Criminal law is certainly an important part of the study of business law, and Fourth Amendment questions always seem to come up in class.  Students are very interested in learning about when the police can search a person’s car, office or home, or when and where can they arrest someone. Generally, police need a warrant either to search a person’s property or to arrest, unless it falls within a constitutional exception.

Most students do not know that there is a difference between an arrest warrant and a search warrant.  An arrest warrant is an order by the court directing a sheriff, constable or police officer to find and arrest a person who is wanted for a crime.  In contrast, a search warrant permits a law enforcement officer to search a person’s place of residence or other location for evidence of a crime.  An arrest warrant, however, does not permit the police to search a home or building for a person where the police reasonably believes the person named in the arrest warrant may be found without the consent of the owner.  The question then becomes whether there are any other times police may enter certain areas of a third-party home and search for a person even though they are only acting pursuant to an arrest warrant.

In the New Jersey Appellate Division decision, State v. Craft, 425 N.J. Super. 546 (App. Div. 2012), Judge Graves held that exigent circumstances permitted the police to enter a bedroom of a third-party home to arrest defendant for a shooting even though they were operating solely under the authority of an arrest warrant.  The facts are as follows.

The Newark Police Department’s Fugitive Apprehension Team is responsible to dispatch officers to certain addresses where fugitives may be found based on certain intelligence.  James Craft was wanted for a shooting.  Officers arrived at the location noted in the arrest warrant.  It was a three-family dwelling located on South 13th Street.  The police believed that defendant was residing there with family on the second-floor.

The front door to the residence was open, and the police proceeded to the second floor.  The officers were in plain clothes, but at least one of them was wearing a badge around his neck. Defendant’s mother opened the door and permitted the police to enter.  The officers told defendant’s mother that they had a warrant to arrest her son. Defendant’s mother told the police that her son was not there, but offered to call him on her cell phone.  Upon dialing the number, the police heard a phone ringing behind a bedroom door. The officers believed it was defendant’s cell phone ringing and that he would most likely be in the bedroom.

When they opened the bedroom door, they found defendant attempting to escape.  The police testified they saw defendant drop a handgun as he climbed through the window.  They also discovered five vials of cocaine in plain view on the top of a dresser.  Defendant was arrested and charged.  The trial court suppressed the evidence finding that the “coincidence of a phone ringing” was insufficient evidence to justify entry into the bedroom without a search warrant and that the police did not have an “objectively reasonable belief” that “defendant both resided at and would be found at” his mother’s apartment.

On appeal, the court reversed, holding that “there was no constitutional violation by the police, and it was error to suppress the items that were seized. The arrest warrant provided probable cause for defendant’s arrest; the officers entered the apartment with [defendant’s mother’s consent]; and [the police] had reason to believe defendant was present in an adjoining room when a cell phone began ringing after [defendant’s mother] called her son.  In addition, the officers knew the arrest warrant was for ‘a shooting’ and, therefore, defendant was potentially dangerous.  Under these circumstances, there was a compelling need for immediate action to apprehend defendant, and it was impracticable for the officers to obtain a search warrant.  Thus, their entry into the bedroom was objectively reasonable, and the items seized were in plain view.”

Here, the exigency to protect persons inside the home from being shot by a potentially armed individual excused the police from failing to consider the possible “coincidence” of the phone ring. According to one of the officers, upon hearing the phone ring at the time defendant’s mother dialed, he reasoned since people generally stay close to their cell phones, he would find defendant next to his.  As a result, the search into the bedroom was reasonable.

Posted by Kirsten T. Rewekant.

A somewhat recent case, Ellis Vs. Cartoon Network, Inc. shows how old statutes can be in conflict with the new and always updating technology. Ellis uses the Cartoon Network app on his android device to watch popular television shows that Cartoon Network airs. This is a free service, which you could choose to upgrade to pay for exclusive content that the free app does not allow others to see. When signing up for this extended service, you would create a profile with personal information that Cartoon Network would be available to see. Ellis had decided the free version was good enough for him, and therefore, did not give Cartoon Network permission to obtain any personal information.

Cartoon Network uses a service called Bango, which allows them to assign an ID number to everyone who views their content, free service or extended. This service does not know exactly who you are with any personal information, but is essentially learning who you are by linking all the shows you watch to your ID number, and therefore, learning what you like to watch. Through the service, the company is getting an understanding of who you are. Ellis tried to argue this to the court.

The court heard arguments as to whom is considered a consumer or producer. Cartoon Network argued Ellis is not considered a consumer under the definition of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) because he does not provide any “personal identifiable information.” But Ellis argued, this ID number does show a side of his personality and gives the company his personal information. Finally, the court needed to decide whether Ellis can be considered a subscriber to Cartoon Network, which makes him a consumer under the VPPA. To be a consumer under the VPPA, you do not have to pay for a service, log in, or create a profile.

Overall, the court ruled Ellis as not a subscriber under the VPPA for not signing up for an account, providing no personal information, having no profile, not paying for the service, and he is not considered to have a committed relationship with Cartoon Network to obtain the exclusive content they offer.

Some issues with this ruling includes the fact that if you were to visit Cartoon Network on your web browser, you would not be assigned an ID number, as the app does. Another issue with this case is the very little distinction between downloading the app and being a subscriber to Cartoon Network and how these two do not show a difference in commitment. After this case, there are still questions regarding the VPPA regarding privacy, and therefore, there may need to be some revising.

Kirsten is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

After the release of Chris Kyle’s 2013 memoir, Jesse Ventura was very displeased to find out that Kyle was making claims about punching him in the face in 2006. Kyle did not use Ventura’s name in the book, but only referred to the incident by saying he “knocked out a celebrity.” Only in later interviews did Kyle publicly acknowledge the mystery celebrity as Ventura.

This angered Ventura especially due to the fact that he claimed that Kyle was making the story up. Ventura who was also a Navy veteran was even more displeased to find out that Kyle’s reason for hitting him, as depicted in the book, was due to Ventura making disrespectful remarks about the military. Ventura immediately took the matter to the courts. Not too long after, Kyle was killed at a shooting range and left behind a loving family and many adoring admirers.

Ventura still went ahead with the lawsuit and ended up suing New York publishing company HarperCollins over the book, claiming defamation. He was then awarded 1.8 million dollars from Chris Kyle’s estate. The aftermath of the lawsuit angered many people and soiled Ventura’s name even more. Ventura has said many times that he has no regrets over what he did and meant no harm or disrespect towards Kyle’s family and widow. Although many people across the country are now holding a grudge against the former Minnesota governor, he still won the battle of legal games.

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

The defendant in the Chris Kyle murder case argued he was insane at the time of the killing. There are various forms of the defense, but in essence it is the defendant’s inability to know that his actions are right or wrong, or that a mental disease somehow impaired his free will to act.

Normally, the burden is upon the defendant through his counsel to show that he was insane at the time of the murder. But in some states such as Colorado, the burden falls upon the prosecution to show that the defendant was sane at the time of the murder.

Posted by Bailey Obetz.

In this article, Stephen Kimble, inventor of a toy that allowed consumers to shoot web-like material from their palms imitating the power of the superhero Spiderman, sued Marvel in 1997 for patent infringement because it was selling a similar item called the “Web Blaster.” In an agreement between Kimbel and Marvel, Kimbel was to receive royalties on past, present, and future sales of the toy. However, it was unbeknownst to Kimble and Marvel that the royalties had no end date. Under Brulotte vs. Thys Co. (1964 decision), royalties only have to be paid until the patent expires. The issue the courts are currently facing is should the decision of the 1964 case be overruled? Specifically, in Kimble vs. Marvel Enterprises, Kimble’s lawyer believes the case is “‘widely recognized as an outdated and misguided decision that prohibits royalty arrangements that are frequently socially beneficial.’” (Liptak p.6).

“Stare decisis” is Latin for “’to stand by things decided,’” which helps the courts be efficient in their reasoning by using prior cases as guides to their decision-making. Additionally, “stare decisis” makes the law predictable for citizens—they can rely on the court to make the best decisions based on what the law has been from previous cases. The courts are obligated to follow precedent, however sometimes they may rule that the case should no longer be followed. Reasons for not following a precedent could be technological or social changes that make the case inapplicable or if the case is no longer considered “good law.” When courts decide not to follow precedent, as they may in this case, they can receive a lot of attention, which is why this case is of particular interest.

Bailey is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

In class, we discuss organized crime and its effects on business and society. Recently, Italian special agents, SCO, and the FBI arrested 13 persons in Calabria, Italy, allegedly connected with the ‘Ndrangheta crime family.

With affiliates in the U.S., the suspects were organizing cocaine shipments out of Costa Rica. Authorities arrested them in the middle of the night while they were sleeping and charged them with conspiracy to run an international drug trafficking ring.

The year-long investigation was named “Operation Columbus” and was jointly-led by federal authorities in Brooklyn and prosecutors in Calabria. Gregorio Gigliotti, an owner of pizza shop named “Cucino A Modo Mio” (I Cook My Way), located in Queens, NY, was arrested along with his wife and son. Italian investigators said they had information that he spearheaded the ring. “The Italian restaurant was the command center for bringing some drug shipments to New York and sending others to Europe or Calabria,” Grassi told reporters in Rome. The suspects allegedly shipped cocaine in crates containing cassava, a South American root vegetable.

According to the article, the ‘Ndrangheta has become Europe’s biggest cocaine dealer and has supplanted the Sicilian mafia as the major partner to the New York crime families.

Posted by Fadi Huzien.

This article “Injury on Weight Bench Results in Lawsuit But Ruling for Club,” discusses a lawsuit, which was filed by a fitness facility member at the gym center where he routinely exercised. The plaintiff, La Fata, filed a lawsuit towards the center, LA Fitness International, because he claimed that his injury was due negligence by the defendant, LA Fitness International. As stated in the article, “the member contended that the facility was negligent and responsible for what the member claimed was a willful injury.” This quotation alludes to La Fata’s perspective that LA Fitness International was responsible for his injury and believed that he was morally and ethically entitled to monetary compensation in this civil case in order to make the defendant compensate him for what he contended was significant injustice in which he was victimized.

Contrary to La Fata’s assertions, there was significant evidence omitted from what he claimed was a vindictive, immoral, and an unjust situation in which he was harmed and expecting compensation for the wrongdoing. This evidence significantly neutralized his claims for wrongdoing and negligence by the defendant LA Fitness International. The defense completely destroyed his argument in the statement, “At the time the plaintiff joined the defendant’s facility he signed a double-sided membership agreement which contained a release/waiver of liability. The release contained the usual language including a provision that the facility was relieved from any liability for injuries suffered “in, upon, or about LA Fitness premises or arising at LA Fitness facilities, services or equipment.” A bold face typed provision of the release indicated this member had “read and understood the entire agreement.” This quote indicates that the plaintiff knowingly signed a waiver for liability in the event of getting injured on the premises of LA Fitness, and most importantly, signed the contract that he had read and agreed regarding the rules and regulations. Therefore, the lawsuit was dismissed on summary judgment because La Fata knowingly signed this contract, which shields LA Fitness from liability. The clause defends the corporation from lawsuits such as these that could result in a significant financial award for damages.

Conclusively, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, LA Fitness International. Perceiving the deciding factors in this case, the judge placed significant importance upon the evidentiary support and the notion (as was taught in class) that it is not necessarily about who is right or wrong, but what one can prove. Within the domain and the rules of the law, it is more important who can provide more evidence to support a claim. In the end, it is about whichever party can ascertain more concrete and factual information to provide justification to decisively conclude who is righteous in the perception of the law. That will separate which individual, or party, is morally and ethically innocent by contemporary societal norms and beliefs.

Herbert, David L. “Injury On Weight Bench Results In Lawsuit But Ruling For Club.” Exercise Standards & Malpractice Reporter 23.6 (2009). Web. 14. Feb. 2015.

Fadi is a double major in nutrition food science and exercise science at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.

Posted by Natalie Kenny.

The parent company that makes Old Spice, Proctor & Gamble, is being sued by Rodney Colley of Alexandria, Virginia because of a defect in the deodorant. The plaintiff shared photos of himself with burns under his arms which he claims are from Old Spice deodorant. The plaintiff says he suffered “severe rashes, burning, and discomfort” after he used the product and he had to stop using it. In the photo, the rashes look severe.

Procter & Gamble, the parent company that owns Old Spice said that the people who experience rashes and irritation from using the deodorant are in the minority and only make up a small fraction of the company’s overall users. After news broke of this lawsuit, several other individuals came forward with stories about how the Old Spice deodorant gave them rashes and scabbing. The five million dollar lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio and is awaiting trial.

In my opinion, it is not okay for this deodorant to be giving people severe rashes. Even though Proctor & Gamble stated that only a small percentage of users get burns or rashes from the product that is simply not good enough. Consumers should not have to be concerned whether or not they will have a severe reaction to a product that they use every day.

I think that Proctor & Gamble should have to pay for the medical bills of the people who got severe reactions from this product as well as punitive damages to stop them from doing this and to get other companies to make sure their products are safe before selling them to the public.

Natalie is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Grand juries function to investigate criminal wrongdoing and screen out charges that do not warrant prosecution. Secrecy in the proceedings is paramount to carry out its duty. Therefore, litigants in a civil action cannot request that grand jury proceedings be disclosed, unless there must be a particularized need for the disclosure. That need must outweigh the public interest in its secrecy.

But why should these proceedings remain secret when court proceedings are generally conducted in public? The United States Supreme Court has said there are five reasons why grand jury proceedings should remain secret:

(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.

United States v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 681 n. 6, 78 S. Ct. 983, 986 n. 6, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077, 1081 n. 6 (1958)).

One of the concerns is keeping witness names secret for fear that exposure could have a chilling effect on future witness cooperation in grand jury proceedings. Another concern is damage to the reputation to those investigated if they are not indicted by the grand jury or if the indictment is subsequently dismissed by a judge for legal or factual defects in it.

Particularized need requires the party requesting the grand jury information to show its relevance to the case and without it the party would suffer prejudice or an injustice. Courts may require the party seeking the information to exhaust all other means provided by the discovery process first. And if granted, the court may opt to review the material in camera to make sure the party’s need outweighs the public policy for grand jury secrecy.

Many companies provide workers with cell phones for company business. And they expect that their workers respect its proper use. But companies should afford their workers the same respect in terms of privacy.

In a recent report, a woman was fired for deleting an app her employer used to track her movements. She sued for invasion of privacy–a concept covered in Business Law class. Her employer used the phone to follow her off-hours, akin to a “‘prisoner’s ankle bracelet.’”

But the employer is not all wrong. As a traveling saleswoman, her employer had an interest in knowing her whereabouts, however, where they crossed the line was continuing to monitor her off-hours. Employees were not permitted to disable any GPS tracking on the phone and they had to keep it on 24/7.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, the government is prohibited from invading someone’s privacy without probable cause and a warrant. The present case deals with the private sector, however. The woman probably had no right to delete the app, because it is company property since it is on a company phone; however, she still could have disabled the phone off-hours and not be in any trouble. Under California law, where she lives, employers are prohibited from following her in this manner when she is off-duty. Many other states have the same prohibitions.

One convenient way (and perhaps the woman in this case could have used) of stopping someone from using a cell phone as a GPS tracker is to put the cell phone in the refrigerator. Apparently, that will block the signals coming in and going out.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged three software company founders with insider trading and forced them to disgorge $5.8 million in illegal profits, penalties and interest.  Insider trading occurs when people in high levels of management trade company securities based on non-public information.

Lawson Software’s co-chairman, Herbert Richard Lawson, tipped his brother and a family friend (both retired from the company in 2001) about the probable sale of the company to Infor Global Solutions, a privately held software provider.  While negotiations were occurring, the media learned of a possible merger.  Lawson Software’s stock price began to climb based on analyst reports of a possible bidding war with more than one company considering acquiring Lawson Software.  The reports were predicated on an article indicating that Lawson Software conducted a “market check” through its financial advisor to see if there were any other companies interested in a merger.

But Infor Global was the only company interested in buying, as the market check produced “little-to-no interest.”  Lawson Software notified the public that Info Global offered to pay $11.25 per share, however, the media was still reporting incorrectly that other companies were interested in acquiring the company and that the merger would likely be for $15-16 per share.  Those companies listed in the media reports were actually the same companies that declined purchasing Lawson Software in the market check investigation.

The SEC charged defendants both knew the reports were false and Infor Global would not increase its offer any more than $11.25.  But in face of that knowledge, Lawson, his brother and his friend sold shares of the company for approximately $1 over Infor Global’s price, pocketing millions.  Defendants agreed to disgorge the profits and “to the entry of final judgments enjoining them from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.”

An associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated, “Richard Lawson conveyed material information that was contrary to what was being publicly reported, and his brother and friend made a windfall when they subsequently sold their company shares at inflated prices.”  He further stated, “When news surfaces about the possibility of a merger and details of the media reports are incorrect, it is illegal for insiders who know the true facts to trade and profit.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged three software company founders with insider trading and forced them to disgorge $5.8 million in illegal profits, penalties and interest.  Insider trading occurs when people in high levels of management trade company securities based on non-public information.

Lawson Software’s co-chairman, Herbert Richard Lawson, tipped his brother and a family friend (both retired from the company in 2001) about the probable sale of the company to Infor Global Solutions, a privately held software provider.  While negotiations were occurring, the media learned of a possible merger.  Lawson Software’s stock price began to climb based on analyst reports of a possible bidding war with more than one company considering acquiring Lawson Software.  The reports were predicated on an article indicating that Lawson Software conducted a “market check” through its financial advisor to see if there were any other companies interested in a merger.

But Infor Global was the only company interested in buying, as the market check produced “little-to-no interest.”  Lawson Software notified the public that Info Global offered to pay $11.25 per share, however, the media was still reporting incorrectly that other companies were interested in acquiring the company and that the merger would likely be for $15-16 per share.  Those companies listed in the media reports were actually the same companies that declined purchasing Lawson Software in the market check investigation.

The SEC charged defendants both knew the reports were false and Infor Global would not increase its offer any more than $11.25.  But in face of that knowledge, Lawson, his brother and his friend sold shares of the company for approximately $1 over Infor Global’s price, pocketing millions.  Defendants agreed to disgorge the profits and “to the entry of final judgments enjoining them from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.”

An associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated, “Richard Lawson conveyed material information that was contrary to what was being publicly reported, and his brother and friend made a windfall when they subsequently sold their company shares at inflated prices.”  He further stated, “When news surfaces about the possibility of a merger and details of the media reports are incorrect, it is illegal for insiders who know the true facts to trade and profit.”