Posted by Bailey Obetz.

A contract is an agreement that can be enforced in court; it is formed by two or more parties, each of whom agrees to perform or to refrain from performing some act now or in the future. For a contract to be enforced something of value must be exchanged by all parties involved. Other elements that are considered in determining if a contract is enforceable are meeting of the minds, duration, and value of things exchanged. Meeting of minds is merely a phrase used in contract law that describes the intentions — a mutual understanding in the formation of the contract. The element of duration refers to the length of time it will take for the parties will complete their part of the contract. Confusion and interferences of duration can disrupt the meeting of the minds regarding the contract. The consideration element is something of value received or promised such as money. The best way to avoid hindering enforceability of a contract is to make all provisions clear and be sure they are understood by all parties involved.

Many times a dispute arises when there is a promise of future performance and in many cases it is uncertain if any contract exists at all. This article recommends that the best way to ensure an enforceable contract is to hire an attorney. Many future problems can be avoided if an attorney is hired and creates a detailed agreement. Also, an attorney can help a party avoid creating illegal or unenforceable provisions in a contract. Contracts are particularly important in the business atmosphere because they can enhance or break relationships that business men/women encounter on a daily basis.

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

Healthcare providers, small business, and individuals have filed antitrust lawsuits against Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They allege the 37 independently-owned companies that make up the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association are colluding to avoid competition, raise prices on premiums, and clamp down on payments to providers. Plaintiffs are seeking class action status.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield covers about a third of the nation. In the 1930s, doctors provided insurance under the Blue Shield name and hospitals used Blue Cross. Eventually, the names were trademarked and now companies that use the names operate within an exclusive territory–many in a single state.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, defendant says “its licensing deals simply codify trademark rights that date back decades and ‘do not constitute an agreement to do anything unlawful.’” They claim their model has been around for long time and has withstood government scrutiny. But plaintiffs contend this is cartel-like behavior. The model stifles competition and leads to inflated premiums.

The case will pit antitrust law against trademark rights. Plaintiffs may have a point, especially since at least in one area, California, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans “compete directly against one another . . . where Anthem Blue Cross battles Blue Shield of California.” That fact appears to cut against defendants’ contention that the deals among licensees are only made to protect trademarks.

A district court judge has declined to dismiss the case, ruling plaintiffs “‘have alleged a viable market-allocation scheme.’”

In a recent NJ.com article, expert lawyers in DUI laws revealed how they attack drunk driving charges.  Normally, defense lawyers rely on plea bargaining when a client is charged with a crime. Plea bargaining involves an agreement between a prosecutor and defendant where the defendant will plead to a lesser charge in return for dismissal of other charges or to the original charge in lieu of a lighter sentence. Sometimes it may involve a quid pro quo to the prosecutor for information leading to other crimes. But New Jersey does not allow plea bargaining in DUI cases. As a result, defense lawyers have no choice except to work to dismiss the DUI case entirely or prove the evidence results in a downgrade to a lesser charge.

According to the article, oftentimes, defense lawyers will find a technicality. For example, lawyers will challenge a blood draw (which now under both state and federal law must be preceded by a warrant) by demanding an explanation as to how it was performed. The results can be suppressed if the draw was not done by a physician or nurse, or the area was cleaned with alcohol instead of iodine. Some of the sample must be made available to the defense to conduct their own independent tests; failure to do so may result in suppression.

Blood results corroborated by field sobriety tests is stronger evidence of DUI; however, in cases involving injuries to a driver, field tests are foreclosed, leaving only the blood tests. If challenged, again, the case can be dismissed. Issues can arise from the accident scene itself, which can also result in a dismissal. As stated, warrants are necessary in order to perform a blood draw. According to William Proetta of Edison, a defense lawyer that was interviewed, “[I]f a person doesn’t consent or is unconscious, you need to call in a telephonic warrant. If emergency workers are asking the driver questions, without having Mirandized him, an attorney would argue those statements can’t be used against him.” Telephonic warrants are faster to obtain and are encouraged by the courts.

Breath tests using an Alcotest have a different set of procedures–all of which can be challenged in a suppression motion. Repair and calibration records may be subpoenaed, and failure by the State to do so may result in a dismissal. Officers conducting the test must get two successful readings and change the mouth pieces between each reading. The person must be observed for 20 uninterrupted minutes and cannot regurgitate or vomit, as this will produce a false reading. No cell phones or electronic devices can be present in the room.

Lawyers say there are many other ways to challenge the results. They recommend that people pulled over for a DUI not refuse the test, because refusal is a separate charge. The challenge becomes a little trickier in that they have to show the officer read the driver “the wrong statement” when asking if they will take the test. Also, the driver has to clearly say “No.” not once, but twice, to be considered refusal and ambiguous answers, such as, “‘I don’t know.’” or “‘I want a lawyer.’” are not enough.

Defense lawyers will employ experts, often former police officers who are trained in the Alcotest, to testify as to what the officers should have done. Also, discovery challenges are commonplace. If the prosecutor fails to produce discovery within 30 days, that can result in a dismissal. Dashcam video must produced as well; but that can be a double-edged sword. It can be used to impeach an officer’s testimony, or in the alternative, prove that the defendant in fact could not stand or was slurring his or her words.

A DUI can be proven by an officer’s observations as well, without the aid of other evidence. According to Ernesto Cerimele, a DUI defense lawyer in Newark,

If the officer’s report says the driver reeked of alcohol and admitted to drinking several beers, that still counts . . . . Even if the blood or Alcotest evidence is thrown out, if the officer’s observations of the driver and the ‘totality of the circumstances’ point to a driver being intoxicated, he can still be found guilty. The harder cases to defend against are frequently those where the officer fully documents everything he heard and observed in his police report.

Finally, the case can be dismissed if a trial is delayed beyond 60 days, pursuant to New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts’ guidelines. Based on hardship, inequity and the right under the Sixth Amendment to a speedy trial, a defense lawyer can move for dismissal if the prosecution does not have his or her case ready in time. In one case cited by the article, a prosecutor was given an extra 30 days to produce discovery and failed. That resulted in an immediate dismissal by the judge.

Posted by Shanice Cooper.

On February 15, 2016, in an article by Julie Hirschfield Davis, she details President Obama’s attempts in trying to persuade Congress how important trade is for small business worldwide. The article outlines the importance of small businesses being able to have the global accessibility for trade deals outside of the United States. In hopes of pushing Congress to approve these global trade deals, Obama has been generating various ways to build networking partners to increase business opportunity for more small corporations, such as, “including a series of programs to promote exports from rural areas and help more small and medium-size American businesses sell their goods and services overseas,” says Davis.

In addition to Obama’s local business programs, which allows small businesses to maximize their potential, he has been planning to meet with international firms. The purpose of the meetings will be to have people who have been successful due international trade deals testify to the importance of it: “American workers and businesses have benefited from previous trade deals and stand to gain substantially from pending agreements with Asia and Europe.” Due to the trade deals, much of our everyday living essentials are met. If it was not for Asian or European trade deals would tech remain the same? “Mr. Obama’s team is armed with statistics that it says show that the United States has essentially no choice but to strike trade deals to open more markets to American goods.” However, the only issue the President faces in his attempts to help American business owners are the Congress itself.

While Obama makes a compelling case to the law makers in how the restrictions in international trade is harming American owned businesses, Congress is slowly changing, understanding how strongly the President feels about it. “Getting these trade deals done will benefit our businesses and middle-class workers, not just in rural communities, but across the country,” said Bruce H. Andrews, the Deputy Secretary of Commerce. According to administration officials, they believe the new agreements will help American workers by opening markets to United States products and improving environmental and labor standards around the world. I think it is important for the American economy to be able to continue to negotiate internationally, because we may need it for future generations.

Shanice is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

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.

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.

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.

In Heien v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court held that where a police officer makes a stop based upon a reasonable mistake about a law, the stop is justified.

In this case, an officer stopped a vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, based on a misunderstanding that the North Carolina law permitted only one working brake light. The officer stopped Heinen’s vehicle because one light was not working and then proceeded to a consensual search of the car. The search turned up a bag of cocaine located in a duffle bag in the trunk. Heinz was arrested and convicted of attempted drug trafficking. The question presented to the Court was whether a police officer’s reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold a seizure of an automobile and the occupants in it under the Fourth Amendment.

The North Carolina statute reads that a car must be:

equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. The stop lamp shall display a red or amber light visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake. The stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(g) (2007).

The Court concluded that the statute required only one stop lamp to be working. However, the officer was under a different impression of the law at the time. A nearby statute requires that “all originally equipped rear lamps” be functional. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(d). The officer made the stop under a mistake in law. Nevertheless, the Court held that even if an officer reasonably misunderstood the law, as long as the officer conducts a search or seizure reasonably under the Fourth Amendment he is acting justifiably.

“To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.’” Reasonable mistakes of fact are permissible. For example, when someone consents to the search of a home, the search will be considered valid even if the officer mistakenly believes that the person consenting is the owner.

Reasonable mistakes of law are also permissible. “Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground.” Even laws that police enforce that are later declared unconstitutional by a court does not rebut an officer’s reasonable assumption that the laws were valid at the time.

Heinen argued that there is no margin of error for an officer’s mistake of law. He argued the legal maxim: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” If persons cannot get out of trouble by claiming they were mistaken about the law, then neither can the police.

But the Court concluded the law protects against only “reasonable mistakes,” and therefore, “an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws he is duty-bound to enforce.” The Court further concluded Heinen’s reliance on the legal maxim is misplaced. A person cannot escape criminal liability by claiming he did not know the law, but neither can the government impose criminal liability by a mistaken understanding of the law. The Court explained:

If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop.

In this case, Heien did not appeal his brake-light ticket. Instead, he appealed a cocaine-trafficking conviction, as to which he did not claim the police made either a mistake of fact or law.

Posted by Shaaliyah T. Lyons. 

Background:

On ­­­­one Saturday night around 11:00pm stopped at a light, I looked up and realized I was being pulled over on Central Ave., in East Orange New Jersey.  Already in the far-right lane, I moved over slightly to get out the way of traffic.  I turned the car off and my two friends and I immediately started trying to figure out why we were being pulled over.  Is it my tinted windows? Was I speeding? What is the speed limit? Did someone throw something out at the window?  All in all, no one was really sure what actually happened but we all assumed it was my tinted windows, which have caused controversy in past.

Finally, the officer comes to the car with her flashlight beaming in the passenger and back seat as her partner comes on the driver side.  First, she asked for my license and registration.  Out of curiosity I asked why was I being pulled over.  She was hesitant and asked for my license again, for me this was a red flag.  I asked again for her reasoning for pulling me over. She proceeded to give me two reasons, one being my tints and the other because I was speeding.  In response to my tinted windows, I quickly explained that according to NJ Tint laws it depends on the part of the car:

Windshield: No tint is allowed on the windshield.

Front Side windows: No tint can be applied legally to this window.

Back Side windows: Any darkness can be used.

Rear Window: Any darkness can be used.

Following this explanation, I showed her that my front windows were not tinted. In regards to the second the reason, I simply questioned what was the speed limit and how fast was I going.  It was at this moment in which friction arose between us.  She could not tell me how fast I was going but mentioned that she had to do 50mph to catch up to me. I gave her my information and waited for her to come back to the car.

As she walked back, her partner’s family member proceeded to pull up to the gas station next to where I was pulled over.  As I continue into the next part of the background of the incident, please keep in mind that the entire time her partner was not in the scene and conversing with his family member in the gas station.

When she came back, she explained that she had given me a careless driving ticket.  A careless driving ticket usually occurs after an accident or when someone is found to be carelessly driving and putting someone’s life in danger.  Her explanation went as follows, “Because I do not have a radar, I cannot give you a speeding ticket; therefore, I am going to issue you a careless driving ticket.” Here is when it gets confusing because at this point no one really knows if I was even speeding and if so how fast I was going.  My follow up question to her (before taking the ticket) was, “Just for clarification, because you cannot prove I was speeding, you have to give me another ticket (which is arguably worse than a speeding ticket)?” She did not answer the question. After a minute or so of going back and forth, she proceeded to aggressively place my tickets and paper work on my dash board.

My Court Appearances

A week after I received my ticket, I called the East Orange Municipal Court to go over my court date. From there, I was informed that the date on the ticket is not an accurate day; the court told me they would enter me as a not guilty plea and I was issued a new court date.  On my new court date, the first person I talked to was the prosecutor, who gave me the opportunity to plead guilty to the obstruction of traffic.  This was a fine under $100, no points on my license, and I wouldn’t have to be in court all day.  I declined this offer, as you can tell from my story, I was doing the opposite of obstructing traffic, I was in fact going with the flow of traffic.  When it was my time to speak to the judge, they realized that even though I previously pled not guilty, the officers involved were not notified.

The following week, I submitted a request for discovery regarding my case.  Almost a month later, I came to court prepared with the copy of my discovery request, my witness, as well as the facts of the case.  The facts of this case went as followed:

1. A cop is not supposed to catch up to a car and proceed to pull them over; they are to pace behind them to have a gage of how fast they are going.A cop is not to place their hand on your property it can be considered trespassing on private property.

2. As stated before, there are no laws against the tints on my car.

3. In a 15 mile radius there is only one speed limit sign that is almost impossible to see at the time I was pulled over (brought in a picture).

4. The officer could not prove that I was driving in a careless manner that could endanger others.

When I entered the court room, I was asked if I wanted to continue to plead not guilty.  I confirmed.  When it was my turn to speak to the judge, he issued me a new court date.  That is when I explained that this is my 2^nd time and court and the officer has already been notified.

I motioned to dismiss this case due to lack of evidence against me, and he approved my motion and dismissed the case!  In the end, I did not have to pay any fine or have any points added to my license.

Shaaliyah is a sports management major with a certificate in entrepreneurial studies, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.