Disturbing the Peace in Libraries: An Statutory Interpretation Puzzle

Most of my research in recent weeks has veered away from constitutional interpretation. This has been a welcome change of pace as theoretical questions of interpretation and the judicial shenanigans this work tends to uncover can grate on the soul after a while. But even when I'm researching intricacies of state criminal laws pertaining to libraries, these theoretical questions have a way of creeping up on me.

Take Massachusetts' law against disturbing the peace in libraries:

Whoever wilfully disturbs persons assembled in a public library, or a reading room connected therewith, by making a noise or in any other manner during the time when such library or reading room is open to the public shall be punished as provided in the preceding section. (emphasis added)

This law is Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272, Section 41. As of today, the preceding code section appears to be Section 40A, which provides:

Whoever gives, sells, delivers or has in his possession any alcoholic beverage, except for medicinal purposes, in any public school building, or on any premises used for public school purposes and under the charge of a school committee or other public board or officer, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, or both; provided, however, that a school committee of a city, town or district may authorize a public or nonprofit organization using a public school building with its permission during non school hours to possess and sell alcoholic beverages therein provided such nonprofit organization is properly licensed under the provisions of section fourteen of chapter one hundred and thirty-eight.

While Section 40A contains a punishment provision (imprisonment for 30 days and/or a $100 fine), it seems like a bit of an odd reference for Section 41's prohibition of disturbing the peace. Sure, selling or distributing alcohol in schools may constitute (or lead to) a disturbance of the peace, but the conduct at issue seems quite a bit different than the general disturbance covered in Section 41. Indeed, a better match appears to be the section preceding 40A--Section 40:

Whoever willfully interrupts or disturbs an assembly of people meeting for a lawful purpose shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 1 month or by a fine of not more than $50; provided, however, that an elementary or secondary student shall not be adjudged a delinquent child for an alleged violation of this section for such conduct within school buildings or on school grounds or in the course of school-related events.

This section also includes a punishment provision--although it's slightly different from Section 40A, providing for punishment of up to a $50 fine (rather than $100) and imprisonment for one month.

The first instance of Chapter 272 of the General Laws that I could find is in the version of the General Laws that went into effect in 1921. That version of the General Laws includes both Section 40 and 41, but not Section 41A. It appears that Section 40 was enacted in 1849, and that Section 41 was enacted in 1885. Section 40A is nowhere to be found, as it wasn't enacted until 1962.

With all of this in mind, what is the meaning of "the preceding section" in Section 41? Do we read it from a present perspective and interpret it to mean what is now the preceding section--Section 40A? Or do we read it in the manner it would have been read in 1885 when Section 41 was enacted, at which point "the preceding section" seems to refer to to Section 40? 

Even if we decide that we must look to the original, 1885 meaning of the statute, the questions don't end there. How generally are we to interpret the original meaning of Section 41? A specific reading might be that "the preceding section" referred to a specific law--whatever was the preceding section at the time Section 41 was enacted. Under this approach, even if that law is later moved to a different chapter or repealed altogether, it would still inform the meaning of Section 41's penalty provision. An alternate, less specific reading would interpret "the preceding section" to refer to whatever section preceded Section 41 at the time of enactment. As it happened, that was Section 40 as it was written in 1855. The result the same as the previous, more specific reading, but the meaning employed is more abstract. 

Things change, however, if we get even more general with our reading of "the preceding section," and read it as expressing an original intent to reference whatever statute appears, at any time, immediately prior to section 41. This abstract reading would lead us back to the same result as a present-tense reading of the phrase, as a generalized statement abut whatever appears in the preceding section may change in meaning over time as that reference point shifts with the enactment of Section 40A. Or, to look at it a different way, this reading treats the enactment of Section 40A as also changing the meaning of Section 41. And now that we've laid out all these alternate formulation of the original meaning of Section 41, how are we to decide between these varying levels of generality?

To date, it does not appear that Massachusetts' courts have wrestled with these interpretive questions. It therefore remains unclear whether disturbing the peace in a library results in a fine of $50 or $100. Ever the optimist, I continue to hold out hope that the Supreme Court will take up a case that resolves this issue. 

Forthcoming Article on Distracted Walking

Since 2017, I have been fascinated by laws prohibiting "distracted walking," which is most typically defined as walking across the street while using a phone or electronic device. I've blogged about ordinances and proposed laws banning this practice repeatedly, starting with Honolulu's ban in 2017 and other states' and cities' ordinances and proposed legislation here, here, and here.

Those readers interested in a longer treatment of the subject should check out my forthcoming article, "Distracted Walking," forthcoming in the Penn State Law Review. You can find the current draft here. Here's the abstract:

Throughout the United States and across the world, cities are enacting bans on “distracted walking.” These bans target cell phone users who cross the street while using a telephone. Doing so in certain cities may result in a fine, community service, or even jail. Drawing inspiration from municipalities, lawmakers in several states have proposed similar statewide legislation. Pushback against these measures is rare—as many people have either directly, or indirectly, experienced the slow and oblivious behavior of “smartphone zombies.”

This Article surveys these laws and demonstrates that the science is, at best, mixed on whether device usage results in distraction significant enough to put pedestrians at risk. Studies of pedestrian deaths and injuries suggest that pedestrian distraction plays a minimal role in pedestrian injuries. And those who are most at risk of serious death or injury—elderly pedestrians—are barely mentioned in debates over distracted walking bans. This Article argues that these distracted walking prohibitions are not only poor traffic policy, but also exemplify a trend of blaming pedestrians for deaths and injuries caused by drivers. What’s more, by criminalizing common behavior, these bans create a further opportunity for selective enforcement by the police. Those most likely to suffer the penalties from distracted walking prohibitions are racial minorities and others living in areas deemed “high crime.” Distracted walking bans therefore contribute to selective enforcement of criminal law and burden the most disadvantaged members of society with additional fines and penalties.

Distracted walking bans have never been addressed in academic legal scholarship. They are barely examined or criticized when they are proposed—instead attracting widespread media attention for their quirkiness. But odd little crimes like these can have significant negative impacts on people’s lives, fail to help those who they are meant to aid, and implicate wider systemic injustices in the legal system. It is therefore worthwhile to examine these overlooked laws more closely, consider less burdensome and more effective alternatives, and realize that perhaps many other similar, neglected infractions are deserving of similar critique and attention.

Comments and feedback are welcome! The article is on a pretty fast schedule to publication, though, so if any feedback is to be incorporated, you'd better let me know soon.

Pennsylvania State Legislator Contemplates Statewide Law Against "Distracted Walking"

A recent editorial from TN Online reports:

State Rep. Karen Boback, a Republican whose district includes parts of Luzerne and Lackawanna counties, says she is going to introduce legislation that provides penalties for walkers who are inattentive while crossing a street or highway.

In a memo to legislative colleagues seeking co-sponsors for her bill, Boback said that distracting walking is a “very real and serious issue.”

Boback is most concerned with pedestrians who are inattentive because they are engrossed in conversations on their cellphones or are listening to music or other programming.

“Technology has invaded our life, and, as a result, people have stopped paying attention to their surroundings,” Boback wrote.

More reporting on this is available at Patch. It isn't clear why Boback is choosing to take a stand against "distracted walking." The TN Online writer notes that fewer pedestrians were killed by drivers in 2020 than in 2019. Of those 145 deaths, there is no indication how many of them, if any, were due to pedestrians who were distracted. 

Seeking to do Boback's job of justifying her proposed policy, the article cites a Governors Highway Safety Association Report which purportedly shows that "texting while walking has taken on a key role in pedestrian death in recent years as communication devices have become more mobile, compact, and numerous." The article fails to link to the report, or provide a year for when it was written. It may be citing this 2016 report which speculates that pedestrian distractions are contributing to pedestrian deaths and injuries, although it explicitly states that it "remains unknown" how many pedestrians killed in crashes with distracted drivers were themselves distracted. The report cites instances and studies suggesting that pedestrian distractions are on the rise, but does not draw a link between such distractions and traffic deaths. Indeed, a New York study specifically investigating whether distracted walking contributed to pedestrian fatalities and injuries found "little concrete evidence" of a connection.

The Pennsylvania law appears to be in its early stages, as it does not appear that a statute has been drafted yet. Hopefully Boback will give the bill some more thought and conclude that it isn't worth it. Indeed, her basis for contemplating the bill appears to be anecdotal notions of technology "invading" people's lives. Reports on her proposal have to do the work themselves to dig up evidence supporting measures restricting texting while walking, and these reports often fail to confirm a link between instances of distracted walking and increased pedestrian deaths. As I have noted before, legislators seeking to prevent traffic deaths, and particularly pedestrian deaths, would do better to focus on infrastructure by making cities and towns safer for pedestrians. This includes increasing the number of crosswalks, ensuring adequate lighting, lowering speed limits, and reducing the width of streets, among other measures. Boback herself appears to have been involved in such infrastructure measures in the recent past, which makes it all the more surprising that she is seeking to put the onus on pedestrians--who are most at risk of death or serious injury. A statewide restriction on distracted walking is a blunt instrument that targets the wrong actors and ignores factors that lead to greater risks of pedestrian death and injury.

In addition to being misguided from a public safety perspective, laws against distracted walking criminalize ubiquitous behavior, which promotes selective enforcement. Many people check their phones while walking, including while crossing the street. As a result, police officers tasked with the enforcing the law will use their discretion to determine who to stop and ticket for these violations, meaning that the brunt of any law will likely fall more heavily on people in poorer neighborhoods and racial minorities.

A few cities and municipalities in the United States and other countries have banned various forms of walking while on the phone or while using other electronic devices. All of these measures target a phenomenon that most have likely observed or experienced, but which has little ultimate impact on pedestrian safety--at least when compared with other measures that legislatures can take to reduce traffic deaths and injuries. This story is notable because it suggests that a statewide ban may be possible. One can only hope that the bill, if it is ever written, will fail to gain the support necessary to become law.

Can You Serve Legal Documents Via Pigeon?

It's been a while, but I'm back to answer the important questions. Today's pigeon-themed inquiry is not inspired by any news stories or current events. Instead, it popped into my head and demanded an immediate answer. Those who would like to know the answer, and learn some trivia about pigeons and related laws should read on.

As a bit of background, carrier pigeons (or homing pigeons) are pigeons that have been bred to find their way back to a fixed point even after being transported over long distances. Pigeons may be trained to carry small packages containing messages or other items. Because pigeons can only return to a fixed point, the person sending the message must have a pigeon that will return to the recipient's location. As this New York Times article details, pigeons have been used for sending messages, samples of blood, and other items over long distances, and have been employed in multiple wars to send communications from the field. In the John Wick universe, the Bowery King uses pigeons to send messages and small objects.

Naturally, this prompts the question of whether pigeons may be used to effectuate service of pleadings or documents in litigation. Case law on whether sending a document by pigeon constitutes valid service is limited. From what I could find in a cursory search, no US court has directly addressed a situation where a party has attempted to serve a legal document on someone using a pigeon. A couple courts have considered pigeon-service as a hypothetical scenario, but both appear to disapprove of the practice. 

In Geiling v. Wirt Financial Services, Inc., No. 14-11027; 2014 WL 8473822 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 31. 2014), the plaintiffs took issue with documents that had been produced in discovery that contained the plaintiffs' social security numbers, claiming that the mailing of these documents violated a Michigan state law against transmitting full social security numbers through the mail. The court noted an exception to this rule for documents sent by mail pursuant to legal discovery or process. The plaintiffs argued that this exception should not apply and the court disagreed, noting that the Michigan Court Rules envisioned that parties would produce documents in discovery through first-class mail. The court further suggested that "parties sending documents by untrustworthy means, carrier pigeon for example, could be faulted for operating outside normal discovery bounds," but not parties using standard methods to mail documents. (emphasis added). This suggests that the court would view service by carrier pigeon as a method of service outside of normal discovery practices, but a direct ruling on the issue must wait for another day.

In Seibold v. Commissioner of Dept. of Motor Vehicles, No. HHBCV136019840S; 2014 WL 565905 (Ct. Sup. Ct., Jan. 9, 2014), the court addressed whether a party had properly served an appeal by fax on the Office of the Attorney General, even though the rules required service by certified mail or personal delivery. The party claimed that because the Attorney General had actual notice of the appeal and had not been prejudiced by the failure to make proper service, her case should not be dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting that at "its logical extreme" the argument would allow "service of the appeal on the agency by any means, including by a carrier pigeon, as long as the agency actually receives the appeal and is not prejudiced." (emphasis added). This, the court concluded, was not supported by statute or case law.

In summary, while courts have not directly addressed a situation where a party has attempted service using a pigeon, the disapproval of the method expressed by the few courts that have contemplated such a scenario means that it is probably is not advisable to do so.

Practically, service by pigeon is unlikely to catch on. The most apparent barrier to wide usage of homing pigeons is the fact that the person sending a document via pigeon must already have a pigeon in their possession that will return to the recipient. This suggests that a network of homing pigeons trained to deliver documents to law firms and courts must be supported by a secondary network of delivery personnel who take the pigeons from the recipients to the senders. Pigeons may be seen as redundant if a system for their physical delivery is already in place.

Another potential criticism of the practice is that even the smallest filing or item of correspondence is too large to be carried by a pigeon. The answer to this, however, is that these documents could be loaded onto tiny flash drives that could, in turn, be deposited into a pack that the pigeon can carry.

States considering permitting service via pigeon may be encouraged to learn that there are already legal barriers in place to prohibit interference with homing pigeons. In Pennsylvania, for instance, it is a summary offense to shoot, maim, or kill a homing pigeon. Similar restrictions exist in Michigan, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Laws like these may assuage concerns that interlopers will interfere with pigeons used for legal service.

City in Japan Proposes Broad "Distracted Walking" Ordinance

The Independent reports:

Politicians in Yamato, about 25 miles southwest of Tokyo, have put forward a bill that could make it illegal for people to gaze at their devices while walking. 

The bill was submitted to the city’s assembly on 1 June. If passed, the law would come into effect from 1 July.

Officials said that people were unlikely to be punished for flouting the proposed new measures. 

Instead, the law has been designed to keep pedestrians safe when crossing roads, officials added. 

People are being encouraged to use their devices while standing in a spot where they are unlikely to pose a hindrance to others passing by.

The Daily Mail reports on the ordinance as well, claiming that city politicians "allegedly claim there has been an increase in injuries among people walking while distracted by their phones," and that this ordinance, if passed, would be the first such restriction on phone use while walking in Japan.

Both outlets cite various statistics regarding injuries resulting from distracted walking. The Independent cites a study by a Japanese telecom firm which simulated what would happen if 1,500 people crossed the Shibuya pedestrian crossing in Tokyo if all were looking at their smartphones--noting that there would be: "446 collisions, with 103 people getting knocked down while 21 others dropped their phones." The Independent and Daily Mail also refer to this study authored by researchers at the University of Calgary, which reviewed 14 studies and found that mobile phone conversation and text messaging increased rates of hits and close calls in intersections--with texting having a greater impact and resulting in decreased rates of looking left and right prior to crossing the street.

Because I cannot find a full text version of the cited University of Calgary study, it is difficult to evaluate--although the authors note that "a variety of study quality issues limit the interpretation and generalisation of the results." As for the telecom firm simulation, its assumption that absolutely everyone in the intersection would be on their phone is somewhat extreme. Indeed, researchers working for the city observed far lower rates of cell phone use, reporting a 12 percent user rate after observing 6,000 people at two "stations" in Yamato.

This proposed ordinance would be far broader than ordinances in US cities such as Honolulu, Hawaii, and Montclair, California. While those ordinances apply to cell phone use while crossing a street, the proposed Yamato ordinance would apply to "city streets and sidewalks as well as 'shared public spaces' such as plazas outside train stations." While the impact of the statute is offset by its lack of a punishment provision, its application to pedestrians who are not crossing streets is the first such ban of which I am aware.

I generally oppose bans on "distracted walking," as they tend to be based on studies and statistics that are uncertain at best, and because they criminalize common behaviors, which invites selective enforcement of the law. Yamato's ordinance is even broader, as it targets pedestrians both on and off the street. Additionally, the ordinance appears to have little basis in evidence, as most studies warning of potential injuries from pedestrian cell phone use stem from use of phones while crossing the street. Here's hoping that the ordinance fails, as it otherwise may serve as a model for other cities, states, and countries eager to implement their own bans.

Cutting-Edge Scholarship on State Laws Against Shooting Fish With Guns

One of several reasons why I have not been writing as much here as I used to is that I have been investing my energy in a few other projects. One of them is my forthcoming article, Shooting Fish, which will be published in Volume 12 of the Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law. Here is the abstract:

This article sets out to answer the question that’s on everyone’s mind: Is it legal to shoot fish with guns? This burning legal query has never had an exhaustive and obsessively-researched answer. Until now. 

In a fifty-state survey of laws that explicitly or incidentally restrict shooting fish, this article finds that every state has laws or regulations that either explicitly or effectively ban shooting fish — with some narrow exceptions. This article simultaneously serves as an invaluable resource to heavily-armed anglers throughout the country, and illuminates a facet of the complex system of legal rules governing fishing in all states. The regrettable lack of academic discussion of shooting fish and state laws on the subject belies the complex legal, environmental, and constitutional implications of these laws. 

This article explores those implications. States’ statutory and regulatory schemes range from explicitly defining fishing methods, to creating long lists of prohibited fishing techniques (think bans on slurp guns, slingbows, fish pews, tree-topping devices, giant powder, and fishberries, to name just a few). Many states employ location- and species-specific laws and regulations — often targeting invasive fish species by permitting wider ranges of methods for taking them. This article also addresses the environmental implications of fish-shooting laws, and why these laws exist. It also notes historic attempts to loosen shooting restrictions — attempts frequently inspired by the proliferation of high-flying, fast-multiplying Asian carp. 

Not to disappoint mainstream enthusiasts of legal scholarship, the article closes with a discussion of the state and federal constitutional implications of fish-shooting restrictions. While bans on shooting fish do not raise significant Second Amendment concerns, certain states’ prohibitions on firearm possession incidental to shooting fish do. This article also acknowledges state constitutional provisions that set forth the right to hunt and fish, but notes that these provisions are unlikely to give rise to successful legal challenges by fish-shooting enthusiasts.

As always, comments on this draft are welcome. Those who are interested in learning of the extensive and creative variety of methods that people have devised for killing and taking fish will find this article particularly helpful.

Illinois Supreme Court Rejects First Amendment Challenge to "Revenge Porn" Restriction

In Illinois v. Austin, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the State's prohibition on the non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images (also known as "revenge porn"). The law at issue, 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5(b), states:

A person commits non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images when he or she:
(1) intentionally disseminates an image of another person:
(A) who is at least 18 years of age; and
(B) who is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image; and
(C) who is engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part; and
(2) obtains the image under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private; and
(3) knows or should have known that the person in the image has not consented to the dissemination.

The Court's opinion has resulted in criticism from some commentators, and praise from others. While some of the criticism is correct, the Austin Court's recognition that the Illinois law targeted lesser-protected speech and therefore warranted an intermediate level of scrutiny appears to be a correct basis for its conclusion. Critics of the Austin opinion have failed to fully recognize this aspect of the decision by either mischaracterizing it or downplaying its basis in Supreme Court precedent. 

I. Summary of the Opinion

In Austin, the defendant and her fiancé shared an iCloud account, which meant that all text messages that the fiancé sent or received were visible on the defendant's iPad. ¶3. The fiancé and a neighbor exchanged several text messages, some of which included nude photographs of the neighbor. ¶4. The defendant and her fiancé then cancelled their wedding plans and broke up. The fiancé began telling people that the relationship ended because the defendant "was crazy and no longer cooked or did household chores." ¶5. The defendant, in turn, wrote a letter that included several nude photos of the neighbor and sent this letter to the fiancé's cousin. ¶6. The fiancé called the police, who interviewed the neighbor. The neighbor told them that while she was aware that the fiance and the defendant shared an iCloud account, she thought the account had been deactivated when she sent the nude photos and had intended that only the fiancé see the photos. ¶7.

The defendant was charged with one count of non consensual dissemination of private sexual images and moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute was a content-based restriction on speech that violated the First Amendment. The lower court agreed with the defendant and held that the law was unconstitutional on its face. ¶10.

The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court and held that the statute did not violate the First Amendment. The Court first stated that it rejected the State's request that it recognize that the dissemination of private sexual images as an unprotected category of speech.  ¶¶33-36. While some categories of speech, such as incitement, obscenity, defamation, and fighting words are recognized as falling outside of the category of protected speech, the Court stated that it would not add the dissemination of private sexual images to this list absent the Supreme Court addressing the issue.

While the Court refused to recognize the speech as entirely unprotected, it ended up reaching the significant conclusion that the dissemination of private sexual images was subject to a lesser amount of protection than other speech. The Court recognized that content-based restrictions on speech typically require court's to apply strict scrutiny to the restriction, which, in First Amendment cases, almost always results in the restriction being overturned. Here, however, the Court held that only an intermediate level of scrutiny was required, which meant that the law needed to serve "an important or substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech" and that the law "not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further that interest."  ¶59.

The Court advanced two justifications for its use of intermediate scrutiny. First, the Court claimed that the restriction was not a content-based restriction. While acknowledging that the law only applied to the dissemination of sexual images, the Court noted that the dissemination of this content was only unlawful if it was done so in a situation where the person sharing the content obtains the image under circumstances where a reasonable person knows or should know that the image is to remain private and that the person has not consented to the image's dissemination. The Court therefore concluded that the illegality of the dissemination was not premised on the content of the image, but rather on the manner of the dissemination. The law was therefore a time, place, or manner restriction, which warrants only intermediate scrutiny.  ¶49.

Separately, the Court noted that the law only restricted the dissemination of information that is of purely private concern.  The Austin Court noted that the Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. has recognized that restrictions on speech involving "purely private" matters does not threaten "free and robuse debate of public issues" and is less likely to "pose the risk of 'a reaction of self-censorship' on matters of public import." ¶54. The Court concluded that the defendant's sharing of sexual images did not involve an issue of public concern as they were privately-sent sexual images that did not "relate to any broad issue of interest to society at large." ¶56. The restriction on the dissemination of these issues therefore warranted intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny.

The Court concluded that the restriction survived intermediate scrutiny, noting that it served a substantial government interest of protecting individual privacy rights and acknowledging that the dissemination of private sexual images causes "unique and significant harm to victims in several respects." ¶66. The Court then concluded that the restriction was tailored narrowly enough to survive a First Amendment challenge, as it defined what body parts or activities needed to be included in the prohibited images, required that the person in the image be identifiable from the image or information displayed with the image, required that the image be obtained under circumstances where a reasonable person would know or understand that it was to remain private, required that the person disseminating the image know that there was no consent to share the image, and also required that the person disseminating the images do so intentionally. ¶¶79-83. The law also included exemptions to the prohibition that included the dissemination of images for purposes of reporting a crime or for a "lawful public purpose."

II. The Court's First, Mistaken Rationale for Applying Intermediate Scrutiny

The Austin Court's first basis for concluding that the Illinois law was not subject to strict scrutiny was that it was a "time, place, or manner" restriction, rather than a content-based restriction on speech. The Court got to this conclusion by stating that the illegality of the dissemination of the sexual images is premised on the manner of how the images are shared. While sharing sexual images with the consent of the person pictured or in circumstances where the image was not expected to be private is permissible, doing so when there is no consent or where a reasonable person would recognize that the image was intended to remain private is prohibited. 

While this is correct, the fact remains that the illegality of sharing the sexual image is also premised on the content of the image. The law is a time, place, and manner restriction on speech, but it also only applies to certain content. Mark Bennett correctly notes that when restrictions have "both content-based and content-neutral elements," they are content-based restrictions that are subject to strict scrutiny. He cites R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, where the Court addressed a law that prohibited "fighting words" that "insult[ed] or provok[ed] violence on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." R.A.V., at p. 391. While fighting words are an unprotected category of speech, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibited a content-based subset of that category. Id. at pp. 392, 396.

The approach used in R.A.V. undermines the Austin Court's reasoning. While some elements of the law involve the manner in which sexual images are shared, the law only applies to the sharing of sexual images or images of sexual content -- which is a content-based limitation. The law therefore is content-based, and the Court's attempt to sidestep this is a mistake.

III. The Second Rationale: Lesser Protection for Speech of Purely Private Matters

While the Austin Court's analysis on time, place, or manner restrictions is incorrect, it gave a second, stronger basis for its use of intermediate scrutiny by concluding that the speech at issue was "purely private" speech that was subject to a lower level of scrutiny.

In Dun & Bradstreet, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling affirming a jury's award of punitive damages after the defendant credit reporting agency shared a credit report for the plaintiff construction contractor that included false information. Dun & Bradstreet, at pp. 752-53. The Supreme Court noted that while it had previously recognized strong protections for speech on matters of public concern, speech of "purely private concern" warrants "less stringent" protection under the First Amendment. Id. at p. 760. The Court concluded that the credit report was speech of purely private concern, as it was made "solely in the individual interest of the speaker and its specific business audience." Id. at 762. The Court therefore held that permitting recovery of presumed and punitive damages was permitted, even absent a showing of actual malice.  Id. at 762.

The Austin Court uses Dun & Bradstreet and similar language from Snyder v. Phelps to support its conclusion that laws against disseminating private, sexual content are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Scott Greenfield criticizes this move by referring to "purely private speech" as a "non-category category" and accuses the Austin Court of relying solely on dicta from Snyder.  While this criticism is warranted to the extent that Snyder's invocation of lesser protection for purely private speech is dicta, it overlooks the basis for this doctrine in Dun & Bradstreet, which applied that lesser level of protection in upholding presumptive and punitive damages in a defamation case. Admittedly, the context of Dun & Bradstreet was different--as the Supreme Court was not evaluating the constitutionality of a criminal law restricting speech. But the rule set forth in Dun & Bradstreet was broad, and the Court applied that rule favorably in upholding an award of damages in a defamation case. It is neither surprising nor incorrect for a state court to apply this broadly-stated rule to a different set of circumstances, particularly one involving a law that requires the disseminated content to have been initially shared or kept in private circumstances. 

Bennett's criticism is less substantive, as he claims that the Austin Court identifies "speech on purely private matters" as a category of speech that is not subject to the same protection as other speech and that the Supreme Court has never recognized such a category. This misses the mark, as the Supreme Court in both Snyder and Dun & Bradstreet has recognized that speech on matters of purely private concern warrants a lesser level of First Amendment protection. It may not be a category of unprotected speech like defamation, fighting words, or obscenity, but as the Austin opinion demonstrates, the Supreme Court's First Amendment doctrine recognizes that purely private speech is subject to lesser protection, and this reasoning is certain to appear in future cases that involve similar laws against revenge porn. 

Bennett raised this same criticism back in 2014 when Danielle Citron set out proposed language for revenge porn restrictions. At that time, I argued that Bennett's critique of Citron's proposed law was misguided, as it ignored Supreme Court case law on lesser-protected speech of purely private concerns. Bennett dismissed that argument, claiming that the Supreme Court had not considered the "purely private concern" issues in recent cases involving First Amendment challenges to criminal statutes. In light of Austin, it seems that simply dismissing this aspect of First Amendment law is an unwise approach for those who wish to argue that revenge porn laws are unconstitutional. It is also unsurprising that Courts would look to this area of First Amendment law, as revenge porn prohibitions are often drafted to apply only to sexual images and content taken in a private setting and shared in a context where there is an expectation that the images will remain private. (For much more on how technology facilitates invasions of privacy and proposals to address these issues through legal and market efforts, see Citron's article, Sexual Privacy).

As the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative notes, the Illinois law is one of the strongest laws against non-consensual sharing of sexual imagery to survive a First Amendment challenge. Other states are likely to use the reasoning from this case in addressing challenges to their own laws. As other courts address these challenges, they will hopefully use the correct components of Austin's reasoning on lesser-protected speech rather than perpetuate the incorrect analysis on time, place, or manner restrictions.

UPDATE - 10/23/2019

In a measured response here, Bennett takes me to task for not reading extensive briefing that he filed in a separate case in Texas. His post on the Austin case was, after all, simply a "copy-and-paste" version of a brief he filed in the Texas case. My failure to review the briefing on that separate case--which was neither linked to nor referenced in his post on Austin--apparently "annoyed" him.

Bennett's brief from the Texas case, Ex Parte Jones, is included in his response. A link to the Court of Criminal Appeals page for that case where all the briefs can be downloaded is here. I have looked over the brief in Bennett's response and, to his credit, it addresses the private speech issue in far more detail than his original post. Heck, I might even write a separate post in response to those arguments one of these days now that it has been brought to my attention.

Defendant Victorious After 90-Day Jaywalking Trial

The South China Morning Post reports on the conclusion of a 90-day (!) trial for jaywalking in Hong Kong:

A woman charged with jaywalking has been acquitted at the end of a 21-month-long trial which was slammed by a city judge for bringing Hong Kong’s courts into disrepute.

Kamala Thapa denied one count of negligently endangering her own safety, after she was hit by a taxi while crossing Tai Tam Road outside the American Club in Stanley on April 25, 2016.

Her trial at Eastern Court over a traffic summons, which would have cost her a fine of no more than HK$500 (US$64) if convicted, had sparked three judicial reviews, one civil claim and what appeared to be the city’s first arrest warrant issued to a lawyer by a court.

The reason for the disproportionate length of the trial appears to be the result of "extravagant" proceedings in the jaywalking case before the magistrate, along with multiple instances where these proceedings were reviewed by higher-level judges. Here is an example of one some of those instances:

Her trial was punctuated by a dramatic episode. Presiding deputy special magistrate Ho Lai-ming – in what appeared to be a first for the city’s courts – issued an arrest warrant for Thapa’s lawyer Kelvin Leung after comments he made which she deemed offensive. Leung denied the accusations. 

After subsequently changing her barrister, Thapa’s trial hit another wall when a defence witness she had called decided to withdraw halfway through giving evidence. 

But Ho ordered the defence to fulfil its duty by calling the witness back, a decision that prompted Thapa and her lawyers, including Leung, to lodge a judicial challenge.

The South China Morning Post reports that the arrest warrant for Leung has not yet been executed.

After the protracted trial, Thapa prevailed. Both Thapa and the prosecutor unsurprisingly claim that they have incurred substantial fees, and the South China Morning Post reports that Thapa has filed a civil claim against the magistrate judge "for damages in excess of HK$1.7 million [over US$216,000] for loss of liberty and injured feelings."

New York City Department of Transportation Report Finds "Little Concrete Evidence" That Distracted Walking Contributes to Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries

Proposals for laws and ordinances that restrict "distracted walking" (walking while texting or using the internet on phones) have been all the rage. Now, however, it appears that governments are finally examining the issue and are (unsurprisingly) finding that the perceived plague of distracted walking is disconnected from reality.

New York City's Department of Transportation has issued this recent report finding "little concrete evidence that device-induced distracted walking contributes significantly to pedestrian fatalities and injuries." Coverage of the report is here, here, and here.

The report surveyed United States cases of pedestrian fatalities between 2010 and 2015 and found that were approximately 38 fatalities "involving pedestrian use of portable electronic devices" out of a total of 28,642 pedestrian fatalities. Additionally, the report surveyed New York City fataility reports from between 2014 and 2017 and found that cell phones were involved in two incidents where pedestrians were killed -- one where a pedestrian was texting, and another where the pedestrian was reaching for a dropped "mobile device." This was out of a total of 856 pedestrian fatality cases with available narratives.

The report included estimates of "cell phone-related injuries" on streets and highways--although most of those injuries involved cases where "a driver, passenger, or cyclist" was using a cell phone rather than the injured pedestrian. Even with this broader categorization, the percentage of injuries involving cell phone use was fairly low, ranging from 2.4 to 5.3 percent of all pedestrian injuries from 2009 to 2015.

While the report acknowledges that cell phones can be distracting, and includes several citations to studies regarding distraction, it notes that drivers remain the most important target for regulation. The report states that "the most significant gains in reducing pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries can be made by continuing to target the most dangerous behaviors -- such as driver speeding and failure-to-yield -- and by implementing street improvement projects that reduce the severity of crashes."

Legislators on the state and local level typically focus on anecdotes or instinct when it comes to passing overly broad restrictions against distracted walking. As I have noted before, these restrictions -- which target commonplace conduct -- will likely result in law enforcement officers having broad discretion in deciding who to cite, a scenario that lends itself to selective enforcement. Hopefully, lawmakers considering these regulations will see the New York City Department of Transportation report and note that their efforts to curtail pedestrian deaths and injuries would be better served by other means.

Connecticut Legislature to Consider Ban on "Distracted Walking"

The Hartford Courant reports on a "Distracted Walking" law that is making its way through Connecticut's legislature. From the report:

The General Assembly’s transportation committee was voting Wednesday on a bill that would make it a fineable offense to cross the street while looking at your cellphone.

“This is really about trying to protect the person who should be aware when they’re putting themselves in front of a two or three ton vehicle barreling at them … if they’re not paying attention they will lose that battle,” said Sen. Carlo Leone, D-Stamford and co-chair of the committee.

Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven and the committee’s other co-chair, said he started out opposing the bill, reasoning that walkers “present the least danger” in terms of causing traffic accidents.

“As I heard from more and more people, this is a shared responsibility that we have,” he said. “We do have things like distracted driving, so distracted walking is a reasonable standard that we should establish.”

The bill is S.B. No. 825 and can be found here. The bill is of note because it is, to my knowledge, the first state-level legislation that would restrict the use of electronic devices while walking across streets. A few towns have passed restrictions like this, but I am not aware of any states that have done so.

From the text of the bill:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2019) (a) For the purposes of this section, "mobile electronic device" means any hand-held or other portable electronic equipment capable of providing data communication between two or more persons, including, but not limited to, a mobile telephone, a text messaging device, a paging device, a personal digital assistant, a laptop computer, equipment that is capable of playing a video game or a digital video disk, or equipment on which digital photographs are taken or transmitted, or any combination thereof, and "viewing" means looking in the direction of the screen of a mobile electronic device.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, no pedestrian shall cross a highway while viewing a mobile electronic device.

(c) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to (1) the use of a mobile electronic device for the sole purpose of communicating with any of the following regarding an emergency situation: An emergency response operator, a hospital, physician's office or health clinic, an ambulance company, a fire department or a police department, or (2) any of the following persons while in the performance of their official duties and within the scope of their employment: A peace officer or firefighter, as those terms are defined in section 53a-3 of the general statutes, or any emergency medical responder, emergency medical technician or paramedic, as those terms are defined in section 19a-175 of the general statutes.

(d) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall, for a first violation, receive a warning and, for any subsequent violation, be fined twenty dollars.

This restriction is narrower than Honolulu's ban (examined in painstaking detail here). Connecticut's proposed restriction applies to a smaller range of devices, as it includes the important qualification that a "mobile electronic device" affected by the bill must be capable of providing data communication between two or more persons. Honolulu's ban, on the other hand, applied to devices that either provided for communications between two or more people OR were capable of "providing amusement." This means that even if someone is fiddling with an iPod while crossing the street, they will not violate this law, provided that their iPod is a model that cannot send messages or texts to other people. Of course, it seems that no one (including me, for the most part) listens to music on anything other than their phones while walking anymore, but now there may be a reason to dust off the old devices.

Unlike Montclair, California's terribly-drafted ban, the Connecticut bill only applies to instances where pedestrians are "viewing" the device, which the bill defines as "looking in the direction of the screen of a mobile electronic device." Honolulu uses a similar definition. This is narrower than Montclair's ban, which also applies to listening to devices with headphones.

As I've noted before, I generally oppose restrictions like this. Bills that prohibit common practices like this are likely to be unequally enforced in light of widespread violations will occur, and enforcement will be left up to the discretion of law enforcement officers. Broad grants of discretion like this are likely to disproportionately impact racial minorities, the poor, and others who officers believe are "suspicious." While this bill isn't as broad as Montclair's ban, it is still more than is necessary. And, as I've also noted before, while proponents of the bill may argue that its twenty-dollar fine is low, this amount is still burdensome to some and it can add up for those who are repeatedly cited -- a likely occurrence for a prohibition on common activity.

And as for Rep. Roland Lemar's change of heart on the bill in light of restrictions on distracted driving, this ignores the fact that pedestrians are not the ones who are likely to cause harm to others if they are walking while distracted. Distracted driving rules make sense, as vehicles can cause significant injury or death if their drivers aren't paying attention. As for people who are walking, they may well end up injured if they are walking while distracted, but they are not going to injure others like distracted drivers. That Lemar cannot recognize this distinction is unsettling.

As for the status of the bill, on March 20, 2019, the Transportation Committee voted in favor of the bill, and as of today, the bill has been submitted to the Legislative Commissioner's Office. From there, it may be voted on by the legislature or it may proceed to a different committee (at least, that's what I've been able to grasp from this cheat sheet on Connecticut legislative procedure). Hopefully the bill will be referred to another committee to die, or the legislature will vote against it, as it is an unnecessary restriction that may prompt other states and towns to follow suit.

Iowa Supreme Court Approves Innocence-Based Challenges to Guilty Pleas

The Des Moines Register reports on this significant sentencing news:

For the first time, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that people who plead guilty to crimes may challenge their convictions if new evidence of their innocence emerges. 

The court ruled Friday in a 4-3 decision in the case of Jacob L. Schmidt, who pleaded guilty in 2007 of sexually abusing his 14-year-old half-brother the year before. Years later, in 2014, Schmidt's half-brother began telling others that the abuse never occurred. 

The court said last week that Schmidt's case should be returned to the district court in Woodbury County, which is now allowed to consider the new evidence of Schmidt's innocence. 

"It is time that we refuse to perpetuate a system of justice that allows actually innocent people to remain in prison, even those who profess guilt despite their actual innocence," Justice David Wiggins wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Mark Cady and justices Daryl Hecht and Brent Appel.

The ruling is "definitely the first time that the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized the actual innocence claim," said Brian Farrell, a law professor at the University of Iowa. Farrell is also co-founder and president of the board of directors of the Innocence Project of Iowa, which wrote an amicus brief supporting Schmidt's appeal. 

That makes Iowa one of about 14 states in the country to recognize such claims, said Farrell, who called the ruling "an 8 or 9 on a 10-point scale of significance."

The full opinion is here.

Of particular note is the Court's discussion of the phenomenon of defendants who plead guilty despite their innocence, which begins on page 14 of the opinion. From that analysis:

A plea does not weed out the innocent. Rather, a plea is an explicit agreement [footnote omitted] between the prosecutor and the defendant that “establishes a ‘going rate.’ ” John L. Kane, Plea Bargaining and the Innocent, The Marshall Project (Dec. 26, 2014, 1:05 PM), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/26/plea-bargaining-and-the-innocent [https://perma.cc/R5FU-Y3T4]. Specifically, “[t]he anticipated sentence is the central concern in the negotiation[,]” but “[t]he problem . . . is that both innocent and guilty defendants are placed in the same pot and the goal is to achieve the appearance of justice, not the realization of it.” Id.; see also Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 144, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012) (“In today’s criminal justice system . . . the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for a defendant.”). Pleading guilty does not automatically mean the defendant is actually guilty. Sometimes, an innocent defendant is choosing the lesser of two evils: pleading guilty despite his or her actual innocence because the odds are stacked up against him or her, or going to trial with the risk of losing and the prospect of receiving a harsher sentence. 

Innocent defendants may also plead guilty in the face of pressure from prosecutors and even their own defense counsels. Today, “our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight.” Jed S. Rakoff, Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, N.Y. Rev. Books (Nov. 20, 2014). Behind these closed doors, prosecutors have broad discretion: “the prosecutor-dictated plea bargain system, by creating such inordinate pressures to enter into plea bargains, appears to have led a significant number of defendants to plead guilty to crimes they never actually committed.” Id.; see also Innocence Project, Why Are People Pleading Guilty to Crimes They Didn’t Commit? (Nov. 25, 2015), https://www.innocenceproject.org/why-are-people-pleading-guilty-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit/ [https://perma.cc/3CEX-WEW2].

The dissenting justices argue that this rule may lead to a flurry of new claims that disturb earlier guilty pleas. Even if these claims arise, the burden they create is likely outweighed by the possibility that some of those earlier guilty pleas were entered into by innocent defendants. (For the intricate calculations involved in these determinations, see N Guilty Men by Alexander Volokh).

Moreover, the need for new claims may be reduced if prosecutors take this new rule to heart. While one hopes that even without the Court's ruling, prosecutors would stay true to their roles as "minister[s] of justice and not simply . . . advocate[s]," this rule may prompt prosecutors to ensure that negotiated pleas are on solid factual footing to minimize the probability of an innocence-based challenge in the future.

Montclair Passes Broad Ordinance to Combat "Distracted Walking"

The city of Montclair in Southern California recently passed an ordinance that bans crossing the street while talking on the phone, looking at the screen of an electronic device, or wearing headphones or earbuds on both ears (regardless of whether they are playing music).

Many outlets have reported on this ordinance. I learned about it this morning from a teaser for a local public radio report that you can find here. Illustrious publications such as the LA Times reported on the ordinance. Local outlets as well report on it here and here.

Because I'm a lawyer with a blog and not a "journalist," I'm going to depart from the standard practice that all of these reports have in common, which is to fail to provide a link to the text of the ordinance. Here it is. You're welcome. Here, also, are the minutes for the December 4, 2017 meeting where this Ordinance was approved.  The minutes contained the ordinance number (17-791), which finally led me to the text. (Two links to the text in one post. I'm out of control.) 

To make things even crazier, here's (most of) the text of the municipal code sections that the ordinance added to the Montclair Municipal Code (and which became effective on January 3, 2018):

8.02.010. Definitions. 
As used in this Title, the following definitions shall apply. For purposes of Title 8, these definitions shall supersede any other definitions of the same terms elsewhere in this Code.  

Emergency Responders include, but are not limited to, public safety officers of either a municipal or county police department or fire department, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, private ambulance service responders, emergency management workers, and federal and state law enforcement and fire service officers on duty and responding to an emergency service request.  

Mobile Electronic Device means any handheld, head- or body-mounted, or portable electronic equipment capable of providing wireless and/or data communication between two or more persons or a device for providing amusement, including but not limited to a cellular phone, smart phone, text messaging device, paging device, personal digital assistant, laptop computer, video game, video/audio player, digital photographic device, or any other similar electronic device. 

Pedestrian means a person who is afoot or who is using any of the following: (1) a means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle; or (2) an electric personal assistive mobility device.  

Personal Audio Equipment means any device placed in, on or around a person's ears capable of providing an audible sound, including but not limited to headphones or ear buds.  

Viewing means looking in the direction of the screen of a mobile electronic device.  

Chapter 8.28 PEDESTRIANS  

8.28.020. Pedestrian Use of Mobile Electronic Devices.  

A. No pedestrian shall cross a street or highway while engaged in a phone call, viewing a mobile electronic device or with both ears covered or obstructed by personal audio equipment.  

B. Upon presenting evidence, it is an affirmative defense to any citation for a violation of subsection (A) that the cited person was engaged in, or making, a "911" emergency communication with a mobile electronic device.  

C. Emergency responders viewing a mobile electronic device, or whose ears are covered or obstructed by audio equipment, while in the performance and scope of his or her official duties are exempt from subsection (A).  

D. Persons with medically prescribed hearing aides [sic] are exempt from subsection (A).  

E. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is guilty of an infraction violation punishable in accordance with Chapter 1 .1 2 of Title 1 of this Code.

A few things.

Don't Operate Drones While Drunk in New Jersey, and Other Crimes

Through this angrily-titled Reason article, "Good Riddance to Chris Christie," I learned about a recent law in New Jersey that creates several new drone-related crimes. The text of S3370, which Governor Christie signed into law on Monday, is available here.

The bill creates several new drone-related crimes. One of the more widely-reported restrictions is a ban on the operation of drones while under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, "habit-producing" drugs, or with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or more. This restriction has led to the publication of several articles that whimsically announce the restriction on "drunk droning" or "drinking and droning." I'm not sure if I'm ready to approve of these publications use of "drone" as a verb, as operating drones does not necessarily involve speaking at length in a boring manner, but the restriction is worth noting.

It's also worth mentioning that federal regulations already place even stricter alcohol-related restrictions on the commercial operation of drones. This concise explainer by Jonathan Rupprecht points out that commercial drone operators can't fly drones within eight hours of consuming alcohol or with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.04% or higher. Rupprecht also notes that hobbyist drone users that operate drones while intoxicated may run afoul of federal regulations if their activity is deemed to "threaten the safety of the national airspace system."

New Jersey bans more than the drunken operation of drones. The law also includes provisions prohibiting people from using drones while hunting, and from using drones to prevent people from hunting. The law also bans the operation of drones in "a manner that endangers the life or property of another," and prohibits people from using drones from conducting surveillance on correctional facilities or "endanger[ing] the safety or security" of these facilities by operating drones on their premises.

But wait, there's more!

The law creates an offense for drone users whose drones interfere with "first responders," (which include law enforcement officers, firefighter, ambulance operators, and others). California has attempted to pass similar legislation that would criminalize operating drones near fires, as this activity has reportedly hindered firefighting efforts. But these crimes have yet to become law in California due to Governor Jerry Brown's reluctance to expand California's bloated Penal Code. Governor Christie, however, appears to have no such qualms.

A final provision of note is a revision to the law governing the penalty of "parole supervision for life" that is imposed on certain sex offenders and those convicted of kidnapping pursuant to N.J.S.A. C.2C:43-6.4. The provision states that the parole supervision for life "may include reasonable conditions prohibiting or restricting the person's operation of an unmanned aircraft system in order to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of criminal or delinquent behavior." While drones can (and occasionally have) been used to hover creepily outside of people's windows, this is a strangely specific provision to add to the various restrictions that sex offenders face.

I'm generally opposed to imposing restrictions on private drone users, as tortious or invasive behavior with drones could probably be prosecuted or litigated under more general existing laws. I do approve of legislative restrictions on government drone use, but New Jersey appears to have yet to impose such restrictions. The last attempt at doing so failed a year ago when Governor Christie failed to sign off on a bill that would have imposed a warrant restriction (with certain exceptions) on drone use by law enforcement agencies. Perhaps Governor Phil Murphy will act differently should a similar bill make its way through the legislature in the future.

Thor: Ragnarok Does Not Exemplify Trial By Combat

Over at the ABA Journal, Adam Banner claims that Thor: Ragnarok is the "latest instance of trial by combat in popular culture." He writes (don't worry, no spoilers yet): 

First off, if you haven’t seen the new Thor film, I highly suggest it. It’s one of the best entries in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it contains one of the best scenes any fan could ask for: a battle between the God of Thunder and a giant, green rage monster. Without giving too much away, Thor is promised his freedom if he can best his captor’s “champion” in combat—it just so happens that champion is a super-angry Hulk. Trial by combat? Definitely.

I've seen Thor: Ragnarok twice (it's fantastic), and I've written a fair amount about trial by combat (see blog posts here, here, and here and a peer reviewed (!?) article that I coauthored with my former classmate, Raj Shah here). After reflecting on the history, basis, and characteristics of historic (and even Game-of-Thrones-style) trial by combat, the fight between Thor and Hulk in the movie cannot be fairly characterized as an example of trial by combat.

Banner (what a name for a guy writing about a fight that involves the Hulk) decides to write his article without spoilers, which allows him to advance his claim behind a fog of uncertainty that maybe there are other events in the movie that make the fight into a trial by combat scenario. I'll get into the nitty-gritty of the events leading up to the fight in the movie after the break, so I guess there are some minor spoiler alerts for those who didn't watch the trailers and put two and two together.

Honolulu Bans Looking at Cell Phones While Crossing The Street

NPR reports here and here on a recent ordinance passed by the City and County of Honolulu that prohibits people from "viewing" "mobile electronic devices" while crossing a street or highway. From NPR:

Police in Honolulu on Wednesday will begin writing tickets for people who get distracted by their cellphones while walking in a crosswalk. Honolulu is the first major city in the country to pass such a law, citing a high rate of pedestrians being hit in crosswalks.

"Starting today, texting while walking in a crosswalk can get you a ticket," Hawaii Public Radio's Bill Dorman reports for our Newscast unit. "In fact, a downward glance at a screen of any kind will cost you — a phone, a tablet, a video game."

Under the new law, the only legal reason for a pedestrian to use a cellphone while crossing a street or highway would be to call 911 to report an emergency.

One of the NPR reports claims that Fort Lee, New Jersey banned texting while crossing the street a few years ago, but its only support for this claim is a link to a story where police say that they are cracking down on pedestrians who are in the road illegally and are also on their phones. There is no indication that looking at a device without engaging in some other illegal activity was banned.

Because this apparently is the first major restriction of crossing the street while looking at devices, this post takes a deep dive into the ordinance. There are some quirks and questions that the ordinance raises, and I lay them out in painstaking detail after the break.

Court Denies Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Request to Vacate All Orders and Dismiss Case Following Pardon

NPR reports:

U.S. District Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton says that President Trump's pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio does not "revise the historical facts" of his case — and that she will not vacate her ruling that found Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt.

On Thursday, Bolton quoted Black's Law Dictionary to say that a pardon "releases the wrongdoer from punishment and restores the offender's civil rights without qualification." But she then added a further interpretation in her own words: "It does not erase a judgment of conviction, or its underlying legal and factual findings."

The NPR story contains a copy of the Order, but a complete copy of the Order can be found here. Additional coverage of this most recent development can be found here and here. Arpaio's attorneys have filed a notice of appeal of the ruling. My own discussion of the Arpaio pardon can be found here.

I do not have a time to do my own research on the law of pardons in the Ninth Circuit, but from the court's focus on the law of other circuits it appears that there does not seem to be any clean, controlling precedent in the Ninth Circuit. The court was not persuaded by Arpaio's reliance on U.S. v. Schaffer in which the DC Circuit vacated all orders following a pardon. The judge noted that due to the procedural background of Schaffer, the only issue pending was the court's grant of a new trial to Schaffer, which left Schaffer in a position "as if no trial had ever taken place." Accordingly, the seemingly broad order in Schaffer had a limited effect, which distinguished the ruling in Schaffer from Arpaio's broader request.

When this Order is appealed, I expect that the quick discussion in footnote one of the Order will be expanded upon. Here is the text of that footnote (with hyperlinks to the text of the cited cases added):

The United States Supreme Court originally signaled in dicta that a presidential pardon may have an expunging effect. See Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 380-81 (1866) ("A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence."). The Court later rejected this view. See Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 94 (1915) ("[A pardon] carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."). Other courts have followed suit. See, e.g., In re North, 62 F.3d 1434, 1436-37 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (finding Garland dicta not controlling); United States v. Noonan, 906 F.2d 952, 958-59 (3d Cir. 1990) (same); Bjerkan v. United States, 529 F.2d 125, 128 n.2 (7th Cir. 1975) (same).

As the case works its way up through appeals, I suspect that discussion of the Supreme Court precedents and their interactions will move from the footnotes to the text of whatever opinions result. And if the law in the Ninth Circuit addressing this pardon issue is as absent as it seems from Judge Bolton's order, it will be interesting to see how the Ninth Circuit addresses the issue. In the end, I suspect that the ruling will not be favorable to Arpaio, but if the Ninth Circuit takes a thorough approach to the analysis (see, e.g., the approach in Noonan), the decision could be a notable contribution to this rarely-litigated area of law.

Boating Under the Influence and Probable Cause

Here's some good news out of Iowa: it appears that incidents involving people boating under the influence of alcohol are on the decline. From this KCRG report:

A total of 78 full time Iowa Department of Natural Resources conservation officers cover Iowa's 99 counties. This summer those officers did get the help from 29 seasonal water patrol officers but that still means full timers have multiple counties under their care. And when you consider around 500 boats may be out on a typical holiday weekend just at Coralville Reservoir alone, catching someone boating under the influence can be a challenge.

. . .

"If a state trooper or deputy officer in the cities, they know 'okay they're going across the lines.' There's no lines on the water. There's no evidence left other than the wake," said [Iowa Department of Natural Resources conservation officer, Eric] Wright.

By late July at Coralville Reservoir only three people had been arrested this summer for the crime. If you think that number is low, you're not alone.

"There's been fairly heavy enforcement on Coralville itself and we're starting to see the effects of it."

Data obtained by I9 through an Iowa open records request shows BWI arrests at Coralville have been on the decline since at least 2014 when 33 people were charged. The numbers statewide show a similar story, arrests did spike however in 2015 when 47 people were arrested. Fast forward to July of this present year and that number drops to 29.

The consequences for boating under the influence are similar if you are caught driving a car drunk in Iowa but if you get a BWI there is nothing stopping you from losing your driving privileges out on the road. In fact, when I9 searched the names of people charged over the years with BWI we found several who also had OWIs on their record as well.

The report is a bit confusing -- particularly the second-to-last paragraph. It is unclear whether the 47 people were arrested statewide or in the Coralville reservoir alone (the context suggests that it is in Coralville alone). With that number in the mix, the claim that arrests have been on the decline since 2014 isn't accurate - rather the arrests seem to have been on the decline since 2015 (assuming 2016 had fewer than 47 arrests, but more than 29).

But I did not highlight this story or spend untold numbers of what could have been billable hours writing this post to slog through numbers. Instead, I was intrigued by Officer Wright's discussion of deciding whether to pull over a boat -- noting that unlike officers who decide to pull over a car, there may not be clear cut instances where the car crosses a lane line. While the Fourth Amendment restricts officers from the unreasonable seizure of vehicles, officers are permitted to stop a vehicle if they have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred -- or "probable cause." Most typically, officers can establish probable cause by observing a traffic violation, like failing to signal, crossing a lane line, or speeding. But what about boats?

A potential basis for stopping a boat is analyzed in depth in the Iowa Supreme Court case of State v. Pettijohn. There, the Court held that an officer's stop of a boat was constitutional because the officer reasonably believed that the operator of the boat was violating Iowa Code 462A.12, which prohibits the reckless, negligent, or careless operation of a vessel, water skis, surfboard, or similar device. The basis for the violation? The defendant was driving a boat while a passenger was dangling her feet in the water near the motor, which the officer knew used an unguarded propeller based on his knowledge of the type of boat that he observed. Section 462A.12 likely operates as a catch all, as officers can likely articulate reasons for stopping boats based on numerous circumstances, including boating in darkness without lights (assuming there aren't laws that already specifically address that), or unsafe speed (particularly with other boats present), or both!  See, e.g., Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Cannon (attorney suspended from practice of law for various prior alcohol/drug related offenses, including a boating while intoxicated offense in which he was stopped for accelerating "rather quickly" in a five mile per hour speed-limit zone at 10:30 p.m.).

Another potential basis for stopping a boat is mentioned, but not analyzed, in State v. Slade, where officers believed that a boat was over capacity, and stopped the boat for that reason. As it turns out, the boat contained 16 people, but only was designed to hold 14 people. Slade is notable because it involves "Party Cove" at the Coralville reservoir. Having grown up close to that location, were I to testify as an expert on the Fourth Amendment as applied to Iowa waters, I would likely conclude that the mere presence of a boat in that section of the reservoir constitutes probable cause to stop a boat on suspicion of boating under the influence. I doubt that the courts would agree with me, but that's just because the judges that make these important decisions haven't spent enough time out on the reservoir on the weekends.

But perhaps things have changed since I left Iowa.  KCRG notes that only three people had been arrested on the reservoir for boating under the influence by late July this year. This does not sound like the booze-soaked body of water of my childhood memories, and if the arrest numbers reflect a general trend towards less drinking and boating, then it's a trend that I welcome.

A Survey of State Laws Against Glue Sniffing and Driving Under the Influence of Glue

After writing yesterday's post on this story about a man arrested in Cedar Rapids, Iowa for allegedly driving while sniffing fumes from an aerosol can, I decided to do a little more research into glue sniffing laws in other states. As I noted in yesterday's post, Cedar Rapids' ordinance does not apply to any substances other than glue or cement, so any non-adhesive, aerosolized substances that people may inhale to get high are not covered by the ordinance. Additionally, I was unable to find any provisions in Iowa law regarding driving under the influence (operating while intoxicated) that clearly applied to driving while under the influence of inhaled glue or other aerosolized substances.

Cedar Rapids' ordinance banning glue sniffing states:

62.29 - GLUE SNIFFING.

(a) As used in this section the term model glue shall mean any glue or cement containing toluene, acetone, or other solvent or chemical having the property of releasing toxic vapors.   

(b) No person shall, for the purpose of causing a condition of intoxication, euphoria, excitement, exhilaration, stupefaction, or dulling of the senses or nervous system, smell or inhale the fumes from any model glue; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to the inhalation of any anesthesia for medical or dental purposes.                           

(c) No person shall possess, buy, sell, transfer possession, or receive possession of any model glue for the illegal purposes set forth in subsection (b) hereof.

While I concluded that Cedar Rapids' ordinance did not apply to the conduct described in the article, there are other, more expansive, state laws on glue sniffing that Cedar Rapids may want to imitate if it wants to broadly ban the huffing of fumes from glues and aerosols.

Driving Under the Influence of Glue?

I like to check in on what's happening in my old home state of Iowa, and in doing so today I was drawn to this KCRG story on an (allegedly) very stupid and irresponsible driver:

A Cedar Rapids man was charged with Driving Left of Center and Glue Sniffing.

An officer was traveling westbound in the 4500 block of 1st Avenue East around 5 p.m. on August 29 when they saw a car driven by James Knight, 58, traveling in the left lane veer into the right lane.

The car crossed the dotted line and the driver corrected it, but then crossed the solid yellow line dividing the westbound lanes with the center turn lane.

The officer saw the driver holding a canister and suspected Knight may be huffing. He followed the car and when it stopped, the officer got out of his squad car and approached Knight's car.

The driver appeared to be passed out or had blacked out. When the officer knocked on the window, the driver appeared startled and the car began to roll forward.

The officer told the driver to put the car in park but the driver didn’t seem to understand and appeared to be in some intoxicated state.

The vehicle rolled forward and hit another parked car.

The officer was able to put the car in park. Knight was holding an aerosol can and denied huffing the gases out of the can.

When the story's headline contains "glue sniffing," it's difficult not to click.

Knight's reported behavior is more dangerous than driving over the center line, so it is understandable that the authorities wanted to charge him with something more than simply driving over the center line. Knight probably cannot be charged with driving under the influence (or operating while under the influence, to use Iowa's language) as this statute (Iowa Code 321J.2) is limited to those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. "Drug," is conveniently undefined under Iowa's OWI laws. Unless there is an extremely expansive definition of "drug" elsewhere in the Iowa Code that applies, the language of the OWI statute appears to foreclose charging Knight with this offense, which is most likely why Knight was not charged with OWI.

But does Knight's conduct constitute "glue sniffing?"

To answer this, we need the text of the Cedar Rapids City Ordinance that bans glue sniffing. You can find it here, and the complete text of the ordinance is as follows:

62.29 - GLUE SNIFFING.

(a) As used in this section the term model glue shall mean any glue or cement containing toluene, acetone, or other solvent or chemical having the property of releasing toxic vapors.   

(b) No person shall, for the purpose of causing a condition of intoxication, euphoria, excitement, exhilaration, stupefaction, or dulling of the senses or nervous system, smell or inhale the fumes from any model glue; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to the inhalation of any anesthesia for medical or dental purposes.                           

(c) No person shall possess, buy, sell, transfer possession, or receive possession of any model glue for the illegal purposes set forth in subsection (b) hereof.

Knight was reportedly in possession of an "aerosol can," and was presumably suspected of huffing gasses out of the can. People can get high from huffing or sniffing fumes from aerosol cans, as noted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. But while the end result of sniffing these fumes may be similar to the result of sniffing glue, King's alleged conduct does not appear to fall under the scope of the glue sniffing ordinance.

Based on the language of the ordinance, it does not seem to apply to instances where a person sniffs fumes from an aerosol can to get high. The ordinance defines "model glue" as "any glue or cement containing toluene, acetone, or other solvent or chemical having the property of releasing toxic vapors." This definition is irritating, since it essentially uses the word "glue" to define "glue." While a number of chemicals are named, and while the catch-all at the end of the definition includes other toxic vapors, these chemicals are restricted to chemicals contained in "glue or cement." While I am not an expert on what is going on inside of an aerosol can, Wikipedia informs me that the cans contain small particles or liquids that are dispersed with a propellant, which creates the pressure that forces the particles/liquid out of the can as a spray. This sounds like quite the opposite of glue or cement, which have high viscosity.

It's possible one might attempt to apply the "or other solvent or chemical having the property of releasing toxic vapors" portion of the model glue definition to an aerosol can. But this reading is not correct, since this catch-all provision is part of a list that modifies the terms "glue" or "cement." The most subtle revision to the statute that could support such an interpretation would be to separate the named chemicals from the catch-all -- for example: "the term model glue shall mean any glue or cement containing toluene or acetone, or other solvent or chemical having the property of releasing toxic vapors." If this is what the ordinance said, Knight's conduct could potentially fall under it. As written, however, sniffing or huffing from an aerosol can does not fall under the language of Cedar Rapids' glue-sniffing ordinance.

[UPDATE - 8/30/2017]

A friend surprised me with a sudden outpouring of his proclaimed knowledge and enthusiasm for glue and its diverse potential forms. He informed me that glue does not necessarily have high viscosity, and that rubber cement, for example, could become fluid enough to be aerosolized if enough of a solvent were added to it. Indeed, here is a "Multipurpose Adhesive Aerosol" that I found with some quick Googling! I suppose that the law could be interpreted to apply to aerosolized adhesives, as glue can be defined by its function of binding objects together, although it most commonly refers to a substance that absorbs water and becomes a viscous solution with strong adhesive properties. Perhaps the courts will one day address these pressing questions regarding the true definition of glue.

Of course, it is doubtful that Knight was sniffing aeresolized glue, unless he somehow even less intelligent than initially thought. Such a practice would carry the risk of gluing his nose shut while attempting to get high, an outcome that would not only be inconvenient and painful, but that would also prevent Knight from continuing to sniff the aerosol. I suspect that if Knight indeed was using an aeresolized substance to get high, it was likely a substance other than the aeresolized adhesive that I linked to above.