As you probably know by now the 4,200 passenger ship the Costa Concordia crashed off the coast of Italy last week.  The company has sited human error and violations of the company’s safety guidelines as the cause of the accident.  So far blame for the entire accident has fallen on the shoulders of the Captain Francesco Schettino who has been accused of diverting from the normal route outlined by the safety protocols to sail closer to the shore, in what has been called the naval equivalent of a ‘buzz by’.

Shortly after the ship ran aground, Captin Schettino claims “he had left the ship accidentally after tripping and falling into a rescue craft.” BBC The Captain is now on house arrest for causing the crashing and abandoning the ship before the rescue was complete.

Although the Captain does not have a duty to “go down with the ship”, he is legally obligated to aide, assist and organize a rescue operation that is as through and complete as possible.  He is also obligated to attempt to account for every passenger.  NPR

In South Carolina, juveniles are prosecuted in Family Court.  Once a child reaches seventeen years of age, they are prosecuted as an adult.  Juvenile criminal cases can have serious consequences that can affect children for the rest of their lives.  If you or your child has been charged with a crime, please call The Galle Law Firm, LLC for a free consultation at (843) 747-6634.

Drones can be built with stealth technology, which allows them to fly virtually undetected.  The Central Intelligence Agency used stealth drones to fly into Pakistani airspace undetected to monitor the compound where Osama Bin Laden was hiding. theage

The Federal Aviation Administration is currently working on regulations that would allow the use of drones by both law enforcement and private companies in the United States. NPR Law enforcement officials believe that the use of drones could help considerably with apprehending suspects and helping to find victims in search and rescues operations. NPR  Drones are relatively inexpensive compared to the traditional search vehicle, the police helicopter; making them more financially advantageous for law enforcement.

With the police able to follow suspects from the sky undetected, how will the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply?   You can’t think of drone surveillance without thinking of the recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Jones, in which the Court heard arguments on whether the police can place a GPS on your car without a warrant.  Would Jones apply? Would Police need a warrant to legally follow a citizen with a drone?

“Of course the use of drones by law enforcement or private companies raises serious privacy concerns outside of the Fourth Amendment.  Privacy advocate, Harley Geiger of the Center for Democracy and Technology says ‘drones are basically flying video cameras.’

‘Drones can easily be equipped with facial recognition cameras, infrared cameras or open Wi-Fi sniffers,’ Geiger says. ‘So when people think about drones they shouldn’t just think that a telephoto lens is the only feature that can raise a privacy issue.’

Nor, says Geiger, is it only law enforcement that could be watching: ‘The paparazzi, your homeowners’ association, your neighbor, a journalist can all sic drones on you as well.’” NPR

How do you feel about drones flying over the United States?

Many people believe that this will enable the ‘truth’ to come out in interactions with the police.  But these days the police are not the only ones videotaping police/civilian interactions.  With the advent of smart phones, more and more people are videotaping arrests, crimes and sometime police misconduct on their phones.

Civilian videos of police present a series of first amendment and privacy issues.  It is illegal in several states to record conversations with police without their permission.  According to the NY Times, “Courts in several states are considering cases where citizens who videotaped the police have been charged with violating wiretapping or eavesdropping statutes, prosecution that civil rights lawyers say violates First Amendment rights.” NYT.  Outlawing the ability of citizens to record police encounters, thus only allowing police to record events means that the police control the evidence of the encounter.  This would not be a problem if video were objective.  Video does not record the truth of an encounter; it records one perspective of the event therefore only telling one narrative.  I hope that the trend of states prosecuting citizens for recording police encounters becomes the minority position in the county.  Having as many different records or ‘perspectives’ of events between police and the public will only help to ensure that the full story is told.

If you have been charged with a crime, please call the Galle Law Firm, LLC at 843.747.6634.

Burglary, or the breaking into a person’s home is illegal in South Carolina.  Burglary in the first degree is a felony and is punishable by life imprisonment. (SC Code 16-11-311).  Don’t break into someone’s home to steal their hair, and if you do, call the Galle Law Firm, LLC.

Some time in June a fifty-year old man gathered together a group of his friends so that he could serenade his estranged girlfriend, and hopefully win her back.  Around 11pm, he stood outside of her balcony and sang her a Bob Dylan song while his friends provided musical accompaniment.  Unfortunately the man had conveniently forgotten that his former girlfriend had taken out a restraining order against him.  She called the police and he was subsequently arrested.  GAWKER

Stalking and harassment are serious crimes that are often the precursors to abuse.  Showing up at someone’s house or place of business unwanted is not a romantic gesture, it is a way to intimidate and control someone else’s behavior.  This behavior changes from threatening to illegal when it is in violation of a restraining order or an Order of Protection.  If you are the victim of stalking or harassment, call The Galle Law Firm at 843-747-6634, we can help you get the protection you need.

Anyone who has been involved in custody litigation knows that the effects on the child can be far-reaching and profound.  Unfortunately, these effects are often negative and dramatic. In order to limit the child’s suffering, the courts of South Carolina try to act for the ‘best interest of the child’. Despite this intention, the Courts have no control over bitter spouses that endeavor to hire a, “badass lawyer that is going to work this deal so I get everything I want and you get screwed”–a direct quote from my client’s former husband. Sure, the court can issue a restraining order preventing both parties from speaking to one another, but is that an ideal situation for the parents or the child? Surely parents that can speak civilly to one another without court intervention creates a more peaceable environment for the child that ultimately leads to healing. In custody disputes, perhaps it is best for each party to attempt to rise above their own anger and try to emulate the Courts’ intention to work for the “best interest of the child”. Because when one party actively tries to hurt the other, they end up hurting the child.

For those of you do not remember, I’ll summarize the facts.  Anna Nicole met oil tycoon and billionaire J. Howard Marshall while stripping at a club in Texas in 1991.  They began a two-year relationship in which Marshall lavished gifts upon her and asked her to marry him on several occasions.  Around this time Anna Nicole landed her Playboy contract which launched her into stardom and the professional modeling world.  Shortly thereafter, Marshall and Anna Nicole married; Anna Nicole was 26 years old while Marshall was 89.  Unsurprisingly, Marshall died one-year after their nuptials.

The death of Howard Marshall launched the protracted legal battle that has finally ended this week.  Anna Nicole sued Peirce Marshall, Marshall’s prime heir, in a Texas probate court alleging that he had conspired to keep from her the $300 million Howard Marshall had promised her.  She then filed for bankruptcy in California.  Not to be out done, Pierce filed a claim against her in the bankruptcy proceedings for defamation.  Anna Nicole counter-claimed for the $300million based on tortuous interference.  The California bankruptcy Court found in Anna Nicole’s favor on the counter-claim.  Marshall appealed the decision on the basis that the California court did not have the authority to adjudicate the counter-claim.

The Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Marshall.  The Court held that Anna Nicole’s tortuous interference claim was one that necessitated an Article III Court, and thus the Bankruptcy Court did not have the authority to make the final adjunction.

Well this is all well and good for the attorneys litigating these claims but what about the families involved? Is $300million dollars worth fifteen or more years of litigation?

“We remain dear and trusted friends and co-parents to our wonderful children Scarlett and Henry Lee. We feel so fortunate for the time we have shared and the time we will continue to spend both separately and together watching our children grow. In honor of that time shared, we are throwing a divorce party. An evening together in Nashville to re-affirm our friendship and celebrate the past and future with close friends and family.”

SOURCE

Not all divorces are cut out for a divorce party, but it seems like a noble and healing goal to work towards. Maybe the goal of divorce should be to mark a metamorphosis of the relationship not an ending. What do you think?