Research proposal posted by Elizabeth Donald.

Part One: Topic Explanation

Liberty of contract was originally introduced into U.S. constitutional jurisprudence through the case of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). In this case, Joseph F. Lochner challenged a provision of the New York Bakeshop Act of 1895 that prohibited bakers from working more than ten hours per day and 60 hours per week. The Supreme Court held that this regulation failed to pass constitutional muster in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the Court found “liberty of contract,” that is, the freedom of individuals and groups to enter into contracts, to be a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Other Supreme Court decisions continued to build on this idea during what is now referred to as “The Lochner Era” of cases. This includes Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), invalidating a minimum wage law and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 286 U.S. 510 (1925), deeming unconstitutional a regulation that led to the closing of many private Catholic schools.

Part Two: Pros and Cons

The Lochner decision was considered one of the most controversial cases of its time after being handed down in 1905. Progressive jurists, politicians, and scholars alike denounced Lochner, whether for attempting to constitutionalize laissez-faire economics or for exceeding judicial authority.[1] They believed that the conservative-leaning Lochner majority reached far beyond the scope of its powers. This is because although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly list “liberty of contract” as a fundamental right, the court still found it to be so under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause which states, “[N]or shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XVI, § 1. In finding a liberty of contract within the Constitution, Progressives saw the majority as an advocate of big business that attempted to adopt policy by means of judicial decision. These Progressive jurists instead encouraged a deference to the legislature on all matters, economic and personal. Since the early 20^th century, Progressive ideology has shifted, but still views liberty of contract in a negative light.

Flashing forward to today, jurists across the political spectrum remain highly critical of Lochner. Constitutional theorist Bruce Ackerman places Lochner in his “anticanon” of cases. Unlike early 20^th century Progressives, today’s Progressive jurists typically believe in using strict scrutiny to analyze laws regarding personal rights. Yet, they now isolate personal liberties from economic liberties, which are still considered unwarranting of constitutional protection.[2] Twenty-first century conservatives, likewise, do not tend to favor liberty of contract. Conservative jurists today often advocate for a deference to the legislature on both personal and economic issues. Thus, the conservative viewpoint has also significantly shifted from the Lochner Era right-wing belief that natural rights precede positive law and that liberty of contract is one of those inherent natural rights. This leaves little room for hope for the few present-day proponents of liberty of contract. However, the idea of contractual freedom as a fundamental right might not be as bad as many make it seem. In fact, liberty of contract is really a derivative of the natural law.

The natural law, according to St. Pope John Paul II, is a law that resides within the “depths of the conscience.” It is written on the hearts of all men, according to which God will be the judge. Legal theorists have found certain rights to be inherent within this natural law. The Constitution itself was founded on the idea of natural rights. James Madison, a drafter of the Constitution, believed that man “embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage…”[3] This idea was the bedrock of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which was eventually applied to the states through the Fourteenth. Therefore, the Court majority in Lochner simply viewed liberty of contract as one of these natural rights under due process. This reading of the Due Process Clause achieves much greater validation than suggested by Lochner’s opponents. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, which gave way to the Fourteenth Amendment, listed liberty of contract first in the rights accorded to man. In this act, the 39^th Congress wrote that, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties …” This act served the purpose of enforcing the natural rights of man. Therefore, the Lochner majority’s belief in liberty of contract as a fundamental right was not unwarranted.

Part Three: Questions of Ethics

Liberty of contract is intertwined with ethics because the very idea of ethics rests on the natural law. St. Thomas Aquinas said that the natural law “constitutes the principles of practical rationality,” which are the rules by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable.[4] It is from this ethical theory that fundamental rights were developed. Not only that, but contractual freedom is essential to business ethics as well. The significance of liberty of contract comes through in the employment-at-will rule which gives employers unfettered power to “dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong.” However, because the employment-at-will theory is supported by laissez-faire economics, it too is often criticized by Progressive jurists who oppose free markets. Yet, even though early 20^th century Progressive jurists denounced the Lochner decision for its association with laissez-faire ideals, this does not invalidate the fact that liberty of contract can be viewed as a fundamental right within the natural law. Further, just because liberty of contract is an economic liberty does not mean it cannot be a fundamental liberty. Since provisions of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 demonstrate that both the Founding Fathers and the 39^th Congress understood liberty of contract as deriving from the natural law, it is valid to not only consider this liberty as fundamental, but also ethical.

Works cited:

[1] David E. Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner (2012).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Colleen Sheehan, James Madison and Our First Duty, THE CENTER FOR VISION AND VALUES (Sep. 23, 2014), http://www.visionandvalues.org/2014/09/james-madison-and-our-first-duty-by-dr-colleen-sheehan/.

[4] Aquinas, ST I-II. Q94.

Posted by Patrick Osadebe. 

On September 17, 2014, a federal judge sentenced Timothy Cromer, a former Detroit public library official, to 10 years in prison for bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. He was charged for accepting more than $1.4 million in bribes from contractors of the library.

Timothy Cromer, 46, was the chief administrative and technology officer for the Detroit library from 2006 to 2103. Cromer helped James Henley set up a company called “Core Consulting and Professional Services.” Cromer then made it possible for the company to win the bid to provide information technology in the library.

Cromer also collected kickbacks from another individual who was charged in the indictment. All of these crimes took place between 2008 and 2011. Hearn and Henley both plead guilty to the charges and are currently awaiting sentencing on October 28, 2014.

Patrick is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Stanley Bukowski.

On August 6, 1991 was when the internet, also known as the “World Wide Web”, became available to the public. At that time, cyber-attacks ever occurring, never crossed anyone’s mind. Since the launch of the World Wide Web, cyber-attacks and IT threats continue to significantly grow each year. Even though they are known to be threats to business/organizations/firms/universities, they are most importantly a threat to individuals themselves. Even though business/organizations/firms/universities may lose financial resources from cyber- attacks, individuals lose their sense of total personal privacy. Personal Privacy is a concept that is cherished and treasured for four main reasons (Brey). The first reason is that privacy must be well-adjusted to national security and public order. Secondly, it is known to be a condition that is necessary for autonomy, which allows individuals to develop their own personality through personal experiences. Thirdly, privacy is known to be a safeguard to us which shields them from external threats of exclusion and/or blackmail. Lastly, it can also provide social value as well.

In the field of computer security, one will see that it is the process of being able to counteract and detect illegal usage of a computer. Computer security deals with having the ability to act as a safeguard by fighting off cybercriminals/identity thieves that are trying to get a hold of our personal resources that we have stored on our computers. Basically, the main goal for computer security professionals is to provide the protection that is needed for the valuable information and resources that are stored on our computers. The two types of computer security systems that exist are: System Security, which protects the software and hardware of a computer from mischievous programs and Information Security, which protects three different types of data such as availability, confidentiality, and integrity (Brey).

On June 11, 2017 the University of Virginia was silently blind-sided with a cyber-attack from China, where several attackers that operated together to successfully wire transfer $996,000 to what was first an unknown, untraceable location. This attack was successful due to the fact that there was a breach of information that leaked out information that the University of Virginia was upgrading their security system and also due to the fact that the thieves stole a computer from the university that belonged to the comptroller (U.VA). Once the thieves had a hold of this information and the computer, they implanted a virus into the university’s entire IT system, which allowed them to gain access to the University’s accounts at BB&T Bank. When the virus ultimately completed the job that it was created for, they were able to steal the universities online banking credentials, commencing them to successfully complete a single wire transfer to the Agricultural Bank of China.

To most people, this would set off a red flag, especially since it was a wire transfer from a United States university to a random, unheard of bank located in China. Not only should that have been a red flag, but a red flag should also have gone off seeing that the University of Virginia had no prior records in their transfer history to wire transfer money to the bank in China. Regardless of the fact that most universities in America purchase their school supplies from across seas, they tend to always use reputable banks, where they have several prior transactions in their transfer history. Even though there is a good chance that the university may retain most of its lost, they will not receive the entire amount that was stolen.

Believe it or not, most thieves today are known to be what we call “cyber hackers.” Thieves that commit these types of crimes are the individuals, co-workers, friends, family members that you would least likely expect to commit such a crime. Before we continue any further, the next four descriptions that are listed below, are the characteristics that management of business/organizations/firms/universities should look for when trying to identify a thief (Singleton).:

1. Reputable CharacterStudies show that you will never find a thief that disrupts the regular flow that happens daily at the working environment that they are a part of. These types of thieves will have the type of reputation at work where nothing ever seems to bother them. They will never portray or converse towards others or with others dishonest behavior and will never discuss their own personal financial issues. By doing so, management will never be suspicious that they would or ever think of stealing from the company.
2. Collaborate with AdministrationYou will find thieves to always be individuals that continually help their co-workers out with projects. The only plot twist is–they will only help them to the point where they will not be exposed to information that management could possibly use against them. Thieves use reverse psychology and have a relaxed personality when dealing with auditors. They tend to put on a poker face and give auditors everything they need in order for the auditors to be able to complete their jobs. Thieves believe in the fact that if they behave like they have nothing to hide, auditors/management will never become suspicious of them.
3. Work-a-holicsTaking a vacation from work will lead thieves down a one-way road, known as jail. If a thief were to take a vacation and the IRS/Auditor just happened to start an investigation while they were gone, will red flag them as the first source of why financial resources are missing. By not taking a vacation while the IRS/Auditor are conducting their investigation, there is a slimmer chance of the IRS/Auditor blaming them.
4. Norm: SecrecyThieves know that to successfully commit corporate fraud, they need to follow the norm of secrecy. Thieves know not tell anyone within or outside the company about the future corporate fraud they are about to commit. The percentages of successfully completing corporate fraud diminish the more individuals that the thief would inform. No matter if it is their best friend, wife, brother, etc., thieves know that to successfully complete the operation, they must act as an assassin, working silently alone.

I believe that business/organizations/firms/universities that implement Biometrics Security Systems will not completely bring cyber-attacks to an end, but it will certainly decrease them to the bare minimum because it is a form of access control. Biometric Security Systems are known to be as a technique of entry in which users/individuals are recognized based on their physical individualities, personal/behavioral/biological features. Having a wide variety of alternatives to choose from, business/organizations/firms/universities have a large selection pool that they may elect from to incorporate a the type of biometrics of their choice. For example, fingerprint, retinal, & palm scanners and face recognition are just a few of the types of biometrics available. Fingerprints are now being used as access controls for smartphones because in order to unlock their phone with their fingerprint, the fingerprint must be equivalent to the fingerprint that was previously stored on the smartphones system. This prevents thieves from getting their hands on private information that is on the device. The same exact notion can be applied to the corporate world. (Lombard0).

Information of the advancement of Biometrics is spreading amongst many individuals today and is becoming more of a topic of discussion due to its popularity due to it replacing passwords with login credentials. The most recent examples of biometrics security systems is now used when individuals take the GMATS. Before entering to take the standardized test, the proctor uses a palm vein reader upon entry to ensure that the exam is not being taken by a random individual and that it is being taken by individual who signed up for the standardized test.

Years ago it would cost a business/organizations/firms/universities tens of thousands of dollars to implement such a finger print scanner into their building but today it only costs about $200 dollars to have a finger print scanner implemented into a desktop, $2,200 for a retinal scanner to be implemented at limited access doors, and $250 for a palm scanner for each room for an employee to enter their office. For example, if the company has 5,000 employees:

A. 5,000 employees * $200 finger print scanner laptop = $1,000,000 B. 5,000 employees *$250 palm scanner entrance to office room = $1,250,000 C. 5 retinal scanners * $2,200 enter limited access door  = $11,000 D. 10,005 Installment fee for Scanners *$300 (avg of all three) = $3,001,500

E. Yearly Maintenance of all three Biometric Units = $25,000

Posted by Devaki Sidhaye.

Recently department of Justice announced largest ever health care fraud enforcement action by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, involving 412 individuals, including 115 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals. Their involvement in health care fraud scams totaling approximately $1.3 billion in false billings. As per the department, many of the charges were related to medical professionals illegally prescribing opioids and other prescription narcotics, some of which were then sold on the street. Furthermore, according to federal officials, a rehab facility in Palm Beach, Fla., recruited addicts with gift cards, drugs and visits to strip clubs, billed the government for over $58 million in false treatments and tests. A clinic in Houston allegedly gave out prescriptions for cash. Some falsely billed Medicare and Medicaid. Narcotics officers have arrested schoolteachers, doctors, nurses and fellow law enforcement personnel (Merle, 2017).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 91 Americans die every day of an opioid related overdose. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference that, “One American dies of a drug overdose every 11 minutes and more than 2 million Americans are ensnared in addiction to prescription painkillers.” He further said in assurance that, “We will continue to find, arrest, prosecute, convict and incarcerate fraudsters and drug dealers wherever they are.” Health and Human Services Inspector General Daniel Levinson added that, “Health care fraud is a reprehensible crime, it not only represents a theft from taxpayers who fund these vital programs, but impacts the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid” (Merle, 2017).

This approaches a larger debate about how the country should address the government estimates are addicted to opioids. Public health authorities urge doctors to cut back on the prescriptions they offer. States struggling with the shortage of treatment has proposed roll back of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid (Merle, 2017).

This crisis represents a massive public health challenge that requires a broad-based, multi-pronged response from public health agencies and law enforcement. Physicians, pharmacists and citizens all can play a role in identifying and preventing nonmedical use of prescription drugs. Doctors and other healthcare professionals who prescribe these drugs need to be educated about responsible prescribing of opioids and about safe, effective alternatives that are not addictive and presently available (Young, 2016).

Even though law enforcement officials use advanced investigative methods to uncover the different actions health care fraud happens, they can’t fight these crimes alone. Individual can help remove these people responsible for wrongdoings by protecting their health insurance identification number, social security number, looking through the statements for medical services he didn’t receive, and reporting to authorities on recognizing the signs of possible fraud (Outreach, 2012).

For the protection of each person of the country as well as for the economic strength it is essential to destroy all traces of health care fraud. Health care frauds damage billions of dollars of the nation; mislead general public in the courses of actions, and innocent people become victims of white-collar crime.

Devaki is an MS Accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

References:

Merle, S. H. (2017, 07 13). DOJ announces charges against 400 people for $1.3 billion in health-care fraud. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/07/13/doj-announces-charges-against-400-people-for-1-3-billion-in-health-care-fraud/?utm_term=.f9b959fbfea6

Outreach, E. &. (2012, 04 23). How to Protect Yourself From Health Care Scams. Retrieved from www.aarp.org: http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-10-2010/fightfraud.html

Young, L. (2016, 03 04). There’s no debate – America’s opioid epidemic is undeniable. Retrieved from www.pennlive.com: http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2017/09/heres_what_you_need_to_know_ab_5.html

Research proposal posted by Valentina Reyes.

Tort law carries the “no duty to rescue” principle, which establishes an individual’s freedom to choose whether to intervene in situations of peril while imposing no sanction on those who choose not to act. “While there is properly in law a duty not to harm, there is not . . . a negative duty not to allow harm to happen” (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes). So long as there is no fiduciary relationship – which is defined as a relationship of trust or legal obligation of a person to another – between the two parties, an individual is not obliged to intervene, even if refraining from doing so may lead to the impending death of the other. This principle was established with the idea that people should not be held responsible for the demise of others unless they were directly involved with the causation of the incidents that led to the other’s peril, or had some established duty of care to the other, and to protect one’s freedom of choice.

In some instances, some courts may find that if a person began to rescue another and then ceased, the rescuer may be found liable if the reasonable person would have continued to rescue the victim. Under the umbrella of negligence, this is called “undertaking to act.” However, some states provide immunity from liability under specific statutes typically referred to as “Good Samaritan laws.” These statutes are put in place to protect those who, in good faith, decide to help in an emergency situation from being sued in civil court for any damage which may result from their act or omission to act. Depending on the situation, courts may wish to protect a rescuer or deem them responsible for negligent acts if the additional damage caused to the plaintiff resulted from an unreasonable act by the rescuer.

While the “no duty to rescue” principle was put in place to protect people’s liberty to choose, it also gives people power to allow others to perish. On the one hand, people are free to choose whether to get involved, but if they choose not to help when they are capable of helping and when the help may save a life, then they have the indirect power over another’s life. The principle also reinforces individualistic behavior that is already very much present in American society and culture which is often noted as being extremely averse to collectivism. Further, if a person intends another to perish by doing nothing, they may be able to get away with being the indirect cause of the other’s demise by choosing to do nothing out of a desire to cause the other harm. In this case, we have the element of mens rea without actus reus (so long as the bystander was not involved in the proximate cause of the victim’s accident or ailment), and the person intending to do harm by doing nothing could be protected under the law. In the case that the defendant was involved in the proximate cause of the victim’s accident, as was the case in Podias v. Mairs, the defendant could be found guilty for doing nothing because at that point, a fiduciary relationship is formed because but for the defendant’s actions, the victim would not have been put in danger.

Catholic social teaching teaches us that we should love everyone and show a sense of community towards our neighbors. We should treat everyone how we would like to be treated and respect and protect all forms of life. Whether we are free to choose, we should do the correct thing and provide help when we can for those who need it because if we are the difference between life and death for another, it does not take much away from us to give another what they can never get back. Gaudium et Spes states “[…] the duty which is imposed upon us, that we build a better world based upon truth and justice. Thus, we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by this responsibility to his brothers and to    history.”

Works Cited

http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-mill.html

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/specific-legal-duties.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1187493.html

https://www.stthomas.edu/media/catholicstudies/center/ryan/conferences/2005-vatican/Uelmen.pdf

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/specific-legal-duties.html

http://negligence.uslegal.com/specific-duties/duty-to-rescue/

https://www.shrm.org/legalissues/stateandlocalresources/stateandlocalstatutesandregulations/documents/goodsamaritanlaws.pdf

Posted by ZaAsia Thompson-Hunter.

The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) is trying to enforce the disclosure of media contracts from various media companies. These companies include widely recognized corporations such as Disney, CBS, Comcast, Time Warner, and many more. These highly established media corporations oppose the order because they affirm this action will put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Earlier this month these media companies put in a request to the U.S court of appeals to stop the disclosure of their programing contracts. In response, the FCC stated that disclosure “’will aid the commission in the expeditious resolution of these proceedings.’”

Announced on November 14,2014, the media companies won the order to block the request made by the FCC. In connection, “a federal appeals court in Washington today said regulators reviewing the merger can’t immediately let third parties see the contracts.”

ZaAsia is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Ola Mohammed Alghasham.

The world encounters cases where frauds are committed by white collar criminals. Executives whom fight against fraud are beneficial for the company. Although the board and management make strong efforts in composing fraud preventing policies, there are several behavioral, environmental, and fraud assessment elements which are ignored during the composition of such policies and their absence provides shelter to the fraudsters. White collar criminals often attain confidence from their role in the organization. This confidence gets transformed into arrogance which prohibits the criminal from applying organizational policies and rules on himself, as an employee of the company.

There is no doubt that the top management always looks for the creative and clever individuals as employees. They forget, however, this creativity and cleverness can be used against the company instead of in its favor. Employees with these traits can cunningly commit frauds by practicing unnoticeable unethical behavior. Companies should execute proper controls with the recruitment of talented people. The tone of top management can either promote or discourage the ethical behavior because it is supposed to set an example for the rest of the organization. The whistle-blowing attitude is shaped by the organizational culture. Moreover, an illogical increase in pay, without any improvement in the performance, allows the fraudsters to continue their unethical activities.

Board members and executives should identify the fraud tactics and fraud hidden strategies of these individuals to compose a fool-proof risk assessment process. Major warnings can appear from the financial data (e.g. unusual, frequent or large transactions), documents with missing or incomplete information or suspicious signatures, poor controls (e.g. lack of monitoring, poor reconciliation of accounts, lack of position to manage conflicts of interest), behavior (e.g. unstable behaviors, mismatched lifestyle with income, high expectations family, and job dissatisfaction). Management must implement strong controls in the day-to-day business operations to avoid fraudulent activities. The board must adopt a proactive behavior in the elimination or early detection of fraud by establishing an audit committee with full authority, monitoring transactions, promoting and maintaining an ethical environment, and composing a procedure for the reporting of fraudulent activities. The board must compose and enforce certain strategies to cope up with the frauds. The executives must develop an ethical environment for keeping the employees loyal with the company and directing the human talent towards the betterment of the company.

Ola is an graduate accounting major with a certification in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Source:

Marks, J., (2012), A Matter of Ethics: Understanding the Mind of a White-Collar Criminal, Financial Executive, pp. 31-34. Retrieved from www.financial executives.org.

Posted by Yuanda Xu.

In 2003, Lucent Technologies decided to fire the CEO, COO, Financial Executive and marketing manager in China. Lucent did this because company in China bribed the Chinese officials to get more benefits. As expected, Lucent fired these four people, and paid $2.5 million to settle charges. The company paid a $1 million fine to the Justice Department and $1.5 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 1977, America enacted the “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” to prohibit companies from bribing officials in other countries to get more benefits. What Lucent Technologies did violate the Act, because Lucent Technologies bribed the Chinese officials to get more benefits and reduced business opportunities for other companies. That violates the FCPA.

Yuanda is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

A district court judge has ordered Apple to unlock a cell phone used by one of the shooters in the California massacre. Apple is fighting the order, claiming that doing so could make it easier to for anyone to hack into phones.

Apple has secret keys that can open up the software that it will not give to the FBI. The FBI also wants Apple to create a program that will permit it to hack into phones at anytime. The problem lies with a toggle in “Settings” that will make the phone delete all information on it if someone fails to put in the right passcode more than 10 times. This would make it impossible for the FBI to use a program that can guess random codes.

The case has Fourth Amendment implications for various reasons, including conscripting a private entity to become a government agent.

In class, we discuss the Fourth Amendment as it pertains to a variety of searches and seizures by government actors. Even though the New Jersey analog is practically identical to the federal Fourth Amendment, the New Jersey Supreme Court has interpreted more protections for privacy than the United States Supreme Court has under the federal amendment.

In a recent case, the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned a prior 2009 decision requiring police officers conducting an automobile search to have probable cause and exigent circumstances, such as time constraints and safety concerns, and obtain a warrant from a judge prior to the search. The court held  officers now merely have to have probable cause to conduct the search–a retreat to the federal standard.

From time to time, courts will break with stare decisis when circumstances permit. The decision in this case, however, drew criticism from two of the Justices and the defense bar. Justice LaVecchia wrote in her dissent, “‘One can only wonder why the State and the majority of this Court find it appropriate to turn from the progressive approach historically taken in this State to privacy and constitutional rights of motorists.’”

But the court held the old standard was “unworkable.” Police were required to get a telephonic warrant in these circumstances; yet, many of them resorted to merely getting the owner of the vehicle to sign a “consent form” for the search instead of calling a judge.

Justice Barry T. Albin, writing for the majority held the standard applied in the 2009 decision “does not provide greater liberty or security to New Jersey’s citizens and has placed on law enforcement unrealistic and impracticable burdens.” The court found that the 2009 standard had the “unintended consequence” of causing an “‘exponential increase in police-induced consent automobile searches,’” suggesting officers may be pressuring drivers to volunteer for searches instead of taking the time to obtain a warrant.

“‘The heavy reliance on consent searches is of great concern given the historical abuses associated with such searches and the potential for future abuses,’” Justice Albin wrote.

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.

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.

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 Abier Mustafa.

Stryker Corp., a device maker company, recalled its Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implant devices in July 2012 after warning surgeons they could harm tissue around the hip and cause other health problems to its patients. Patients have complained of severe pain, unusual swelling and excessive metal debris in their blood, blaming all these symptoms on the Stryker devices. There are at least 1,800 cases Stryker consolidated before U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul, Minnesota. After facing more than 4,000 suits consolidated in the New Jersey state court and federal court in Minnesota alone, Stryker will pay a base amount of $300,000 per patient’s case. This settlement to patients who had the devices surgically removed prior to November 3^rd.

Stryker Corp. has reported more than $9 billion in revenue in 2013 on the advertisement of their hip implants lasting for years. After the devices failed patients within a short amount of time, the company has now agreed to pay more than $1 billion to resolve these lawsuits. However, “the company said that it set aside more than $1.4 billion to cover costs of handling cases over the recalled hips so the settlement fell into the “‘low end of the range of probable loss.’” “This settlement program provides patients compensation in a fair, timely and efficient manner,” Bill Huffnagle, a spokesman for Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker, said in an e-mailed statement. A source also reveals that a majority of the payments will be made by the end of 2015.

Abier is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Rizzlyn Melo.

The car-manufacturing company, Tesla, has been battling with New Jersey government officials for the right to sell their premium electric cars in the state. Tesla differs from other car-manufacturers because they sell their vehicles directly from small, independently-owned sites instead of large dealerships. Many of Tesla’s facilities are actually located in various malls in New Jersey. The issue with this practice is that under New Jersey law, cars can only be sold through registered dealerships. In the article, this legislation “was put into place at a time when small local dealers were perceived as vulnerable to the moves of major national manufacturers.” Because of Tesla, this law has been targeted and challenged by various carmakers and consumer-rights groups. Fortunately, it can be said that their efforts have not gone in vain. In March, Governor Chris Christie signed new legislation that allows Tesla to operate at four sites in New Jersey. Shortly after this was signed, New Jersey lawmakers approved an amendment granting zero emission car manufacturers the right to operate dealerships in the state.

Tesla’s success story in New Jersey shows that the market is modernizing. Legislation that was once effective in the past can actually be disadvantageous in the present day. While the law requiring sales through registered dealerships was once helpful to small businesses, it prevented a company from potentially helping the environment. Tesla only produces zero-emission, luxury cars. They are a company seeking to reduce society’s carbon footprint by introducing a sleek, fashionable car to the market that does not require gas. The government’s initial refusal to allow this company to conduct its business in New Jersey made legislators look like they would sacrifice an environmental advancement for the sake of large dealerships. Tesla’s win in New Jersey represents more than the right to sell cars; it is a win for the evolving market that is in need of environmentally friendly products.

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