Privacy ruling forces lawyers to handle DMV data with care 
By:
Pat Murphy
Published: June 19, 2013
Tags: client solicitation, consumer protection, Driver's Privacy Protection Act, U.S. Supreme Court
Four of South Carolina’s most prominent trial lawyers are facing potential liability for millions of dollars in damages in the wake of Monday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to broaden the protections afforded personal information compiled by state departments of motor vehicles.
DRIVER’S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
Published: June 17, 2013
Tags: attorneys, client solicitation, consumer protection, Driver's Privacy Protection Act, U.S. Supreme Court
The litigation exception to the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act does not allow attorneys to obtain the personal information of drivers for the “predominant purpose” of soliciting new clients.
See “Attorneys can’t get driver information to solicit clients, justices rule”
U.S. Supreme Court. Maracich v. Spears, No. 12-25. June 17, 2013. Lawyers USA No. 993-3480.
FEDERAL PREEMPTION
Published: June 17, 2013
Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement, as applied to Federal Form voter registration applicants, is pre-empted by the federal National Voter Registration Act.
See “Court nixes Ariz. proof of citizenship law.”
U.S. Supreme Court. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz. Inc., No. 12-71. June 17, 2013. Lawyers USA No. 993-3482.
‘MIRANDA’ WARNING
Published: June 17, 2013
The Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is not self-executing; it must be expressly invoked by a witness during pre-arrest questioning by police.
See “Court: Silence not enough to invoke ‘Miranda’ right.”
U.S. Supreme Court. Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246. June 17, 2013. Lawyers USA No. 993-3483.
Guilty plea can stand despite judge’s violation of rules
By:
Sylvia Hsieh
Published: June 13, 2013
Tags: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Even though a judge blatantly violated rules of criminal procedure by advising a defendant that his best option was to “come to the cross” and plead guilty, the defendant cannot automatically vacate his guilty plea unless he shows that he was prejudiced by the plea, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision.
WATER RIGHTS
Published: June 13, 2013
The Red River Compact does not preempt Oklahoma water statutes.
See “Court backs Okla. in Texas water rights dispute.”
U.S. Supreme Court. Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, No. 11-889. June 13, 2013. Lawyers USA No. 993-3475.
PATENT LAW
Published: June 13, 2013
Isolated human gene components are not patentable, but synthetically created genetic material may be patented.
See “Supreme Court nixes human gene patents.”
U.S. Supreme Court. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398. June 13, 2013. Lawyers USA No. 993-3474.
FEDERAL PREEMPTION
Published: June 13, 2013
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act expressly preempts the terms of a concession agreement between a city’s port authority and drayage companies.
U.S. Supreme Court. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Los Angeles, No. 11-798. June 13, 2013. Lawyers USA No. 993-3473.
EX POST FACTO
Published: June 10, 2013
Tags: ex post facto, sentencing guidelines
Sentencing a criminal defendant under later guidelines that provide for a higher sentence than those in effect at the time the crimes were committed violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
See “Harsher sentencing guidelines violate Ex Post Facto Clause”
U.S. Supreme Court. Peugh v. U.S., No. 12-62. June 10, 2013. Lawyers USA No. 993-3467.
Harsher sentencing guidelines violate Ex Post Facto Clause
By:
Sylvia Hsieh
Published: June 10, 2013
Tags: ex post facto, sentencing guidelines, Stephen B. Kinnaird
Sentencing a criminal defendant under later guidelines that provide for a higher sentence than those in effect at the time the crimes were committed violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision.
