Sample Story

I wrote a story this morning about a recent Idaho Supreme Court ruling in a criminal case - I hope you'll find it helpful. Please feel free to spot and notify me of any errors or omissions.

Here is the link to the actual opinion - it's from findlaw.com. You'll have to open a free account in order to access it. Remember the order of clicks: For legal professionals, cases and codes, Idaho Supreme Court.

Here goes:

`Subjective Feeling’ Not Enough to Justify
Search, Idaho High Court Rules

By Ron Bishop

BOISE, IDAHO – The “subjective feeling” of a police officer that his safety was threatened by an individual pulled over for a routine traffic violation is not enough to justify an extended search for a weapon, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled January 26.

The court unanimously reversed a lower court’s denial of a motion by Jeremy Henage to suppress evidence gathered by two Jerome police officers in what Henage argued was an illegal search.

Officer Andrew Johnson stopped a car driven by Henage’s brother, Zach, after noticing a broken taillight. While Johnson talked with Zach, Sergeant Jim Baker arrived on the scene and struck up a conversation with Jeremy, who was still sitting in the car. Baker and Johnson decided this conversation – a “criminal patrol procedure” – was necessary because of the Henages’ previous involvement with drugs.

While Baker, who had known Henage for several years, told Jeremy he was not under arrest, and could leave at any time, he nonetheless said he would like to talk with Henage “about some things.” Henage got out of the car, but refused Baker’s request to search the vehicle, which belonged to the Henages’ father.

Henage agreed to a pat-down search after he told the officer that he had a knife. Baker performed the search, which produced a Leatherman, a multi-tool device. Baker continued the search, and soon found a glass pipe and a cigar tube in Jeremy’s pocket. The tube contained a small quantity of methamphetamine.

Henage was arrested and charged with possession of controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. Through his attorney, Sara Thomas of Idaho’s Appellate Public Defender’s Office, Henage moved to suppress the drugs and paraphernalia found by Baker.

Judge John Butler of the state’s Fifth Judicial District denied the motion. Henage pleaded guilty, but reserved his right to appeal Judge Butler’s ruling.

The Henages had no qualms about the reason for the initial stop. But Jeremy argued that the officers “impermissibly extended” the stop. They had enough time, he claimed, to deal with the broken taillight violation.

Judge Butler incorrectly ruled that the stop had turned into a “consensual encounter,” Jeremy contended, noting that the officers never returned Zach’s license and registration before continuing the stop, and that they did not turn off their flashing lights.

Writing for the court, Justice Jim Jones found no evidence to support Henage's contention. The record suggests that the officers had, in fact, returned Zach’s documentation. The fact that Johnson’s overhead lights were still on after Baker had told Henage could leave “did not preclude the traffic stop from evolving into a consensual encounter,” Jones wrote.

Henage claimed that the encounter became non-consensual after Baker found the Leatherman. Baker continued his search without getting Henage's consent. To Henage, the extension of the search by Baker was an illegal seizure.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Mendenhall ruled that a seizure occurs when “a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” When an officer brandishes a gun, uses threatening language, or touches a person, a seizure may have occurred.

This part of Henage’s argument was made irrelevant, Justice Jones said, by the court’s finding that the entire search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

To determine if a search is reasonable, courts follow the standard set by the Supreme Court in its 1968 ruling in Terry v. Ohio: “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search `warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate?"

Searches are permissible only when a law enforcement officer believes that an individual posed a clear danger to the officer and others, Justice Jones wrote.

Neither Jeremy Henage nor the officers properly applied the high court’s ruling in Terry, Justice Jones said. Henage had claimed that a suspect would have to be armed and dangerous before police could pat the suspect down, while the officers contended that a suspect only has to be armed for a search to occur.

“A person can be armed without posing a risk of danger,” wrote Jones. “On the other hand, a person can be dangerous without apparently being armed.”

Baker did not establish that Henage had endangered his safety, or the safety of the public. During the hearing before Judge Butler on Jeremy’s motion, Baker had said that Jeremy was “acting nervous” and had admitted possession of a weapon.

At the same time, however, Baker testified that Henage cooperated with him, and acted politely. Baker characterized his conversation with Jeremy as “friendly.” Further, the first stage of the stop occurred when the potential danger to Johnson and Baker “might have been the greatest,” Jones said.

Of particular importance was Baker telling Henage he would not be arrested. In addition, Baker did not suspect that Henage was under the influence when the car was stopped. Nor did Henage make any sudden or threatening moves during the stop. Baker “did not connect Jeremy’s nervousness with anything tending to demonstrate a risk to his safety,” the justice wrote, noting later that Baker returned the Leatherman to Henage.

Just having a weapon is not enough to satisfy the Terry standard, Jones said, rejecting an argument by Baker. What Baker described in court, he said, was “an amiable non-threatening encounter.”

A search cannot be justified solely on the basis of an officer’s “subjective feeling” that he might be in danger, Jones found, especially when the officer is unable to articulate why a person might cause such danger.

Jerome Police Chief Dan Hall said "he had no reason to believe" that Johnson and Baker "were not concerned for their safety" when the decision to search Henage was made.

In a February 2 email, Hall suggested that the justices might not have had "an appreciation of the reality of dealing with people using methamphetamine and the risks involved."

About a year ago, police on several occasions during a 48-hour period came into contact with a man who had been using methamphetamine. He was polite each time he encountered the officers, Hall said.

But during their last encounter, the man pulled a knife on the officers, and was shot.

"Fortunately, the man survived the encounter but it demonstrates the unpredictable nature of policing and the presence of any weapon should be of concern to officers," Hall said.

Hall acknowledged, however, that Johnson and Baker "failed to adequately articulate the concern for their safety" during the case. Hall's department will remedy this problem through "ongoing and updated training in arrest, search, and seizure," he said.

Chief Justice Gerald Schroder concurred in the court's ruling. Once Henage was told he was free to go, “this encounter was no different from any person going to work or shopping or using leisure time," Schroeder wrote.

Police may ask people questions, but “that does not mean that the encounter can be escalated into a search without a reasonable belief that the person poses a danger."

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Daniel Eismann noted that Baker and Johnson did not suspect Henage of committing a crime when they pulled the brothers over. Henage’s admission that he had the Leatherman in his pocket “did not justify a pat down search,” he wrote.

Third Circuit Website

For those still in search of an opinion, I've added a link to the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. At the bottom of the page are the links for recent opinions, and for an archive of past opinions.

I've also added a link to the "Cases and Codes" section of findlaw.com - it features links to all federal and state courts.

Enjoy!

Another Civil Case Story

Here's another story (this one from the AP, and taken from the MSNBC website) that should shed a little more light on the story writing process.

Pay attention to the conversational tone of the piece - not a flood of legal terms here, and when they are used, they are explained clearly.

Email or post if you have any questions.

PA Man Charged With Assaulting Burger King Employees

Wilmington, Delaware – David Fowler, 23, of Lancaster, Pa., was arrested on June 30 at a Burger King in the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway, following a heated argument with the restaurant’s staff.
According to an unnamed source, Fowler allegedly argued with a cashier at the drive-through window about how much his meal cost, and for the cashier’s failure to give him a toy from the movie “Chicken Run”. The toys are especially for children, and Fowler, a father of two, was alone at the time.
After the disagreement with the cashier, Fowler reportedly went into the crowded restaurant and shouted that he wanted the toy. He then punched two male employees, threw a third over the counter, and broke a shelf that nearly struck a small child. During the scuffle, diners, including children, ran from the scene.
At the arraignment, Fowler was formally charged with three counts of assault, malicious destruction of property, and disorderly conduct.
Fowler’s attorney, Brian Bauer, a public defender for the County, said, “He wanted the toy for his young daughter. He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to give it to her. I’m not excusing what he did, but how would you feel if you were in his position?”
Assistant District Attorney, Colleen McGinnis, does not think this kind of behavior should be tolerated.
“All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act?” McGinnis said.
Bauer and McGinnis are currently working on a plea bargain that would include Fowler pleading guilty to two of the three assault charges. It would also include paying for the damage done to the restaurant, and performing community service for the disorderly conduct charge.
Fowler, who has no prior criminal record, is currently at the New Castle County Detention Center after failing to post $10,000 bail.
A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 8.

Toy Collector Turned Violent

Marisa Veni
Sports Journalism
Professor Bishop
January 30th, 2007


Criminal Case Hypo 1:
Do You Want Fries With That?


Toy Collector Turned Violent

Collecting toys have always been a craze here in America, but what happens when a father of two assaults employees of a local Burger King to obtain a Kid’s Meal Toy from a popular children’s movie? On June 30th around 6:15pm, David Fowler, 23, of Lancaster, PA was charged with three counts of assault, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct after a dispute of not receiving a toy with his meal purchase.

Four employees working through the dinnertime rush at the Burger King located at the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway near Rt. 7 in Wilmington, DE were busy taking orders when a customer had an unusual complaint.

After receiving his meal order from the drive-through window, Fowler confronted the cashier about the price of his meal and discontent of not receiving a toy from the movie, “Chicken Run”.

The cashier responded to Fowler that toys were given exclusively to children and even though Fowler had two children of his own, Fowler did not qualify to receive a toy since his children were not present in the car at the time of purchase.

Not satisfied with the cashier’s answer, Fowler then preceded to park his car and enter the Burger King shouting that he wanted a toy. This is when the violent tirade broke out over a Kid’s Meal toy.

The confrontation with Fowler and Burger King employees quickly escalated when Fowler punched two employees and threw another over the counter. During the scuffle, chaos ensued as customers fled the establishment after a store shelf collapsed, almost striking and injuring a small child nearby.

When the prosecutor’s office was reached to comment on the incident, Assistant DA Colleen McGinnis stated, “Have we become obsessed with collecting things that we have forgotten how to act?” McGinness believes that “Society should not have to tolerate this type of behavior”.

McGinness revealed that Fowler was detained to the New Castle County Detention Center shortly after the incident. Fowler was held at $10,000 bail at his June 30th arraignment, which he has failed to yet post.

BK Toy Scuffle

Nicole Cuilis
COM 665
Criminal Case Hypo

A Lancaster, Pa. man was charged with assaulting four employees of a Wilmington, Del. Burger King on Tuesday. Chris Fowler, 23, gave new meaning to “have it your way” when he started a scuffle over not receiving a toy with his purchased meal.
The incident allegedly began around 6:15 p.m. on June 30, 2006 when Fowler began to argue with the cashier at the restaurant’s drive-threw window about the price of his meal, and their failure to give him a toy from the movie “Chicken Run.” Fowler, a father of two, had intended to give the toy to his daughter. The cashier, however, would not give it to him because he was not a child, and did not have a child with him at that time.
Fowler purportedly became so furious with the situation that he parked his car and entered the Burger King demanding that he receive the toy. He then punched two male employees, and threw a third over the counter. Fowler continued the commotion and broke a store shelf that supposedly almost stuck a nearby child. The families in the restaurant, which included many small children, allegedly fled the scene from fear.
Folwer, who has no previous criminal record, has been charged with three accounts of assault, malicious destruction of property, and disorderly conduct. He is currently being held at the New Castle Detention Center, and has failed to post the $10,000 bail following his arraignment.
Assistant DA Colleen McGinnis has expressed disgust over the case stating, “All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior.”
Fowler’s attorney, country assigned public defender, Brian Bauer, portrayed the case not so much a social commentary, but as a Fowlers’ overwhelming emotions. Bauer stated, “He wanted the toy for his young daughter. He became enraged when he realized when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her. I’m not excusing what he did, but how would you feel if you were in his position?”
According to Bauer, they are working with Mc Ginnis on a plea bargain in which Fowler would plead guilty to two of the assaults. This is because it was supposedly unclear if Fowler merely pushed, and not punched. In turn Fowler would agree to pay for the damages to the restaurant, an perform community service for the disorderly conduct charge.
McGinnis confirmed that the negotiations are indeed ongoing. The preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 18 at 10 a.m. before Judge Jane Dorton.

PA Man Charged with Assault at Local Burger King

Andrea Puksta
January 29, 2007
COM365



PA Man Charged With Assault at Local Burger King

Wilmington, Delaware – David Fowler, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania was arrested June 30th after an implication arose between himself and several employees at the Burger King restaurant located in the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway near Route 7.

The implication began on the evening of June 30th, when Fowler, 23, became irate when he thought the drive-through cashier charged him too much for his meal and for the cashier’s failure to give him the complimentary toy from the movie “Chicken Run.” The cashier explained to Fowler that the he could not give him the toy, since it was only to be given to children. Fowler, a father of two, did not have his children with him at the time.

With disregard to the cashier’s explanation, Fowler parked his car and went into the restaurant yelling at the employees that he wanted his toy. When Fowler’s demands were not met, his rage ensued as he punched two male employees and threw a third over the front counter. The frenzied Fowler also broke a store shelf and nearly struck a small child. As the violence escalated, the crowds of children and their parents dining inside the restaurant escaped the scene unharmed.

Fowler has been charged with three counts of assault, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct. Fowler is currently being held at the New Castle County Detention Center after he failed to post bail following his June 30 arraignment.

“All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior” says Assistant DA, Colleen McGinnis.

“He wanted the toy for his young daughter. He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her. I’m not excusing what he did, but how would you feel if you were in his position?” Said Fowler’s attorney, Brian Bauer, of the county public defenders office.

Attorneys on both sides are working on a plea bargain in which Fowler would plead guilty to two counts of assault, agree to pay for the restaurant damages and perform community service for his disorderly conduct. No agreements have been made as the negotiations are ongoing. Fowler has no criminal record.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 18th at 10 a.m. before Judge Jane Dorton.

Jennifer Klotz
CMN 665
Dr. Ron Bishop
1/29/07

Burger King, No Longer “Having It Your Way”


Lancaster, Pennsylvania - David Fowler, 23, was arrested June 30 and charged with assaulting four employees at a Burger King restaurant in the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway.
Fowler allegedly argued with the cashier at the Burger King drive-through window at around 6:15 p.m. about how much he was charged for his meal and for the cashier’s failure to give him a “Chicken Run” toy that Burger King was featuring in their kids menus. The cashier told Fowler he could not give him the toy because they were only for children. Fowler, a father of two, was alone at the time of the incident.
The situation escaladed when Fowler proceeded to park his car and enter the Burger King restaurant crowded with children and their parents trying to eat dinner, shouting that he wanted the toy. Fowler then punched two male employees and threw a third male employee over the counter. Fowler also broke a store shelf that collapsed nearly striking a small child.
Fowler is charged with three counts of assault, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct. Fowler is currently being held at the New Castle County Detention Center after failing to post ten thousand dollars bail following his June 30th arraignment.
The prosecution, Assistant District Attorney Colleen McGinnis can’t believe the extremes people will go to for something so irrelevant. “All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior.”
Fowler’s attorney, public defender Brian Bauer, who was assigned to Fowler by the County, was less than excited to comment on the case. After three tries, Bauer finally states, “He (Fowler) wanted the toy for his younger daughter. He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her. I’m not excusing what he did, but how would you feel if you were in his position?” I don’t think Bauer really wants us to answer that, does he? Bauer also says he is working with McGinnis on a plea bargain in which Fowler would plead guilty to two of the assaults (it is not clear if one of the employees was punched or just pushed), agree to pay for the damage done to the Burger King restaurant, and perform community service for the disorderly conduct charge. Fowler has no previous criminal record.
McGinnis confirms that preliminary negotiations are currently taking place. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 18 at 10 a.m. before the honorable Judge Jane Dorton.

Turmoil Over a Toy by: Alex Schultheis

Father of two David Fowler assaults four employees at the crowded Burger King Restaurant on the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway Monday evening when he was refused a toy from the movie “Chicken Run”.
After arguing with a cashier at the drive thru over not receiving a toy with his meal an angry Fowler, 23 of Lancaster, PA, entered the Burger King Restaurant shouting. He punched two male employees and threw a third over the counter.
Parents and children flew the scene after a child was nearly struck by a collapsing shelf that Fowler broke.
Fowler is charged with three accounts of assault, malicious destruction of property, and disorderly conduct. He is being held at the New Castle County Detention Center after he failed to post his bail of $10,000.
Assistant DA Colleen McGinnis is the prosecutor for the case.
“All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior”, McGinnis said.
Fowler was assigned public defender Brian Bauer by the county. “He wanted the toy for his young daughter. He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her. I’m not excusing what he did, but how would you feel if you were in his position?”, Bauer said.
According to the cashier at Burger King Fowler was refused the toy with his meal purchase because he was riding alone at the time, the toys are only given to children.
Currently Bauer is working with McGinnis on a plea bargain. Because it is uncertain whether Fowler punched or pushed one of the employees Fowler would plead guilty to only two accounts of assault, agree to pay for the damage to the restaurant, and perform community service for his disorderly conduct charge. Fowler has no criminal record.
A preliminary hearing is set for July 18th at 10 a.m. before Judge Jane Dorton.

Man Assaults Four Employees at Burger King

Amy Breckin
Professor Bishop
Com. 365-001
January 29, 2007

David Fowler, 23, of Lancaster, PA, has been charged with assaulting four employees at the Burger King in the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway near Route 7 in Wilmington, DE. At about 6:15 p.m. on June 30th, Fowler pulled into the drive-through window of the Burger King and began arguing with the cashier at the window. Fowler was angry about the total cost of his meal and believed that he should receive a complimentary toy from the movie “Chicken Run.” The cashier explained to Fowler, a father of two, but alone at the time of the incident, that the complimentary toys were only given to children in their Burger King Kid’s Meals. This explanation did not satisfy Fowler, however.
David Fowler then parked his car, walked into the Burger King, and began shouting that he wanted the “Chicken Run” toy. When Burger King employees did not cooperate with his demands, Fowler went into a rage, punching two male employees and throwing a third over a counter. Fowler then broke a store shelf causing it to collapse and almost striking a small child. At this time, Burger King was crowded with children and families, who fled the scene during the ruckus.
Fowler, who has no criminal record, is charged with three counts of assault, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct. Fowler failed to post the $10,000 bail following his June 30th arraignment and is currently at the New Castle County Detention Center.
Assistant District Attorney Colleen McGinnis has given her thoughts on this strange chain of events regarding a “Chicken Run” toy. She says, “All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior.” Brian Bauer, public defender assigned by the county to represent David Fowler in this case, also weighed in on this situation. He explains, “He [Fowler] wanted the toy for his young daughter. He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her. I’m not excusing what he did, but how would you feel if you were in his position?”
Attorney Brian Bauer explained that he is working with Assistant District Attorney McGinnis on a plea bargain in which Fowler would plead guilty to two of the assaults because it is not exactly clear if one employee was punched or pushed, and Fowler would agree to pay for the damage to the Burger King. Fowler would also be required to perform community service for the disorderly conduct charge. Assistant District Attorney McGinnis confirmed that negotiations are ongoing, but did not comment on what she and Brian Bauer have discussed. A preliminary hearing in this case is scheduled for July 18th at 10 a.m. with Judge Jane Dorton presiding.

Man faces assault charges over Burger King Toy

LANCASTER, Pennsylvania- 23 year old defendant, David Fowler, awaits trial after ransacking the Burger King restaurant in the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway near Route 7 in Wilmington.
Fowler is currently at the New Castle County Detention Center. He failed to post the $10,000 bail following his June 30 arraignment.
Fowler has been charged with three counts of assault, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct.
At 6:15 p.m. on June 30 Fowler was at the drive through of the Burger King.
Meanwhile, inside the restaurant, parents and children were enjoying dinner until Fowler busted inside demanding a toy with the food he ordered.
He became enraged while arguing just moments before with the cashier at the drive through window about how much he was charged for the meal and for the cashier’s failure to give him a toy from the movie “Chicken run.”
Fowler who was alone at the time was not given a toy because they are only for children. However, Fowler is the father of two children, and in pursuit of a toy, parked his car and went inside the restaurant insisting he be given a toy.
The shouting escalated into violence when Fowler punched two male employees and threw a third over the counter.

The crowded restaurant was soon cleared out as parents hurried their children away from the scene. One small child was almost struck by a store shelf that Fowler collapsed during his rage.
“All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior,” Assistant DA, Colleen McGinnis, said about the case.
Brian Bauer, a public defender assigned by the County, is Fowler’s attorney. Bauer is working with McGinnis on a plea bargain which Fowler would plead guilty to two of the assaults, agree to pay for the damage to the restaurant, and perform community service for the disorderly conduct charge.
McGinnis confirmed that the negotiations are ongoing. Fowler has no previous criminal record.
“He wanted a toy for his young daughter. He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her. I’m not excusing what he did, but how would you feel if you were in his position?”
A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 18 at 10 a.m.before Judge Jane Dorton.


Anne Manning

Burger King Assaults

David Fowler, 23, allegedly assaulted four employees at the Burger King restaurant in the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway in Wilmington, Del., on the night of June 30.

Fowler, of Lancaster, Pa., apparently argued with the cashier at the drive-through window at 6:15 p.m., about how much he was charged for his meal and the lack of a toy.

The cashier refused to give him the toy, from the movie “Chicken Run,” due to the fact that there were no children with him at the time.

The father of two then parked his vehicle and went into the restaurant shouting that he wanted the toy.

He proceeded to punch two male employees and throw a third over the counter. Fowler also broke a store shelf, which upon collapse, almost hit a small child. The many parents and children dining at the time, fled the scuffle.

Assistant District Attorney Colleen McGinnis said, “All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior.”

As a result of his behavior, Fowler has been charged with three counts of assault, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct. He has no criminal record.

Brian Bauer, public defender and Fowler’s attorney, said Fowler wanted the toy for his young daughter. The fact that he couldn’t get it enraged him.

Both Bauer and McGinnis confirm that they are currently working on a plea bargain. Fowler would plea guilty to two of the three assaults, since it is unclear if the third employee was punched or pushed. He would also agree to pay for the damage to the restaurant and perform community service for the disorderly conduct charge.

Fowler is currently at the New Castle County Detention Center. He failed to post $10,000 bail following his June 30 arraignment.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled before Judge Jane Dorton on July 18, at 10 a.m.

- Selina Poiesz

do you want fries with that

Do You Want Fries With That?
Do You Want Fries With That?
By Jennifer Kramer

WILMINGTON, DE- Twenty-three-year old, defendant David Fowler, of Lancaster, PA was charged Friday evening for assaulting four employees at local fast food chain restaurant, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct.

Fower is currently being held at the New Castle Detention Center in Delaware after failure to post his $10,000 bail following his June 30, 2008 arraignment.

According to police, at 6:15 p.m., Friday evening at a Burger King in the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway near Route 7 in Wilmington, Fowler argued with a cashier at the drive through window about how much he was charged for his meal and for the cashier’s failure to give him a toy.

The cashier told Fowler he could not give Fowler the toy, since the fast food chain’s policy states that toys were only for children.

The toy, from the movie, “Chicken Run” was not made clear to be only for meals with children present at the time of ordering the food. It was simply advertised as coming included with the happy meal offered at Burger King.

Fowler, father of two, did not bring his children along with him as they were home sick awaiting their dinner and toys.

Fowler became enraged, parked his car and went into the restaurant shouting. Police reports indicate he was screaming how he wanted his toy and punched two male employees and threw a third employee over the counter.

Fowler was also said by police to have broken a store shelf which then collapsed and nearly struck a small child eating at Burger King during Fowler’s rampage.

Fowler’s attorney, Brian Bauer, public defender assigned by the county, said, “He wanted the toy for his young daughter. He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her. I’m not excusing what he did, but how would you feel if you were in his position?”

The restaurant was swamped with people, kids and their parents, as it was Friday evening, during the scene Fowler made.

Many ran during the scuffle out into the parking lot, leaving behind their meals and belongings.

“All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior,” said Assistant DA, Colleen McGinnis, from the prosecution.


According to Bauer, he is working on a plea bargain with McGinnis where Fowler would plead guilty to two of the assaults he was charged with. It is not clear if one of the employees was punched or simply pushed. Fowler would agree to pay for the damage done to the restaurant and perform community service for the disorderly conduct charge.

McGinnis has confirmed that negotiations are onway.


Fowler has no previous criminal record.


This Burger King establishment has been in operation since 1973 and has no prior complaints of its employees.


A preliminary hearing is scheduled before Judge Jane Dorton on July 18 at 10 a.m.

Lancaster Man Charged with Assault Over Burger King Toy

Sheila Berninger

Lancaster Man Charged with Assault Over Burger King Toy

Wilmington, DE- A 23-year-old Lancaster man has been charged with three counts of assault, malicious destruction of property, and disorderly conduct, as a result of his violent outburst at Burger King restaurant, 3100 Kirkwood Highway, on June 30. David Fowler, who has no criminal record, allegedly assaulted four Burger King employees and broke a store shelf that collapsed and nearly hit a small child. Fowler had been arguing with the drive-through cashier at approximately 6:15 p.m. over the cost of his meal and the cashier’s refusal to give him a kid’s toy from the movie “Chicken Run.” The cashier stated that Burger King policy is to only give kid’s toys to kids. Fowler, who has two children, was alone in the vehicle at the time. When the conflict was not resolved, Fowler parked his car, then entered the restaurant, shouting that he wanted the toy. He allegedly punched two male employees and threw a third over the ordering counter.
Assistant District Attorney Colleen McGinnis provided comment, representing the prosecutor in the case, New Castle County, DE. “All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior,” McGinnis said.
Fowler has been held in the New Castle County Detention Center since his arraignment on June 30. He did not post bail in the amount of $10,000.
Fowler’s attorney, New Castle County public defender Brian Bauer, Esq., says that he has been negotiating with McGinnis over a plea bargain for Fowler.
“He wanted the toy for his young daughter,” Bauer said. “He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her. I’m not excusing what he did, but how would you feel if you were in his position?” Bauer added that if McGinnis agrees to a plea bargain, Fowler would plead guilty to two of the assaults. Adequate proof has not been shown whether Fowler punched or pushed one of the employees, Bauer said. Fowler would also pay for any damage costs the restaurant incurred as a result of his outburst, and perform community service in lieu of punishment for his disorderly conduct.
A preliminary hearing for Fowler, presided by County Judge Jane Dorton, will be held on Wednesday, July 18 at 10 a.m. in New Castle County Courthouse.

Do You Want Fries With That?

Erica Lester

WILMINGTON, DE --Twenty-three year old father of two, David Fowler was arrested on Friday, June 30, after assaulting four employees of a Wilmington, Delaware Burger King.

According to police, Fowler, a resident of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, visited the Burger King located on the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway around 6:15 Friday evening. Fowler became angry when the drive-thru cashier denied his request for one of the company’s promotional toys for the movie “Chicken Run,” stating they were only for children

“He wanted the toy for his young daughter. He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her,” Brian Bauer, a public defender assigned by the county to cover Fowler’s case, said.

Neither of Fowler’s children was with him at the time.

Fowler then parked his car and entered the Kirkwood Highway Burger King. Once inside the crowded fast-food restaurant, he allegedly began shouting at the employees and proceeded to punch two male employees and threw a third over the counter.

Fowler’s rage continued as he broke a store shelf, which, apparently, nearly struck a small child.

“All this for a toy,” Assistant District Attorney, Colleen McGinnis, said, “Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior.”

Baur and McGinnis are working together to establish a plea bargain in which Fowler would plead guilty to two counts of assault, agree to pay for the damages to the restaurant, and perform community service for his disorderly conduct.

Fowler remains at the New Castle County Detention Center for failing to post $10,000 bail following his June 30 arraignment. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 18 at 10 a.m. before Judge Jane Dorton.

Fowler has no previous criminal records.

Burger King Customer Enraged Over "free" Toy

By Katie Gibson

WILMINGTON, DE – Twenty-three-year-old Lancaster, Pennsylvania resident David Fowler was arrested on three counts of assault on the evening of June 30th for allegedly assaulting three Burger King employees, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct after entering the fast-food restaurant that is located on the 3100 block of Kirkwood Highway, near Route 7 in Wilmington.

According to the police report filed, Fowler pulled up to the drive-through window of the chain restaurant at approximately 6:15pm.

After receiving his order, Fowler argued with the cashier claiming he was over-charged for his meal and proceeded to accuse the Burger King employee of failing to include the promotional toy, which was advertised to come with the meal. The cashier attempted to explain to the customer that the toys were for children only and he was not eligible to receive the toy according to the restaurant’s policy.

Fowler, a father of two, who happened to be in the car by himself at the time of the supposed argument, pulled away from the window and parked his car in the Burger King lot.

Once inside the crowded fast-food establishment, Fowler allegedly began shouting at the store employees and proceeded to punch two of the restaurant workers and threw a third over the order-counter breaking a store shelf.

“All this for a toy? Have we become so obsessed with collecting things that we’ve forgotten how to act? Society shouldn’t tolerate this kind of behavior,” said Assistant District Attorney Colleen McGinnis, office of the prosecution.

Brain Bauer, public defender for New Castle County assigned to represent Fowler, was available for comment regarding his client’s actions, “he wanted the toy for his young daughter. He became enraged when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get it for her.” Bauer also mentioned he is working with the District Attorney’s office on a plea bargain in which Fowler would plead guilty on two counts of assault, pay damages to the restaurant for his destruction of property and serve community service for his disorderly conduct. Bauer made clear that his client has no prior criminal record.

Fowler failed to post $10,000 bail after his June 30 arraignment and is being held at the New Castle County Detention Center. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 18 at 10am, before Judge Jane Dorton.

Student Sues to Voice Opinion about Iraq War

PHILADELPHIA, PA – A fifteen-year-old sophomore at Alan Alda High School was suspended on Friday afternoon for what School Principle, Mike Bauer claimed to be an offensive t-shirt that disrupted the educational environment at the school.

Across the front of Colleen Urban’s t-shirt read, “If there is a God, she would end the war in Iraq.” Urban and her family have filed suit in Philadelphia federal court against the school’s actions claiming infringement of the student’s First Amendment right to free speech.

“We just wanted to ensure that Colleen’s actions didn’t get in the way of learning, we have every right to put a stop to potentially disruptive actions,” said Maureen Reed, spokesperson for the school district and vice principle of Alan Alda High School.

Urban was removed from her fifth period U.S History class by teacher Jan Gorlin who refused to teach the class with Urban present, “I only teach students who really value what America stands for.” Gorlin made several other disparaging remarks in front of the class regarding Urban’s attire before allegedly grabbing the student’s arm and walking her to the principle’s office.

The parents of the accused student, Rose and Marty Urban were available for comment on Friday regarding their daughter’s suspension and expressed frustration towards the administration of the school district and commented on the student’s reaction to the incident, “she’s not in a great frame of mind right now, but she really wasn’t trying to disrupt anything – she just wanted to state her opinion about the war,” said Rose Urban, mother of the sophomore student.

“The school district’s right to maintain order ends when a student hasn’t disrupted anything. Students do not leave their opinions and their right to free expression at the schoolhouse gate,” said Sheila McGee, attorney of the Wilmington, DE firm Tinker, Evers and Chance who is representing the Urban family in the suit.

Local High School Silences Student

Colleen Urban, a 15-year-old sophomore at Alan Alda High School started her Friday morning with the same routine; wake-up, get dressed, and catch the bus to school. However, this day was not ordinary by any means. Colleen found herself suspended for “wearing an offensive t-shirt” claims school principal, Mike Bauer, which read, “If there is a God, she would end the war in Iraq.”

Parents in all school districts send their child/children off to school to acquire an education in an establishment with rules & guidelines, ensuring a peaceful and non-disruptive learning environment. In an interview with the School District of Alan Alda High School, a representative for vice Principal Maureen Reed stated that the administration “has every right to put a stop to potentially disruptive actions and they simply wanted to ensure that Colleens actions didn’t get in the way of learning.”

For the Urban family, it is was not the rules and guidelines set forth by the school that was upsetting, but the actions of the administration and high school staff, who they feel violated Colleen’s constitutional rights. According to Colleen, it wasn’t until her fifth period class where the saying on her t-shirt became an issue. Jan Gorlin, her fifth period U.S. History teacher made several remarks in front of the class such as, “I only teach students who value what America really stands for.” Furthermore, Urban claims that as Gorlin escorted her to principal Bauer’s office she remarked, “you brought this on yourself- this would be so much easier if you let God into your heart.”

U.S. public schools safeguard against any one religion being taught to its pupils, yet the U.S. constitution does allow us to have free speech which allows all citizens to verbally express their opinions. Yet, when do opinions cross the line when it comes to public schools? If there are lines that cannot be crossed, who decides what they are? In this circumstance, Urban’s t-shirt expressed her personal belief, even though it had religious undertones, is it fair that a public school teacher can verbally express her religious beliefs while a student cannot express religious beliefs on clothing?

The situation escalated, according to Urban, when she states that Reed through a school t-shirt at her face, striking her, after asking her to change. When Urban refused, Bauer phoned Colleen’s parents, informing them of her suspension for “disrupting the educational environment.” Bauer then proceeded to ask one of the six full time security guards to escort Urban to the front entrance to wait for her parents to pick her up with temperature reaching in the mid teens.

Urban’s parents are so disparaged at the High School’s actions against their daughter that they filed suit in the U.S. federal court in Philadelphia, stating that Colleen’s First Amendment rights to free expression have been violated as well as a staff members comments that violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Rose Urban, Colleen’s mom, says that “Colleen wasn’t trying to disrupt anything…she just wanted to state her opinion about the war,” and her father, Marty Urban, felt that “this is America, isn’t it? All of us, which includes students, should be allowed to say what we want.

The Urban’s have put their daughter’s case in the hands of attorney Sheila McGee from the Delaware firm Tinker, Evans, and Chance. McGee comments that, “the school district’s right to maintain order ends when a students hasn’t disrupted anything. Students do not leave their opinion and their right to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Time will only tell if there are limits of free speech vs. disruptive speech in public schools.

T-Shirt Ignites First Amendment Debate

David Montenegro
COM365

The never-ending interpretation of First Amendment rights reached Alan Alda High School on Friday when Colleen Urban was suspended from school for wearing what the principal calls an offensive t-shirt.
Colleen’s shirt, containing the phrase, “If there is a God, she would end the war in Iraq,” apparently caused no disturbance until she was confronted during her fifth period class by her teacher, Jan Gorlin. According to Urban, she was publicly ridiculed by Gorlin because of the shirt with remarks such as “I only teach students who really value what America stands for,” before being grabbed and escorted to the principal’s office.
Once in the office, Urban claims she was again mistreated by the vice principal, Maureen Reed, by having a shirt with the school’s logo on it thrown at her in an effort to make her change clothes, with the shirt striking Colleen in the face. When Urban refused to change clothes, the school’s principal, Mike Bauer, called her parents and told them that she had been suspended for “disrupting the educational environment.” Colleen was then escorted outside to the front entrance by school security to wait for her parents in well-below-freezing temperatures.
In light of what is viewed by the Urban’s as a violation of the First Amendment right to free expression, a suit has been filed in U.S. federal court in Philadelphia. The matter also includes Gorlin’s comments to Colleen were in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Urban’s have hired attorney Sheila McGee from the Tinker, Evers, and Chance firm in Wilmington, Delaware to handle the case.
Both of Colleen’s parents strongly defend their daughter’s right to free expression, with her mother, Rose, citing that, “she’s not in a great frame of mind right now, but she really wasn’t trying to disrupt anything – she just wanted to state her opinion about the war.” Her father, Marty, added, “This is America, isn’t it? All of us – and that includes students – should be allowed to say what we want.”
The school district, however, refuses to admit any wrongdoing. Vice Principal Reed has claimed that Colleen’s shirt interfered with the right of the school officials to maintain discipline in the classroom. “We have every right to put a stop to potentially disruptive actions,” Reed says.
Attorney Sheila McGee countered the school district’s defense by stating, “The school district’s right to maintain order ends when a student hasn’t disrupted anything…Students do not leave their opinions and their right to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
Whatever the impending result of this case proves to be, this certainly sparks an interesting debate on whether an institution has a right to police not only the curriculum in the classroom, but also the values of each individual inside the classroom.

Student sues school over free speech issue

Noah Cohen
COM365 - 1/21/07

The parents of Alan Alda High School sophomore Colleen Urban filed suit in Philadelphia federal court Friday after school administrators suspended their daughter for wearing an anti-war t-shirt.
Colleen’s shirt read, “If there is a God, she would end the war in Iraq”. Colleen wore the shirt without issue until history teacher Jan Gorlin told Colleen “I only teach students who really value what America stands for.”
Gorlin also told Colleen “you brought this on yourself – this would be so much easier if you just let God into your heart.”
Gorlin then escorted Colleen to the principal’s office. Vice Principal Maureen Reed demanded Colleen change shirts. According to Colleen, Reed threw a school shirt at her face.
The Urbans have retained the services of Wilmington, Delaware law firm Tinker, Evers and Chance to sue the district for violating their daughters First Amendment rights.
The suit is also charging that comments made by the history teacher violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
“She’s not in a great frame of mind right now, but she really wasn’t trying to disrupt anything” said Colleen’s mother, Rose Urban.
Marty Urban, Colleen’s father, said that all Americans should be allowed to speak freely. “All of us – and that includes students – should be allowed to say what we want.”
School officials offer a different position. Vice Principal Maureen Reed said “We just wanted to ensure that Colleen’s actions didn’t get in the way of learning,”
Mike Bauer, the Alan Alda High School Principal called the shirt offensive and supported the actions of his colleagues.
Principal Bauer called Colleen’s parents and told them Colleen was “disrupting the educational environment” before having the fifteen year old escorted out of the school by security officers.
The security guard then made Colleen wait outside in frigid weather for her parents to arrive.
The Urban’s attorney Shelia McGee strongly disagreed with the districts claim of needing to maintain order. “The school district’s right to maintain order ends when a student hasn’t disrupted anything.’
McGee underscored the free speech issue by saying “Students do not leave their opinions and their right to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
According to McGee the case will center on the districts violation of the Establishment Clause of Constitution.
The Establishment clause allows for freedom of religion and prevents bias based on religious preference, according to the American Civil Liberties Union web site.

First Amendment Controversy at Local High School

Andrea Puksta
COM 365 -001
January 22, 2007


First Amendment Controversy at Local High School

“If there is a God, she would end the war in Iraq.” This statement was emblazoned on a t-shirt worn by Colleen Urban, a sophomore at nearby Alan Alda High School. The statement, and reactions to it, has sparked a local controversy. According to Urban’s parents, their daughter was suspended from school this past Friday, January 19, 2007, for wearing what the school principal, Mike Bauer, considered an offensive t-shirt.

It was a normal day for Urban until she reached her fifth period U.S. History class where her teacher, Jan Gorlin, purportedly made several comments to the class about Urban’s t-shirt. Gorlin allegedly said “I only teach students who really value what America stands for.” Also, as Gorlin was escorting Urban to principal Bauer’s office, Gorlin allegedly remarked to Urban “you brought this on yourself – this would be so much easier if you just let God into your heart.”

Upon arrival at principal Bauer’s office, vice principal Maureen Reed demanded that Urban change her shirt immediately. According to Urban, Reed tossed a t-shirt with the school’s logo on it, hitting Urban in the face. When Urban refused to change, Bauer called her parents to tell them their daughter had been suspended for “disrupting the educational environment.” Upon the suspension, a security guard escorted Urban to the front entrance outdoors to wait for her parents, despite the fact that the temperature Friday was extremely frigid.

“She is not in a great frame of mind right now, but she really wasn’t trying to disrupt anything – she just wanted to state her opinion about the war,” says Colleen’s mother, Rose Urban.

The controversy has shaken students, faculty and parents alike. It has also triggered Urban’s parents to file suit in the U.S. federal court in Philadelphia, arguing their daughter’s First Amendment right to free expression has been violated and that Gorlin’s comments violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

“This is America, isn’t it? All of us – and that includes students – should be allowed to say what we want,” says Colleen’s father, Marty Urban.

According to Reed, the school district believes that Urban’s t-shirt interfered with the right of school officials to maintain discipline in the classroom. “We just wanted to ensure that Colleen’s actions didn’t get in the way of learning” says Reed. “We have every right to put a stop to potentially disruptive actions.”

As the suit has been filed, the Urban’s have hired attorney Sheila McGee of the Wilmington, Delaware firm Tinker, Evers and Chance. “The school district’s right to maintain order ends when a student hasn’t disrupted anything,” says McGee. “Students do not leave their opinions and their right to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Student Fights for Freedom of Expression

Friday morning Colleen Urban was suspended from Alan Alda High School in Philadelphia for wearing a t-shirt with her opinion on the War in Iraq on it.

The t-shirt said, “If there is a God, she would end in the War in Iraq.”

Alan Alda Principal, Mike Bauer, claimed that it was offensive and “disrupting the educational environment.”

Urban, 15, went unnoticed until her fifth period history teacher Jan Gorlin saw it.

“I only teach students who really value what America stands for,” Gorlin said to Urban.

Gorlin walked the sophomore to the principal’s office and told her that, “You brought this on yourself- this would be so much easier if you just let God into your heart.”

Urban’s parents claimed that in the office, Vice Principal Maureen Reed demanded their daughter change her shirt. In doing so, Reed threw a t-shirt with the school’s logo on it at Urban, hitting her in the face. When the she refused to change, Urban was escorted by a security guard to the front entrance of the school. There she was forced to wait outside in temperature in the teens for her parents.

Urban’s parents, Rose and Marty Urban, have hired attorney Shelia
McGee to represent them in a suit filed in the U.S. Federal Court in Philadelphia.

They said that their daughter’s First Amendment right to free expression was violated and that Gorlin’s comments violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

“…She really wasn’t trying to disrupt anything- she just wanted to state her opinion about the War,” Rose Urban said about her daughter.

“This is America, isn’t it? All of us- and that includes students-should be allowed to say what we want,” Marty Urban said.

Reed said in an interview that the school district claims that Urban’s t-shirt interfered with the right of the school officials to maintain discipline in the classroom.

“We just wanted to ensure that Colleen’s actions didn’t get in the way of learning,” Reed said.

McGee, from the Wilmington, Del., firm of Tinkers, Evers and Chance, disagrees.
“The school district’s right to maintain order ends when a student hasn’t disrupted anything. Students do not leave their opinions and their right to free expression at the schoolhouse gate,” Reed said.

- Selina Poiesz

Suit Filed in Federal Court over Alan Alda Teen’s Anti-War T-shirt

Sheila Berninger

Suit Filed in Federal Court over Alan Alda Teen’s Anti-War T-shirt

Philadelphia, PA- Two Philadelphia residents filed a federal lawsuit Friday, claiming that their daughter’s First Amendment right to free expression was violated when she was suspended for wearing an anti-war T-shirt. Rose and Marty Urban filed the lawsuit on behalf of their daughter Colleen Urban, a sophomore at Alan Alda High School. On Friday, 15-year-old Urban wore a T-shirt printed with the phrase, “If there is a God, she would end the war in Iraq,” to school.

“She’s not in a great frame of mind right now, but she really wasn’t trying to disrupt anything—she just wanted to state her opinion about the war,” Rose Urban said. “This is America, isn’t it? All of us—and that includes students—should be allowed to say what we want,” Marty Urban said.

Conflict over the T-shirt began when Jan Gorlin, a history teacher at the school, saw Urban’s T-shirt in class. In front of other students, Gorlin told Urban, “I only teach students who really value what America stands for,” and, “You brought this on yourself—this would be so much easier if you just let God into your heart.” She then grabbed Urban by the arm led her to the principal’s office, Urban says. Urban’s parents argue that Gorlin’s comments violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Urban claims that the school’s vice principal, Maureen Reed demanded that she change her shirt and hit her in the face with a T-shirt with the school’s logo on it. When Urban refused to change, she was escorted out of the school by a security guard where she waited for her parents to pick her up. The high temperature on Friday was 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

Mike Bauer, principal of the school, says that Urban was suspended for “disrupting the educational environment.”

“We just wanted to ensure that Colleen’s actions didn’t get in the way of learning,” Reed said on behalf of the school district. “We have every right to put a stop to potentially disruptive actions,” Reed added.

The Urbans are being represented by attorney Sheila McGee of the Wilmington, DE, firm Tinker, Evers, and Chance. “The school district’s right to maintain order ends when a student hasn’t disrupted anything,” McGee said. “Students do not leave their opinions and their right to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.

A Fight for the First Amendment

Parents of Colleen Urban have filled suit in U.S. federal court in Philadelphia on Friday against Alan Alda High School arguing that their daughter’s First Amendment right to free expression was violated.
Urban, the fifteen-year-old sophomore from Alan Alda High School, was suspended for wearing a t-shirt with the phrase; “If there is a God, she would end the war in Iraq”.
Urban was confronted about her t-shirt in her fifth period history class by her teacher, Jan Gorlin. Gorlin made disparaging remarks about Urban’s t-shirt in front of the class.
“I only teach students who really value what America stands for”, said Gorlin to the class.
According to officials Gorlin then grabbed Urban by the arm and led her to the principal’s office where Vice Principal, Maureen Reed, demanded that Urban change her shirt. After refusing to change her shirt Principal Mike Bauer called Urban’s parents to inform them that she was being suspended from school for “disrupting the educational environment”.
Urban was then escorted from school by a school security guard to the front entrance to wait for her parents outside in below freezing temperatures.
Marty Urban, Colleen’s father, was outraged.

“This is America, isn’t it? All of us - and that includes students - should be allowed to say what we want”, Marty Urban said.
The School District, in the person of Reed, claims in an interview that Urban’s t-shirt interfered with the right of school officials to maintain discipline in the classroom.
“We just wanted to ensure that Colleen’s actions didn’t get in the way of learning … “We have every right to put a stop to potentially disruptive actions”, Reed said.
The Urban’s have hired attorney Sheila McGee of Tinker, Evers, and Chance in Wilmington, Delaware.
“The School district’s right to maintain order ends when a student hasn’t disrupted anything … Students do not leave their opinions and their right to free expression at the schoolhouse gate”, McGee said.
Urban’s mother, Rose Urban, had this to say; “She’s not in a great frame of mind right now, but she really wasn’t trying to disrupt anything- she just wanted to state her opinion about the war.

by: Alex Schultheis

Colleen's Crusade

Amy Breckin
Professor Bishop
Com. 365-001
January 22, 2007

Freedom of Expression or Extremely Offensive?

“If there is a God, she would end the war in Iraq.” This phrase started a debate on Friday at Alan Alda High School when 15-year-old sophomore Colleen Urban was suspended for wearing a t-shirt to school with this phrase printed on it. Alan Alda High School principal, Mike Bauer suspended Colleen for wearing this t-shirt which he found to be offensive and told Colleen’s parents, Rose and Marty Urban that Colleen’s wearing of the t-shirt was “disrupting the educational environment.”

On Friday, Colleen attended her first four periods of school without a single comment about the t-shirt that she was wearing. When she reached her fifth period U.S. History class, Colleen’s teacher, Jan Gorlin, made several derogatory remarks to the class about Colleen’s t-shirt. Jan Gorlin told the class, “I only teach students who really value what America stands for.” While Colleen and Jan Gorlin were walking to Principal Bauer’s office, Jan Gorlin told Colleen, “you brought this on yourself—this would be so much easier if you just let God into your heart.” Jan Gorlin then grabbed Colleen by the arm and led her to Principal Bauer’s office.

Upon arrival at Principal Bauer’s office, vice principal of Alan Alda High School, Maureen Reed, demanded that Colleen remove the t-shirt that she was wearing and put on a t-shirt with the Alan Alda High School logo. Vice Principal Reed threw the t-shirt with the school’s logo at Colleen hitting her in the face with the t-shirt. Colleen refused to change her t-shirt. Principal Bauer called Colleen’s parents and a school security guard escorted Colleen to the front entrance of the building where she was told to wait outside of the building in the freezing cold temperatures for her parents to arrive and take her home.

Colleen’s parents, Rose and Marty Urban, have filed suit in U.S. federal court in Philadelphia. Rose and Marty Urban feel that their daughter’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression has been violated and that Jan Gorlin’s comments go against the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Urban’s did express their feelings about this issue and what transpired between the school and their daughter on Friday, Rose Urban explains, “she’s [Colleen] not in a great frame of mind right now, but she really wasn’t trying to disrupt anything- she just wanted to state her opinion about the war.” Marty Urban shared his raw emotion as well, “This is America, isn’t it? All of us—and that includes students—should be allowed to say what we want.”

And the debate between freedom of expression and what is deemed offensive continues. Vice Principal Reed contends that her actions in this situation were acceptable based on maintaining discipline in the classroom she explained, “We just wanted to ensure that Colleen’s actions didn’t get in the way of learning.” Reed also contends, “We have every right to put a stop to potentially disruptive actions.” On the other side of this debate is attorney Sheila McGee from Tinker, Evers, and Chance of Wilmington, Delaware representing the Urban family in their suit. McGee says, “The school district’s right to maintain order ends when a student hasn’t disrupted anything.” She continues, “Students do not leave their opinions and their right to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Stay tuned for more on this debate between freedom of expression and what is deemed offensive, and who gets the final say.

Nicole Cuilis
Fact Pattern Civil Case - T-shirt Story

Alan Alda High School has learned that the debate over the First Amendment is alive and well, but the students did not have to turn to a textbook to be taught this lesson. The parents of a student at the school have filed suit in U.S federal court in Philadelphia when their daughter was suspended this past Friday, January 19, 2007 for wearing a t-shirt that was purportedly deemed offensive by the school’s principal, Mike Bauer. The case has called attention to the right of students to freedom of expression.
The student, 15-year-old sophomore Colleen Urban, was confronted about the message on her t-shirt that read, “If there is a God, she would end the war in Iraq” by her fifth period U.S history teacher, according to the girl’s parents. The U.S. history teacher, Jan Gorlin, allegedly made several remarks about the shirt commenting “I only teach students who really value what America stands for” and “you brought this on yourself-this would be so much easier if you just let God into your heart.”
According to the school district Colleen was suspended for “disrupting the educational environment.” This was after she supposedly refused to change her shirt upon being brought to the office of Maureen Reed, the vice principal. Colleen allegedly threw the Alan Alda High School t-shirt that she had been given to wear, hitting Reed in the face. It was at this point, that Principal Bauer called Colleen’s Parents.
In an interview on behalf of the school district Reed claimed that the administration was merely maintaining discipline in the classroom and that “We just wanted to ensure that Colleen’s action didn’t get in the way of learning.” She defended their actions stating that “We have every right to put a stop to potentially disruptive action.”
The parents have expressed frustration at the administration’s actions, however, calling into question why Colleen was not confronted about her shirt earlier in the day, and accusing Gorlin of grabbing their daughter by the arm while escorting her to the principal’s office. A school security guard also purportedly made Colleen wait outside in the freezing weather for her parents to pick her up after she was suspended. The girl’s mother defended her daughter commenting that “she’s not in a great frame of mind right now, but she really wasn’t trying to disrupt anything – she just wanted to state her opinion about the war.” Her father, Marty Urban, also stood behind his daughter’s actions asserting that “This is America isn’t it? All of us – and that include students – should be allowed to say what we want.”
The Urban’s attorney, Sheila McGee of the Wilmington, D.E. firm Tinker, Evers, and Chance, also provided a statement, “The school district’s right to maintain order ends when a student hasn’t disrupted anything.” She further commented that “Students do not leave their opinions and their rights to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.” While allegations have been made on both sides, one thing that is clear is that the importance of the First Amendment will be made apparent throughout the course of the case.

How to Get Federal District Court Case Info

Check out Findlaw's website for quick access to federal district and appeals court pleadings and opinions. Simply click on the name/jurisdiction of the court, and then look for the link for "opinions" - then click on one that interests you.

If you have a spare moment, click on the link that holds the judges' biographies - some interesting stuff in there - can be used as background for your story. How does the judge tend to rule in these cases?

Live (Sort of) From the Courtroom

Check out David Corn's blog entry in which he takes you inside the courtroom at the "Scooter" Libby trial. Provides some nice examples of what to watch for as you create your stories.

Covering a Civil Case

Some tips for covering a civil case.

First, obtain access to the docket in the case, as we discussed in class. This may require a visit to the courthouse; you need the actual document in order to determine where the case stands.

Second, determine the status of the case - how far along is it? It's probably easiest to select a written opinion by a judge or appeals court panel of judges - I'd recommend starting with the uscourts.gov website. Other stages in the case are quite interesting, and newsworthy - the arguments made by the attorneys, various motions (especially those seeking to dismiss the cases), and proceedings related to the trial and jury award.

Third, read the opinion carefully, highlighting the major arguments. Keep in mind that you won't be writing for attorneys or judges - you're writing for the general public. Be careful not to weigh down the piece with legalese - INTERPRET it for the reader.

So, what should your civil case story include?

The names of the parties;

Where the lawsuit was filed, or is being heard;

The claims made by both sides - again, a summary of the key arguments is enough;

Quotes from the major parties - keep in mind that attorneys may refuse to discuss the case with you;

A clear description of the stage of the case.

If you've been in the courtroom, a sense of what it was like, based on your observations.

For example:

"A Hockessin, Delaware resident filed a federal lawsuit against the township's fire company Thursday, claiming that company officials embarked on a three-month campaign of harrassment directed at his family after he complained to township officials that the company's fire whistle terrified his five-year-old son.

Again, no legalese. By way of quick review, this is known as a "delayed identification" lead, since the resident is not identified by name in the lead.

In the second graph, you'd ID the person, and tell where the case was filed:

"Bill Stiffler claims that on at least 30 occasions in the last three years, his son, Neil, has been rudely awakened by the whistle, installed when the fire company's headquarters, located less than a quarter-mile from the Stiffler's home, was built in 1974.

In his suit, filed in Philadelphia federal court, Stiffler said that he sent a letter outlining his concerns to the fire company in August 2004. The fire company did not respond. A call to the mayor's office in Hockessin yielded only a perfunctory assurance that the matter would be addressed.

Stiffler brought his concerns to township council meetings in September, October, and November 2004. Neither council nor the fire company took any formal action.

The informal actions taken by the fire company are at the heart of Stiffler's suit, in which he claims the fire company has retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to free expression."


Notice that you haven't yet listed in detail the actual claims. Typically, you can save this info for a little later in the story.

But let's say you've decided to cover a different stage during the case - discovery, or when lawyers for both sides gather information they use to make their case. Attorneys can, but are often reluctant to share information - unless the judge's bans them from doing so. They may also might want to avoid tipping their hand. For example:

"The attorney for the Hockessin resident embroiled in a lawsuit against his township's fire company over the allegedly terrifying noise emitted by its fire whistle, has uncovered documents which seem to support the resident's claim that township officials retaliated against him for publicly complaining about the noise."

Colleen McGinnis, who represents Bill Stiffler, contends that three memos from Chief David Sapp to township officials provide the rough outline for a campaign of harassment directed at Stiffler."

You would then go on to describe the memos.

Remember to always provide the reader with BACKSTORY - a summary of the case to that point, and the background of the parties.

OK, let's say the case makes it to trial - you would cover the arguments made by both attorneys, and also make keen observations about the tone of the discussion, and the behavior of the parties. For example:

"Hockessin Fire Chief David Sapp told a Philadelphia jury Friday that his department cannot afford the paging system that would enable them to replace the fire whistle at the center of a federal lawsuit filed by a township resident."

A paragraph or two of backstory, and then...

""It's just not in our budget," Sapp told the jury of four men and eight women. "We're a volunteer department, and we told Mr. Stiffler that."

Bill Stiffler contends that the department and township officials went far beyond telling him they lacked the money for a paging system.

Stiffler claims that department firefighters set off the whistle at unscheduled times just to annoy he and his family, and that they have publicly ridiculed he and his lawsuit at five recent township council meetings. Firefighters have also made numerous negative postings about Stiffler on the township's website."

And then, the results of the trial:

"A federal jury in Philadelphia Wednesday found that Hockessin Fire Company officials had not engaged in a campaign of harassment against a township resident and his family after he complained about the company's fire whistle.

By a 9-3 vote, the jury found that the fire company had not violated Bill Stiffler's First Amendment right to free expression by retaliating against him for raising concerns about the allegedly excessive volume of the fire whistle.

Stiffler's attorney, Colleen McGinnis, said she would appeal the ruling to the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals."

An attorney may make appeal plans known right away - on the day of the ruling in some cases. Just as often, they will wait.

Here's a recent story from the USA Today which discusses a jury award in a Katrina-related case. Why hasn't this received widespread coverage? Another story for another time.

One more example - this one from the Boston Globe. Read both articles carefully. More examples to follow.

Criminal Cases, Part 2

When last we communicated, we were discussing events that happened in the pre-trial stage of a criminal case.

After arraignment, a PRELIMINARY HEARING is held before a judge to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed the crime. It revolves around the question: is there enough evidence to "bind the case over" for the grand jury? If not, the judge can dismiss the case. More plea bargaining is occurring during this stage.

It's generally agreed that it's better to plea bargain to a lesser charge than to risk going to trial. If it's a first-time offender, the prosecutor will probably bite on the plea bargain.

So it's on to the grand jury:

In about half the states, grand juries are convened to consider charges against criminal defendants. Here, 23 folks determine if there's enough evidence for trial.

Please note that you only need 12 of them (a simple majority) to vote to indict in order for the case to proceed - they vote to issue what's called a TRUE BILL. If they vote not to indict, it's called a NO BILL.

In 20 states, the prosecutor files a charge called an INFORMATION - the judge then decides at the prelim whether there is enough evidence for a trial.

If there is an indictment, the defendant is then rearraigned - this time before a judge who handles felony cases. If a plea of not guilty is entered, a trial date and bail are set.

Felonies are categorized in CLASSES - A, B, C, D, E. The closer to the start of the alphabet, the more severe the crime.

A note on plea bargaining: in NYC, about 3/4 of all murder arrests are plea bargained. In Philadelphia, about 3/5 are plea bargained.


Then we come to the MOTIONS: to QUASH (challenging the legality of indictment); to issue a BILL OF PARTICULARS (the defense wants more details about the charges); to SUPPRESS (or "toss" and not use at trial evidence that has been obtained illegally, through a bad search); and finally, to CHANGE VENUE (where defendant believes he or she cannot get a fair trial, usually due to extensive publicity, or a complaint about the judge not being able to render a fair decision.

Next is JURY SELECTION. The phrase that pays here is VOIR DIRE, or jury empanelment.

Twelve folks are selected, with a few alternates. Attorneys for both sides can challenge the selection of a juror. They use two types of challenges - PEREMPTORY (challenge with no reasons given; they only have 10 of these to spend) and FOR CAUSE (the attorney must give a reason for why they believe the juror will not be able to decide the case fairly and impartially - maybe the person knows the defendant, or worked for his/her company, or knows their family).

Attorneys look for anything that suggests a juror might not be impartial.

Let's say you're covering a case where a homeowner shot a would-be burglar. An attorney for the defense might ask a juror, "what are your feelings about guns?" or "do you think it's OK for families to keep guns in their homes for protection?"

Shaping the jury is key - and shaping the image of the defendant to elicit some sympathy from the jury. As a journalist, you watch all of this unfold - what's the defendant wearing? How are the attorneys acting? How is the jury reacting? Take the reader into the courtroom with you.


Now we head to TRIAL - you most likely won't cover the whole thing; the best you'll be able to do is cover OPENING and CLOSING STATEMENTS, appearances by key witnesses, and, of course, the VERDICT. You do a lot of this by contacting the CLERK of the court. For every trial, interrogatory, and hearing, there is a TRANSCRIPT (written record) to be had.

OPENING STATEMENTS: Here, the state outlines its case - the charges, the evidence. The defense suggests holes in that argument. Both sides preview the evidence. Cases are, some say, won or lost here. You're giving the jury the critical info for the first time.

Next up, DIRECT EXAMINATION: Here, the prosecutor questions his or her witnesses. Remember that the judge can toss the case if he/she feels a PRIMA FACIE case has not been established (there's not enough proof of a crime).

During CROSS-EXAMINATION, the defense attorney questions the state's witnesses, trying to poke holes in their credibility. If they do a good enough job, the prosecutor may ask for RE-DIRECT, or the chance to reestablish the witness' credibility.

At various points, the defense might ask for a DIRECTED VERDICT of acquittal or dismissal, arguing that the state didn't prove its case.

Then the defense calls its witnesses (REBUTTAL). It's DIRECT, CROSS, and RE-DIRECT all over again. Witnesses can be recalled to clarify or extend their testimony. New witnesses hit the scene only with the judge's OK (both sides submit witness lists before trial).

Next, the closing arguments, or SUMMATIONS - the attorneys summarize the case (and their arguments) for the jury. Pay close attention here - often, these are done with a dramatic flourish.

The judge then CHARGES (not literally) the jury - instructs them about reviewing the evidence, about the law that applies in the case, and lays out the possible verdicts.

The jury then DELIBERATES in another room - sometimes hours, sometimes days, sometimes weeks. If deliberation stretches on, the jury will be SEQUESTERED, or housed, by itself, in a local hotel. Keep close to the jury - you never know when a verdict will be reached. Juries can ask for additional instructions from the judge, or to take a look at material brought up during trial. Some believe that this action favors the defense; the thought being that the prosecutor didn't state his/her case well enough.

One way or the other, note how long the jury is out.

Finally, we reach a verdict. In criminal cases, the jury vote has to be UNANIMOUS. We talked about the possible verdicts - guilty, not guilty, guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect. It's possible that the jury can't come to a unanimous ruling - this is a HUNG JURY, and means that the judge will declare a MISTRIAL. The defendant usually goes free.

If the verdict doesn't go the defense's way, they can ask the judge to SET ASIDE the ruling, or set up a NEW TRIAL.

Make sure you pay close attention to the verdicts as they relate to each COUNT of the indictment. Remember also to use "allegedly" in writing about the case until there is a conviction; it's not cool to convict someone before a verdict is reached. More on this in class.

Two final rules: one, do not fall into the trap of overwhelming the reader with legal terms. Be conversational - don't just rehash the document you've obtained. For example, here is the original criminal indictment against former Congressman Tom DeLay. Read the first two pages - pretty intense, eh? How would you rewrite this for your reader?

Basics of Criminal Procedure

Rather than chew up too much more class time on criminal cases, let me spell out a few ins and outs here.

After the arrest, the suspect is booked. Remember that, despite what we see in crime dramas, law enforcement officials must have probable cause before going after someone.

Remember also that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits unlawful searches and seizures. Police MUST have probable cause to obtain a search warrant from a judge.

When they do get a warrant, they can search the person, the person's clothing - anything in the "plain view" of the officer. Warrants aren't generally public knowledge, but a solid relationship with an officer or a court clerk can produce tips now and then about notable warrants issued against notable people.

Most folks who are arrested are released after questioning - the evidence isn't strong enough to hold them. The police may tell the person to not leave the area. Most of the time, you won't know about arrests, detentions, and bookings, unless the police want you to know - or unless you dig around.

You usually have more regular contact with the District Attorney, or DA - in Philadelphia, that's Lynne Abraham. It's an elected position. This is a key relationship - you're often flying without files, so you depend on regular contact, and the odd leak. This doesn't prevent you from learning key facts for the first time in court, however.

So, this is what we've got so far: WARRANT-ARREST-BOOKING.

The prosecutor in the case will try to determne if he or she can actually charge the person with a crime. They'll also gather evidence that can't be used in court, either because it's prejudicial, or because of a flaw in the search or arrest.

The prosecutor wants to avoid tainting the jury pool, to ensure that a fair trial is had. Keep in mind that the prosecutor is a member of the executive branch of state government; he or she decides when to start a criminal case; he or she serves the public and must protect the rights of the accused.

Onward: there are three basic stages for us to be concerned with: PRE-TRIAL, TRIAL, and POST-TRIAL.

During pretrial, you will cover the arraignment, preliminary hearing, grand jury action, and jury selection. Not all with the same level of urgency, but you should keep tabs.

During arraignment, two things happen: the defendant hears the charges against them, and enters a plea - oh, and an attorney is assigned to them if they can't afford one. You should know this language, taken from the "Miranda" warnings, from all those episodes of Law and Order you've watched.

If it's a felony (more serious) case, the court will set bail. Only those felonies that are very serious in the eyes of the DA head down the road. Defendants can plead guilty, not guilty, no contest, or guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (check to see if your state allows this).

If a not guilty plea happens, you head for a preliminary hearing. In your arraignment story, you'll include: the formal charge, the plea, bail (is it higher or lower than requested), behavior of the defendants, remarks by the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and the judge. Here's an example of an arraignment story.

Here, the court determines if there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime. Is there enough evidence to send the case to the grand jury? If not, the judge will dismiss.

All along, the two sides will plea bargain - reducing the severity of the charges, often in exchange for key information. Here, defense lawyers do all that they can to lessen the possible penalty. First-time offenders usually will inspire the prosecutor to bite on community service, etc.

But, if after all of this, the DA thinks a serious crime has been committed by a dangerous person, it's off to the grand jury.

More on that in part 2.

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

Below is the full text of The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798 - how close did we get in the days after 9-11 to having a similar act passed? Well, actually there was a bill that amounted to the same thing - more on that in class.


An Act Respecting Alien Enemies

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, towards the aliens who shall become liable, as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those, who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, shall refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which shall be found necessary in the premises and for the public safety: Provided, that aliens resident within the United States, who shall become liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure, the full time which is, or shall be stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between the United States, and the hostile nation or government, of which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens or subjects: and where no such treaty shall have existed, the President of the United States may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which any alien enemy shall be apprehended, who by the President of the United States, or by order of any court, judge or justice, as aforesaid, shall be required to depart, and to be removed, as aforesaid, to provide therefor, and to execute such order, by himself or his deputy, or other discreet person or persons to be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President of the United States, or of the court, judge or justice ordering the same, as the case may be.



APPROVED, July 6, 1798.



An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States."



SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be ho]den to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in Republication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.



APPROVED, July 14, 1798.

How To Read a Court Opinion

With thanks to Orin Kerr of Georgetown University Law School, I've prepared a short primer on how to make your way through a court opinion. They can be pretty daunting if you've never encountered them before, so let's go step by step (we're not safe anywhere from Suzanne Somers):

Judges write opinions to explain how and why they came to a particular decision. It's essentially a story - a narrative - that walks the reader through what happened. Here is a recent court opinion from the U.S. District Court in Buffalo (the Western District of NY) that you can open in another window in order to follow along.

So let's say Donald Trump for some reason starts publicly picking on me instead of Rosie O'Donnell, and I sue Trump for being a boorish, insensitive loudmouth, but mostly for libel. When I file my complaint with the court (for which the court will charge a fee), my case will have what's called a caption:

Bishop v. Trump

I'm the plaintiff; Trump is the defendant.

It gets a little confusing when more than one person, or a company, is a party to the suit. One important distinction here: in a criminal case, it is the United States, or the state in which the charges are filed, that "sues" on behalf of the public. So if the federal government decided to files a suit or criminal charges against me, it would look like this:

U.S. v. Bishop

If the case was filed in state court:

State of Pennsylvania v. Bishop

Let's move on: next, you look for the case citation. For older cases, the caption tells you where you can find the opinion - in which law book. So for example:

Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Here, by reading the citation, you know that you can find Tinker (which we'll discuss in the coming weeks), in volume 393 of a series of volumes called United States Reports. The opinion begins on page 503, and was issued by the Supreme Court in 1969.

But most of the cases we'll be working on will be of more recent vintage. The case citation still reflects, though, when it was filed. Often, the first two numbers of a case will reflect the year in which it was filed, as in 06-1001. Once the case is filed, a docket sheet is attached; this is a record of all filings, motions, and rulings in the case. A practical note: some court clerks are quite willing to give you access to the docket sheets in a case, others...not so much. With more courts putting more material online, this isn't as much of an issue, but tread carefully and politely.

Next, we check out who wrote the opinion. The last name of the judge who wrote the opinion typically appears immediately before the start of the opinion, as in "Bishop, J." The "J" stands for "judge" or "justice."

An opinion breaks down this way:

First, the judge will explain the facts of the case. Or, in short, what happened that brought the parties to court. No rules govern what's included - these sections are typically brief, but complex or novel cases sometimes mean longer facts sections. The judge will highlight what he or she believes are significant aspects of the case. Note: all of what is described in this section typically occurred before the suit was filed.

But if there is a past legal history, it will be summarized here, too - the motions, filings, proceedings, trials that we all see on Law and Order each week.

Take note of the terms. We've talked about plaintiff and defendant, but you'll also run into appellants (someone who asks a higher court to review a lower court ruling) and appellees (the party whose victory at the lower court may be reviewed), as well as petitioners (someone who is asking the higher court to overturn the ruling) and respondents (the party who responds to the petition). Don't worry - we'll talk about all of this in class, too.

Next is a discussion of the law in the case, usually in two subsections. First, he or she will outline the general legal principles at issue in the case. Then, the judge will apply the law to the facts of the case you're reading about.

A couple of things to pay attention to: what's the source of the law being applied? The Constitution? Common law? State or federal law? Second, check out how the judge reaches his or her ruling - what's the method he or she uses? Sometimes, they'll rule on the basis of "public policy" - ruling in a particular way will have better results for the rest of us than another approach. Some will cite broader notions of morality, fairness, but rarely "because I said so."

The judge may also note that ruling in a certain way is directed by past rulings, or precedent. Judges are often very reluctant to overturn longstanding precedent, believing strongly as they often do in the doctrine of stare decisis, which in Latin means "that which has already been decided should remain settled."

Finally, you'll get the decision, or disposition in the case. This is the action the judge has decided to take. They can dismiss a case, or rule that the plaintiff's were right. They can grant or dismiss motions. In appeals court cases, judges can reverse or affirm a lower court's ruling. They can remand it, or send it back to the lower court for another pass, often with additional instructions. For lower court judges, remands, reverals, and having one of your rulings vacated are not good things (Martha Stewart is on in the background).

Hope this is helpful. Poke around the different court sites and explore some opinions. See you Tuesday.