Council passed last week. Medical marijuana is legal in Colorado, as cards in a Garden City dispensary explain, but some cities ban distribution.
For years, since the first medical marijuana laws were passed in the mid-1990s, many local and state governments could be confident, if not complacent, knowing that marijuana would be kept in check because it remained illegal under federal law, and that hard-nosed federal prosecutors were not about to forget it. But with the Justice Department’s announcement last week that it would not prosecute people who use marijuana for medical purposes in states where it is legal, local and state officials say they will now have to take on the job themselves.
In New Hampshire, for instance, where some state legislators are considering a medical marijuana law, there is concern that the state health department — already battered by budget cuts — could be hard-pressed to administer the system. In California, where there has been an explosion of medical marijuana suppliers, the authorities in Los Angeles and other jurisdictions are considering a requirement that all medical dispensaries operate as nonprofit organizations.
“The federal government says they’re not going to control it, so the only other option we have is to control it ourselves,” said Carrol Martin, a City Council member in this community north of Denver, where a ban on marijuana dispensaries was on the agenda at a Council meeting the day after the federal announcement.
At least five states, including New York and New Jersey, are considering laws to allow medical marijuana through legislation or voter referendums, in addition to the 13 states where such laws already exist. Even while that is happening, scores of local governments in California, Colorado and other states have gone the other way and imposed bans or moratoriums on distribution even though state law allows it.
Some health and legal experts say the Justice Department’s decision will promote the spread of marijuana for medical uses because local and state officials often take leadership cues from federal policy. That, the experts said, could lead to more liberal rules in states that already have medical marijuana and to more voters and legislators in other states becoming comfortable with the idea of allowing it. For elected officials who have feared looking soft on crime by backing any sort of legalized marijuana use, the new policy might provide support to reframe the issue.
“The fact that the feds are backing off is going to allow changes that are going to make it more accessible,” said Bill Morrisette, a state senator in Oregon and chairman of a committee that oversees the state’s medical marijuana law. Mr. Morrisette said he expected a flurry of proposals in the Legislature, including a plan already floated to have the state grow the marijuana crop itself, perhaps on the grounds of the State Penitentiary in Salem.
“It would be very secure,” he said. Here in Greeley, anxiety and enthusiasm were on display as the City Council considered a ban on dispensaries.
Most of those who testified at the hearing, including several dispensary operators, opposed the ban and spoke of marijuana’s therapeutic benefits and the taxes that dispensary owners were willing to pour into Greeley’s budget, which has been battered by the recession.
But on the seven-member Council, the question was control. Mr. Martin, for example, said that he hated to see the spread of marijuana, but that the barricades had fallen. Still, he said he opposed a local ban on dispensaries.
“If we have no regulations at all, then we can’t control it, and our police officers have their hands tied,” Mr. Martin said. Mayor Ed Clark, a former police officer, took the opposite tack in supporting the ban, which passed on a 6-to-1 vote. “I think we do regulate them, by not allowing dispensaries,” Mr. Clark said.
The backdrop to the debate here in Colorado is a sharp expansion in marijuana dispensaries and patients, fueled in part by the State Board of Health decision in July not to impose limits on the number of patients handled by each marijuana provider. The state attorney general, John W. Suthers, said the federal government’s retreat, combined with the growth in demand, had created a legal vacuum.
“The federal Department of Justice is saying it will only go after you if you’re in violation of state law,” Mr. Suthers said. “But in Colorado it’s not clear what state law is.”
In New Hampshire, by contrast, where the state legislature is scheduled to meet this week to consider overriding the governor’s veto and passing a medical marijuana law, government downsizing has colored the debate. The state agency that would be responsible for licensing marijuana dispensaries has been battered by budget cuts, said Senator Sylvia B. Larsen, the president of the New Hampshire Senate and a Democrat. Concerns about the department, Ms. Larsen said, have made it harder to find two more votes in the Senate to reach a two-thirds majority that is needed to override a veto by Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat.
An even odder situation is unfolding in Maine, which already allows medical marijuana and where residents will vote next month on a measure that would create a new system of distribution and licensing.
An even odder situation is unfolding in Maine, which already allows medical marijuana and where residents will vote next month on a measure that would create a new system of distribution and licensing.
The marijuana proposal, several political experts said, has been overshadowed by another fight on the ballot that would overturn a state law and ban same-sex marriage. The added wrinkle is that opponents of same-sex marriage, said Christian Potholm, a professor of government at Bowdoin College, have heavily recruited young, socially conservative voters, who by and large tend to not be concerned about medical marijuana expansion.
“The 18- to 25-year-old vote is going to be overrepresented because of the gay marriage situation, so overrepresented in favor of medical marijuana,” Professor Potholm said.
Some legal scholars said the federal government, by deciding not to enforce its own laws (possession and the sale of marijuana remain federal crimes), has introduced an unpredictable variable into the drug regulation system. “The next step would be a particular state deciding to legalize marijuana entirely,” said Peter J. Cohen, a doctor and a lawyer who teaches public health law at Georgetown University. If federal prosecutors kept their distance even then, Dr. Cohen said, legalized marijuana would become a de facto reality.
Senator Morrisette in Oregon said he thought that exact situation — a state moving toward legalization, perhaps California — could play out much sooner now than might have been imagined even a few weeks ago. And the continuing recession would only help, he said, with advocates for legalization able to promise relief to an overburdened prison system and injection of tax revenues to the state budget.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Red-Light Camera Issue Now in Voters' Hands
BY LOREN GENSON • Gazette Staff Writer • October 25, 2009
Zainesville, Ohio
After a yearlong grassroots campaign to end the use of red-light cameras, the measure finally will go before voters Nov. 3 for final approval.
Chillicothe Police Chief Roger Moore worries the initiative that would ban the cameras also could ban local law enforcement from doing their jobs. Moore said he doesn't take a stance on the issue of red-light cameras, but said the initiative on the November ballot would make it difficult for his officers to do their jobs.
"I understand what they're trying to do, but I don't know how we'll be able to run law enforcement," said Moore.
Rebekah Valentich, president of Citizens Against Photo Enforcement said the initiative petition committee has no intent to prevent officers from doing their jobs.
"We want police officers to do their jobs, that's why we're so against the cameras," Valentich said.
The argument Moore raises also has been posed by the city to the state Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the cameras. The Supreme Court did not rule on the city's claims, except to deny their motion to strike the issue from the ballot because it was filed too late.
The proposed ordinance would ban the city from using "any traffic law photo-monitoring device or mobile speed enforcement vehicle fro the enforcement of a qualified traffic law violations, unless a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device or vehicle and personally issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation."
Moore said that language is too confining and would make impossible for officers to run radar and issue tickets.
"If you're running radar and you pull someone over a half-mile up the road, you have to bring them back to where you clocked them and by then it won't be the time of the violation," Moore said. "I know they only meant red-light cameras, but the way it's worded it can prevent us from issuing tickets."
When asked if he's interpreting the wording a little to strictly, Moore said maybe, but his main concern is how defendants might use the ordinance to get out of tickets in court.
"It will give people an easy way to try and fight any ticket they get," Moore said.
But the CAPE group disagrees. Valentich said the group included that wording to prevent speed vans from being used. The initial contract with Redflex required speed vans within the city; however, Mayor Joe Sulzer opted not to use them.
"We had to include that language because we didn't want them implementing these vans," Valentich said.
CAPE attorney David Kastner said there's nothing in the ordinance that would restrict officers from performing their duties and only asks that radar be used by an officer present at the scene.
"Currently, there's no officer there," Kastner said. "You get a ticket in the mail and it looks like it's from Chillicothe, but it's not, it's from Cleveland or somewhere else. That's not what the citizens want."
Aside from the law enforcement questions, another question is how the city will proceed with issuing Redflex tickets. Joe Sulzer signed a five-year contract with Redflex Inc. in February 2008 and Law Director Toni Eddy said she was unclear of what would happen if the city halted photo enforcement. "If Redflex were to assert a breach of contract claim against the city, there is a potential for financial repercussions," she said.
Assistant Law Director Jim Mann said he would wait to see how voters decide in November before detailing what actions the city would take. "This doesn't get down to whether we support Redflex or not," he said. "We think it's a very badly worded piece of legislation." But the CAPE attorney disagrees and said the city the ordinance would not restrict law enforcement.
"To say that this will apply to all law enforcement equipment is incorrect," Kastner said. "All the proposed ordinance is saying is that these devices must be used by an officer."
Zainesville, Ohio
After a yearlong grassroots campaign to end the use of red-light cameras, the measure finally will go before voters Nov. 3 for final approval.
Chillicothe Police Chief Roger Moore worries the initiative that would ban the cameras also could ban local law enforcement from doing their jobs. Moore said he doesn't take a stance on the issue of red-light cameras, but said the initiative on the November ballot would make it difficult for his officers to do their jobs.
"I understand what they're trying to do, but I don't know how we'll be able to run law enforcement," said Moore.
Rebekah Valentich, president of Citizens Against Photo Enforcement said the initiative petition committee has no intent to prevent officers from doing their jobs.
"We want police officers to do their jobs, that's why we're so against the cameras," Valentich said.
The argument Moore raises also has been posed by the city to the state Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the cameras. The Supreme Court did not rule on the city's claims, except to deny their motion to strike the issue from the ballot because it was filed too late.
The proposed ordinance would ban the city from using "any traffic law photo-monitoring device or mobile speed enforcement vehicle fro the enforcement of a qualified traffic law violations, unless a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device or vehicle and personally issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation."
Moore said that language is too confining and would make impossible for officers to run radar and issue tickets.
"If you're running radar and you pull someone over a half-mile up the road, you have to bring them back to where you clocked them and by then it won't be the time of the violation," Moore said. "I know they only meant red-light cameras, but the way it's worded it can prevent us from issuing tickets."
When asked if he's interpreting the wording a little to strictly, Moore said maybe, but his main concern is how defendants might use the ordinance to get out of tickets in court.
"It will give people an easy way to try and fight any ticket they get," Moore said.
But the CAPE group disagrees. Valentich said the group included that wording to prevent speed vans from being used. The initial contract with Redflex required speed vans within the city; however, Mayor Joe Sulzer opted not to use them.
"We had to include that language because we didn't want them implementing these vans," Valentich said.
CAPE attorney David Kastner said there's nothing in the ordinance that would restrict officers from performing their duties and only asks that radar be used by an officer present at the scene.
"Currently, there's no officer there," Kastner said. "You get a ticket in the mail and it looks like it's from Chillicothe, but it's not, it's from Cleveland or somewhere else. That's not what the citizens want."
Aside from the law enforcement questions, another question is how the city will proceed with issuing Redflex tickets. Joe Sulzer signed a five-year contract with Redflex Inc. in February 2008 and Law Director Toni Eddy said she was unclear of what would happen if the city halted photo enforcement. "If Redflex were to assert a breach of contract claim against the city, there is a potential for financial repercussions," she said.
Assistant Law Director Jim Mann said he would wait to see how voters decide in November before detailing what actions the city would take. "This doesn't get down to whether we support Redflex or not," he said. "We think it's a very badly worded piece of legislation." But the CAPE attorney disagrees and said the city the ordinance would not restrict law enforcement.
"To say that this will apply to all law enforcement equipment is incorrect," Kastner said. "All the proposed ordinance is saying is that these devices must be used by an officer."
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Chief Justice John Roberts Speaks Out On Drunk Driving Case
Associated Press linked from AOL News WASHINGTON (Oct. 20) — Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out in vain Tuesday against a lower court ruling he says will "grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve'" that could potentially end someone's life.
Roberts wanted the Supreme Court to review the lower court ruling t failed to persuade enough of his colleagues. The court declined to hear an appeal from Virginia officials who had their drunk driving conviction of Joseph A. Moses Harris, Jr. thrown out by that state's Supreme Court. Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.
The majority of the justices did not say why they did not take the case, but Roberts in a written dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Virginia court's decision will put people in danger.
"The decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road — by which time it may be too late," Roberts wrote.
Roberts noted that close to 13,000 people die in alcohol-related car crashes a year, which equals to one death every 40 minutes.
Roberts said a majority of the courts have said it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure to pull over drunk drivers based on anonymous tips from programs like the "Drunk Busters Hotline."
But some courts, including some in Wyoming, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have agreed with Virginia in saying that police must see a traffic violation before pulling over a suspected drunk driver based on an anonymous tip.
But some courts, including some in Wyoming, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have agreed with Virginia in saying that police must see a traffic violation before pulling over a suspected drunk driver based on an anonymous tip.
The Supreme Court should have stepped in and made the rule clear, Roberts said.
"The stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve' before they can be legally pulled over by police," Roberts said. "It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check."
"The stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve' before they can be legally pulled over by police," Roberts said. "It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check."
Richmond, Va., police were called on the morning of Dec. 31, 2005, and told that an intoxicated Harris was driving a green Altima down the street. A police officer saw Harris drive slowly through an intersection where he didn't have to stop and put on his brake lights well in advance of a red light.
Harris then pulled over to the side of the road, where the police officer smelled alcohol on his breath. Harris also failed the field sobriety tests, but the police officer did not see him break any traffic laws. Harris was convicted of driving while intoxicated, but the Virginia Supreme Court threw out his conviction. The court said since the police officer did not see erratic driving behavior like swerving, there was not a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant the stop.
Harris's lawyer said the Supreme Court should let that decision stand because "society's reasonable expectation of privacy requires some facts to support the tipster's allegation that the driver was intoxicated." If that's correct and the Fourth Amendment bans the use of anonymous tips on drunk drivers without police verification, "the dangerous consequences of this rule are unavoidable," Roberts said. "But the police should have every legitimate tool at their disposal for getting drunk drivers off the road. I would grant certiorari to determine if this is one of them."
The case is Virginia v. Harris, 08-1385.
Should parents who accidently cause the death of their children be criminally charged?
The 'Rollover' Conundrum: To Charge or Not to Charge?
By Ashby Jones
WSJ Law Blog
What to do about “rollover” deaths? That question is plaguing some prosecutors around the country, who don’t exactly know best how to handle situations in which a slumbering adult accidentally “rolls over” and suffocates to death a sleeping infant. Is it manslaughter? Criminal negligence? Or is it simply an accident that shouldn’t be punished?
The WSJ’s Chris Herring tackles the issue in the Journal’s weekly Law Journal column. He opens with the following pair of cases:
In March, a slumbering Indiana father accidentally suffocated his six-month-old son to death while both were sleeping on a sofa. Law-enforcement officials later determined that the man had used methamphetamine and smoked marijuana before falling asleep that night.
A month later, in Milwaukee, a one-month-old infant died while in bed with his parents and brother, possibly due to suffocation. Before coming home to sleep that night, the baby’s mother had had three drinks at a nearby bar.
The tragedies are similar, but the way law-enforcement officials handled them is not. In the pending Indiana case, the father, Darik Morell, was charged with neglect of a dependent resulting in death, a felony that carries a 20- to 50-year prison sentence. . . .
No charges, in contrast, were filed in the Milwaukee case, or in two other bed-sharing deaths in the area since March. The main question, writes Herring: At what point does carelessness, absent malicious intent, become punishable by criminal law?
Experts say that often, there is no right answer. “Prosecutors have enormous discretion in these sorts of things,” says Dan Blinka, a criminal-law professor at Marquette University. “They can choose to see these as simply tragic accidents, or they can see them as homicides.”
Prosecutors are divided on how to apply the standard to bed-sharing cases or other accidental deaths, such as those that stem from auto accidents caused by fatigued drivers. (Click here, for instance, for a recent Washington Post story on a similar issue: What to do to the parents when a child dies in the backseat of a hot, parked car?)
Mike Dugan, a district attorney in Oregon’s Deschutes County who charged two parents with criminally negligent homicide, has drawn a fairly hard line on bed-sharing death cases: He will prosecute them when they involve alcohol or drugs. “I’m not telling people not to sleep with their kids,” he says. “But I am telling them that if you do it while you’re drunk or high and it results in a death, chances are we’re going to charge you.”
LB readers, this is an interesting one. Do you think prosecutors should go after all of these cases? None of them? Should they draw the line, as Dugan has, when drugs or alcohol are involved?
By Ashby Jones
WSJ Law Blog
What to do about “rollover” deaths? That question is plaguing some prosecutors around the country, who don’t exactly know best how to handle situations in which a slumbering adult accidentally “rolls over” and suffocates to death a sleeping infant. Is it manslaughter? Criminal negligence? Or is it simply an accident that shouldn’t be punished?
The WSJ’s Chris Herring tackles the issue in the Journal’s weekly Law Journal column. He opens with the following pair of cases:
In March, a slumbering Indiana father accidentally suffocated his six-month-old son to death while both were sleeping on a sofa. Law-enforcement officials later determined that the man had used methamphetamine and smoked marijuana before falling asleep that night.
A month later, in Milwaukee, a one-month-old infant died while in bed with his parents and brother, possibly due to suffocation. Before coming home to sleep that night, the baby’s mother had had three drinks at a nearby bar.
The tragedies are similar, but the way law-enforcement officials handled them is not. In the pending Indiana case, the father, Darik Morell, was charged with neglect of a dependent resulting in death, a felony that carries a 20- to 50-year prison sentence. . . .
No charges, in contrast, were filed in the Milwaukee case, or in two other bed-sharing deaths in the area since March. The main question, writes Herring: At what point does carelessness, absent malicious intent, become punishable by criminal law?
Experts say that often, there is no right answer. “Prosecutors have enormous discretion in these sorts of things,” says Dan Blinka, a criminal-law professor at Marquette University. “They can choose to see these as simply tragic accidents, or they can see them as homicides.”
Prosecutors are divided on how to apply the standard to bed-sharing cases or other accidental deaths, such as those that stem from auto accidents caused by fatigued drivers. (Click here, for instance, for a recent Washington Post story on a similar issue: What to do to the parents when a child dies in the backseat of a hot, parked car?)
Mike Dugan, a district attorney in Oregon’s Deschutes County who charged two parents with criminally negligent homicide, has drawn a fairly hard line on bed-sharing death cases: He will prosecute them when they involve alcohol or drugs. “I’m not telling people not to sleep with their kids,” he says. “But I am telling them that if you do it while you’re drunk or high and it results in a death, chances are we’re going to charge you.”
LB readers, this is an interesting one. Do you think prosecutors should go after all of these cases? None of them? Should they draw the line, as Dugan has, when drugs or alcohol are involved?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
