State and Local Government Law Commons^™

Women On State Boards And Commissions: Is Idaho Where It Wants To Be?, Brenda Bauges

Articles

No abstract provided.

Recent Development: Sieglein V. Schmidt: Pursuant To § 1-206(B) Of The Estates And Trusts Article, Artificial Insemination Encompasses In Vitro Fertilization Using Donated Sperm; A Court May Use The Goldberger Factors To Determine Voluntary Impoverishment; A Trial Court Can Issue A Permanent Injunction For Harassment Based On § 1-203(A) Of The Family Law Article., Virginia J. Yeoman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the term “artificial insemination” includes in vitro fertilization using donated sperm, and that a consenting husband is presumed to be the father of the child born as a result of the procedure. Sieglein v. Schmidt, 447 Md. 647, 652, 136 A.3d 751, 754 (2016). The court also held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding the husband to be voluntarily impoverished or in issuing a permanent injunction based on harassment. Id.

Regulation Of Fracking Is Not A Taking Of Private Property, Kevin Lynch

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

As the use of fracking has spread during the recent oil and gas boom, inevitable conflicts have arisen between industry and its neighbors, particularly as fracking has moved into densely populated urban and suburban areas. Concerned over the impacts of fracking – such as risks to health and safely, diminished property values, air and water pollution, as well as noise, traffic, and other annoyances – many people have demanded a government response.

Government regulation of fracking has struggled to catch up, although in recent years many state and local governments have taken steps to reduce the impacts of fracking in …

Recent Development: Varriale V. State: The State May Store And Use A Voluntarily Provided Dna Sample And Resultant Profile For Any Future Criminal Investigations, Unless The Suspect Provides An Express Limitation, C. Harris Schlecker

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that when a suspect does not expressly limit consent to DNA testing, the Fourth Amendment does not prevent the State from storing and using his voluntarily provided DNA in later, unrelated criminal investigations.

Recent Development: Seal V. State: Pursuant To § 10-402(C)(2)'S Exception To The Wiretap Ban, An Individual Is Not Under The Supervision Of An Investigative Or Law Enforcement Officer When Intercepting An Oral Communication, Absent Restrictions On Equipment Use And Some Subsequent Contact., Ashley N. Simmons

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a detective providing recording equipment to an individual, absent any limitations for use and no interaction thereafter, did not amount to the individual acting under supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer. Seal v. State, 447 Md. 64, 80, 133 A.3d 1162, 1172 (2016). The court found that guidelines must be given to the person conducting the wiretapping, as well as at least some contact to monitor the progress. Id. at 79-81, 133 A.3d at 1172.

The Sweeney Legacy: A Tribute To The District Court Of Maryland's First Chief Judge, John P. Morrissey, Lauren Kitzmiller

University of Baltimore Law Forum

Many changes have been made during my first eighteen months as the Chief Judge of the District Court of Maryland. For example, we have added a brand new program to provide all indigent defendants with representation at initial appearances before Commissioners. We have also converted the judiciary from paper filing to an electronic filing and case management system and moved the location of the district court headquarters.

All of these endeavors have been challenging, but something special came when packing up the old office and moving next door. In the accumulation of folders, documents, and other miscellaneous office supplies, I …

The Regression Of "Good Faith" In Maryland Commercial Law, Lisa D. Sparks

University of Baltimore Law Forum

“Good faith,” in the affirmative or as the absence of bad faith, has always been a challenge to define and judge as a matter of conduct, motive, or both. Different tests apply a subjective standard, an objective standard, or even a combination of the two. Some parties may be held to different expectations than others. This determination of good faith has always been fact-driven and somewhat transcendental. Until recently, however, the question invoked a construct of fairness, resting on a two-pronged metric, at least insofar as several key titles of the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code were concerned. Since June 1, …

University Of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 47 No. 1 (Fall 2016) Front Matter

University of Baltimore Law Forum

No abstract provided.

Recent Development: Assategue Coastal Trust, Inc. V. Schwalbach: An Applicant Must Satisfy The "Unwarranted Hardship" Standard To Be Granted A Variance; The Variance Must Have No Adverse Impact On The Environment And Conform To The Purpose Of The Critical Area Program, Michael Louis Brown

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Worchester County Board properly applied the “unwarranted hardship” standard and correctly granted a variance under local critical area law. Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Schwalbach, 448 Md. 112, 140, 136 A.3d 866, 882 (2016). The court held that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the environment and the development was in conformity with the Critical Area Program’s purpose and intent. Schwalbach, 448 Md. at 143-44, 136 A.3d at 883.

University Of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 46 No. 2 (Spring 2016) Front Matter

University of Baltimore Law Forum

No abstract provided.

Recent Development: Counts V. State: Absent The Defendant's Consent, The State May Not Amend The Charging Document If The Amendment Changes The Character Of The Offense, Kristin E. Shields

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that amending a charge from theft of property “with a value of less than $1,000” to theft of property “with a value of at least $1,000 but less than $10,000” without the defendant’s consent changed the character of the offense. Counts v. State, 444 Md. 52, 55, 118 A.3d 894, 895 (2015). Therefore, the court held that such action was prejudicial per se because it interfered with the defendant’s right to defend himself by not giving notice of the exact charges against him, thereby violating Maryland Rule 4-204.

Recent Development: State V. Waine: A Court May Reopen A Closed Post Conviction Proceeding To Address A Challenge To An Advisory Only Jury Instruction, Ashley N. Nelson-Raut

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that advisory only jury instructions are not harmless error and the Unger v. State precedent should be applied retroactively. State v. Waine, 444 Md. 692, 122 A.3d 294 (2015). In addition, the court held that a defendant’s motion to reopen his or her post-conviction case after the Unger decision met the “interests of justice” standard required for reconsideration of the constitutionality of the defendant’s conviction.

Comment: Maryland State Bank: The Responsible Solution For Fostering The Growth Of Maryland's Medical Cannabis Program, David Bronfein

University of Baltimore Law Forum

In 2013, Maryland passed its initial medical cannabis law.1 Although seemingly a success in the medical cannabis reform movement, the law only allowed for “academic medical centers” to participate in the program.2 In essence, an academic medical center could dispense medical cannabis to patients who met the criteria for participation in their research program.3 The success of this type of program structure was a concern for medical cannabis advocates,4 and the concerns were validated when no academic medical centers decided to participate.5 As a result of this lackluster program, the General Assembly responded by passing a bill6 during the 2014 …

Recent Development: Williams V. State: A Confession Is Voluntary Unless The Defendant Unambiguously Invokes His Constitutional Right To Remain Silent Or The Confession Is Obtained Through Coercion Or Inducement, Pascale Cadelien

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know,” is an ambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent. Williams v. State, 445 Md. 452, 455, 128 A.3d 30, 32 (2015). The court reasoned that the defendant’s addition of “I don’t know” to his initial assertion “I don’t want to say nothing” created uncertainty about whether he intended to invoke his right to remain silent. Id. at 477, A.3d at 44. This allowed a reasonable officer to interpret his statement as an “ambiguous request to remain silent.” Id. Furthermore, the officers’ implication …

How An Acoustic Sensor Can Catch A Gunman, 32 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 211 (2016), Amanda Busljeta

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

Conversations said in public do not have an expectation of privacy, and therefore, the ShotSpotter does not violate the right to privacy. This comment will address the following: a) ShotSpotter technology is a necessity in all neighborhoods; b) ShotSpotter does not violate an individual’s expectation of privacy; c) the need for ShotSpotter outweighs the cost of the device; and e) regulations and economic solutions will allow cities to use ShotSpotter while still protecting the individual’s privacy rights.

Comment: De Facto Parents In Maryland: When Will The Law Recognize Their Rights?, Michelle E. Kelly

University of Baltimore Law Forum

Rachel and Allison were in a committed same-sex relationship beginning in 1990. Although they never legally married, the couple decided to manifest their love by having a child in 2001. Rachel and Allison both agreed that Rachel would carry the child by way of an anonymous sperm donor. Their child, Kevin, was born on September 3, 2002. Allison was present in the delivery room and even cut the umbilical cord. From the time Kevin was born until the summer of 2009 when Rachel and Allison ended their relationship, the couple equally raised and cared for Kevin, sharing all major and …

Recent Development: Preston V. State: Reasonable Protective Housing Provided To A State's Witness Is Not A "Benefit" Within The Meaning Of Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 3:13, Andrew Middleman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a “benefit,” as used in Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 3:13, is “something akin to” a direct, quid pro quo exchange for a State’s witness’s testimony. Preston v. State, 444 Md. 67, 85, 118 A.3d 902, 913 (2015). The court of appeals further held that reasonable protective housing provided to a State’s witness, by itself, is not a “benefit.” Id. at 85, 104, 118 A.3d at 913, 924. The court also concluded that moving a State’s witness into protective housing, at State expense, was “not unreasonable.” Id. Accordingly, the court affirmed the …

Recent Development: Scarfield V. Muntjan: A Jury Demand In An Amended Complaint, Which Is Dismissed For Failure To State A Claim, Does Not Revive A Previously Waived Jury Demand For Counts In The Original Complaint, Thomas Andrew Barnes

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that, while a waived jury trial may be revived by an amended complaint in which new and substantive issues are raised, the dismissal of a new count raised in an amended complaint will not revive the originally waived demand for jury trial.

Baltimore Law Clubs: A Tradition Promoting The Integrity Of The Bar Through Scholarship And Congeniality, Stuart R. Berger, Bryant S. Green

University of Baltimore Law Forum

Since before the civil war, lawyers and judges in Baltimore have had a tendency to organize informal, intimate, and exclusive clubs for the purpose of promoting congeniality and scholarship.1 Although this Anglo-American tradition traces back to as early as the sixteenth century,2 the institution of law clubs in the United States appears to have been a unique, local phenomenon until the 1960s and 1970s.3 Today, this tradition continues in Baltimore City, which currently plays host to no fewer than eight individual law clubs, with many more existing throughout the state. These law clubs offer their members the opportunity to pursue …

Recent Development: Jackson V. State: Successive Post-Conviction Petitions Are Not Barred By The Doctrine Of Res Judicata Or Maryland Rule 4-704; A Petition For Dna Testing Will Be Denied If The Evidentiary Threshold For A Wrongful Conviction Claim Is Not Met., Kayla M. Dinuccio

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the doctrine of res judicata and Maryland Rule 4-704 do not bar successive DNA petitions. Jackson v. State, 448 Md. 387, 406, 139 A.3d 976, 987 (2016). The court further held that denying Jackson’s petition for DNA testing without a hearing under Maryland Rule 4-709 was proper, because none of his assertions would have produced exculpatory evidence. Id. at 411, 139 A.3d at 990.

Whose Bright Idea Was This Anyway? The Origins Of Judicial Elections In Maryland, Yosef Kuperman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

This paper describes how Maryland switched from the life-tenured appointed judiciary under its original Constitution to an elected judiciary. It traces the history of judicial selection from the appointments after 1776 through the Ripper Bills of the early nineteenth century to the eventual adoption of judicial elections in 1850. It finds that the supporters of judicial elections had numerous complex motives that boiled down to trying to make the Judiciary less political but more publically accountable. At the end of the day, Marylanders trusted elections more than politicians.

Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …

Recent Development: Sibug V. State: When A Defendant Is Found Incompetent, A Retrial Does Not Renew His Responsibility To Raise The Issue Of Competency; A Judicial Determination Of Competency Is Required Upon Retrial, Allison Terry

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a defendant who was previously found incompetent must be given a new competency hearing at retrial. Sibug v. State, 445 Md. 265, 319, 126 A.3d 86, 116 (2015). In addition, the defendant does not have to raise the issue of competency anew.

On The Effects And History Of Stand-Your-Ground Laws, E. Dimitri Hasandras

Criminal Law Practitioner

No abstract provided.

Rejected For Exposure, Jessica Hanes, Seth Quidachay-Swan

Law Librarian Scholarship

A story published recently in the Detroit News about a Michigan man “asserting a constitutional right to take ‘ballot selfies’ by challenging the state’s long-standing ban on voting station and polling place photography” sparked our interest in whether generational social media preferences might be the driving force for citizens who seek to overturn such laws. After all, the plaintiff is among the earliest born into the Millennial generation, over half of which (55%) have shared a selfie on social media as of 2014, a practice that has become ubiquitous even in politics.

Recent Development: Toms V. Calvary Assembly Of God, Inc.: Noise Resulting From Legally Permissable Fireworks Does Not Constitute An Abnormally Dangerous Activity, And The Application Of Strict Liability Is Inappropriate., Jason C. Parkins

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that noise emitted from a lawful fireworks display did not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity; therefore, the parties were not subject to strict liability. Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God, Inc., 446 Md. 543, 569, 132 A.3d 866, 881 (2016).

Recent Development: A Guy Named Moe, Llc V. Chipotle Mexican Grill Of Colo., Llc: A Foreign Limited Liability Company Lacking Compliance With State Registration Requirements May Maintain Suit After Infirmity Is Cured; The Company Must Also Meet The "Person Aggrieved" Requirement Of Standing., Alicia M. Kuhns

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a foreign limited liability company, though unregistered at the time of filing, could resolve its lack of compliance and maintain its action for judicial review. A Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colo., LLC, 447 Md. 425, 447, 135 A.3d 492, 505 (2016). The court further held that one does not have standing as a “person aggrieved” based solely on the desire to eliminate business competition. Id. at 453, 135 A.3d at 508.

Why Delaware Courts Should Abolish The Schnell Doctrine, Mary Siegel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement Access To Data Across Borders: The Evolving Security And Rights Issues, Jennifer Daskal

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The Case For Lgbt Equality: Reviving The Political Process Doctrine And Repurposing The Dormant Commerce Clause, Terri R. Day, Danielle Weatherby

Brooklyn Law Review

As a reaction to the Supreme Court’s historic marriage equality decision earlier this summer, many Southern state legislators opposing the trend toward LGBT-protective laws have proposed legislation that would essentially prohibit municipalities from carving out new antidiscrimination protections for the LGBT community. Conservative Senator Bart Hester spearheaded the passing of one of these “anti” antidiscrimination laws in Arkansas, and states like Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, and Oklahoma are not far behind. These “Hester-type laws” are strikingly similar to the Colorado amendment struck down by the Romer v. Evans Court 20 years ago. Both the Colorado amendment and the new wave …