WA Legislators Get A Free Pass On Speeding Tickets During Legislative Sessions

from the as-do-our-reps-in-the-other-Washington dept

If you're speeding to make up time because you're late for work and get pulled over, chances are telling the officer, "I'm late for work," isn't going to get you much more than a condescending, "And now you're even later," along with a citation. "Late for work" still isn't an acceptable excuse for breaking the law. Unless you're a Washington State legislator.

If you're a Washington rep, all you have to do is explain you (theoretically) could be late for work and you're free to continue on your way to Olympia, ticket-free and ready to get to the twice-annual business of legislating the hell out of something.

Washington state legislators headed to work can't get speeding tickets -- or so says the Washington State Patrol and at least one local police department.

A spokesman for WSP says Washington lawmakers are constitutionally protected from receiving noncriminal traffic tickets during a legislative session, as well as 15 days before. A spokeswoman says The Tacoma Police Department abides by a similar policy.

State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins says the privilege not only applies to moving violations near the state Capitol in Olympia, but potentially anywhere in the state.

But why would you be late for work? The state legislature only meets twice a year (although each session can last as long as 5 months) and you've got 15 days to get there. I suppose the day-to-day grind of an extended session might result in a few snooze-button-heavy mornings of leadfooting it to the capitol building, but for the most part, legislators shouldn't really rub up against this constitutional protection too often.

Here's the section that gives legislators the right to put constitutionally-empowered pedals to the metal.

SECTION 16 PRIVILEGES FROM ARREST. Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.

It's not just speeding tickets legislators that can avoided, if this wording is accurate. There's all sorts of criminal acts that don't reach the "felony" level, all of which could conceivably be performed without consequence during legislative sessions (and 15 days prior). If viewed this way, speeding tickets (or lack thereof) are just scratching the surface.

Believe it or not, there's a pretty solid (if outdated) rationale behind this exemption.

Hugh Spitzer, a Seattle lawyer who teaches state constitutional law at the University of Washington, said although protecting legislators from traffic tickets seems “pretty weird,” there’s a historical reason for the constitution’s privilege from arrest provisions.

The Stewart kings in 17th-century England were known for arresting political opponents and keeping them from reaching Parliament to vote, Spitzer said. The authors of the Declaration of Independence had similar complaints about King George III interfering with their regular legislative meetings, he said.

“It’s very old and there’s a good reason in the first place, but sometimes those reasons go away,” said Spitzer, who co-wrote “The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide.”

The Washington Constitution wasn't ratified until 1889, so chances are that the threat of King George III disrupting legislative business had largely dissipated. But like many state constitutions, it draws heavily on the original, which includes this section:

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Even though the rationale behind this section no longers exists, the law remains on the books and can be construed by wily lawmakers as a free pass for speeding. And even though the threat of an interfering king is long gone, it's not hard to imagine a crooked politician abusing his or her power to have opponents detained by a "friends" in the law enforcement community. This may be just as uncommon as the threat it was originally written to address, but it doesn't hurt to have some sort of protection built in to ensure legislators are free to go about the business of legislating unhassled by The Man.

On the other hand, the outdated rationale does lend itself to abuse. The fact that the legislature only meets twice a year will greatly limit the abuse and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Washington politicians are routinely exceeding the posted speed limits. Certainly this is a better solution than issuing legislators special license plates that are essentially "ticket-proof" 365 days a year, as they don't exist in the DMV database. (Although if you're interested in special plates, Washington will issue you a "square dancer license plate" for an additional fee. [Picture here.]) But still, it's always a little disheartening to hear that lawmakers are immune from the same laws they've crafted, even if only on a part-time basis.

Filed Under: politicians, speeding, washington

TV Broadcasters Sue Alki David's TV Streaming Service Once Again, To Establish More Bad Precedents

from the ugh dept

For many years we've pointed out that the self-promoting Alki David seems to get engaged in a variety of ridiculous lawsuits partly as a publicity stunt to build up his own brand. Nearly everything he does seems to be focused on the publicity value of it -- such as renaming his online TV streaming service from FilmOn, as it was known, to AereoKiller and BarryDriller to mock Barry Diller's Aereo. And, unfortunately, in this case those stupid publicity stunts may lead to some really bad case law. As many people know, despite David claiming that his service (whatever name you want to call it) was no different than Aereo, it is different. Aereo carefully followed various court rulings that indicated how to set up such a service that doesn't infringe -- and so far it's won the lawsuits filed against it by the TV networks.

"AereoKiller," on the other hand, has been losing badly, such that the service is currently barred in most of the western US. Now the networks figure they might as well go in for the kill and have sued David's AereoKiller yet again, this time in the DC Circuit, to try to get a similar ruling on the east coast. The networks could have sued Aereo itself -- as they've been threatening -- but it seems clear they realize that the case against David is much stronger (perhaps, in part, because David himself seems like a goofball who doesn't take any of this seriously, but also because of the company's own actions).

But, of course, bad cases make bad law, and the AereoKiller case is a bad case. There are a bunch of issues related to the whole thing, and it seems quite likely David will lose -- but that precedent will now be available to be used against Aereo itself (and a variety of other innovative services). The end result could be a disaster, and the TV broadcasters know it, because that's exactly what they want.

Filed Under: alki david, broadcasters, copyright, dc circuit, transmission rights, washington
Companies: aereo, aereokiller, allbritton, disney, filmon, fox, nbc universal, telemundo

Washington State Allows Third Parties To Brand Youthful Offenders For Life At The Low, Low Price Of Only 69¢ A Record

from the the-scarlet-letter-meets-columbia-house dept

Being charged with a crime as a juvenile isn't supposed to haunt you for the rest of your life. In most cases, juvenile offenders can have their records sealed once they hit adulthood (18-21, depending on state law). There are some exceptions, varying from state to state -- certain felonies and most sex offenses are not allowed to be sealed.

Unfortunately for juvenile offenders in the state of Washington, these criminal records can haunt them well into adulthood, thanks to the state's willingness to trade kids' futures for cash.

While it's true that records can be sealed or expunged when someone turns 18, it's often too late in Washington.

Companies have contractual agreements with the state to be able to gather felony records in a mass download. Those companies then make the information available on the Internet. Landlords, employers and educational institutions can do a simple search and find the information.

Offenses committed by juveniles are being given a chance to live on well past their supposed expiration date. In these states, a youthful offender now has a chance to be punished for his or her mistake for years to come. And this "opportunity" to become a lifelong offender has a bargain basement price tag.

"About 27,500 records a year are sold and we only make $19,000 as a state in revenue off of it, so we're talking about 69 cents per name for a kid's future," [Barry Stober, executive assistant of the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs] says.

It's tough to turn your life around when employers running background checks are greeted with offenses that should have been sealed or expunged years ago. Stober relates the story of a teen arrested for joyriding who acquired his GED while spending two years in detention only to find himself turned down for financial aid and unable to get a job (despite earning a degree) thanks to being permanently marked a felon by background check companies.

Not only does this distribution hurt the former offenders, it hurts the state itself. As Scott Greenfield points out, treating juvenile records as sellable goods does long term damage to everyone involved.

When "checking out" a potential employee, tenant, student, the effort stops dead at the word "felon," if not at the fact that the person has a criminal record at all. There are too many young people looking for jobs, apartments, seats in college to spend too much time with the bad seeds. Nobody is going to make the effort to investigate the underlying offense, the circumstances, the person behind the crime. If there's a crime, there is another kid waiting behind him without a record.

This gives rise to a permanent underclass that will have constant problems getting an education, a job, a home, all for some dumb move made as a kid. Maybe even for something that should never have resulted in a conviction at all, but for lack of parental love and assistance, an assembly-line system and even judges looking to make their own buck off them. But once it's sold to some vulture business, it follows them forever. All for about 69¢ per child.

Washington is stacking the deck against its own future. Recidivism is always going to be an issue, but short-sighted moves like this make this behavior almost inevitable. A young adult who can't get a decent job or receive financial aid is going to look elsewhere for opportunity. If a life of crime seems to be the path of least resistance, the state has to take some of the blame for the outcome.

Stober's trying to fix this law and has started a Change.org petition aimed at stopping the sale and distribution of juvenile records. At the very least, Washington should limit what purchasers can do with the data, like Kentucky has done, limiting use to "evaluation, research or statistical activities" and requiring the purchasing entity to sign an agreement stating the information won't be abused. (Michigan can sell this data, although there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it has. There's currently nothing on the books prohibiting it from doing so. Juvenile arrest records are also available via a FOIA request.)

Better yet, Washington should just stop the selling of data altogether. It's one thing to make records available publicly on adult offenders. It's quite another to allow third parties to continue punishing former juvenile offenders for actions the state has effectively declared "never happened."

Filed Under: juvenile offenders, washington

Washington State Apparently Taxes Clubs For People Saying On Yelp That They Danced

from the tax-tax-revolution dept

Dancing, what could be more controversial? Whether it's arresting NYC subway travelers for doing the charleston, or body slamming anyone dancing silently at a memorial to freedom, there appears to be something our government dislikes about musically-induced gyrations. With that in mind, it's with a total lack of surprise that I report that the state of Washington is attempting to make up the tax revenue they forgave Microsoft by finding any clubs in Seattle that offer patrons an "opportunity to dance" and taxing the testicles off of them. It all began, apparently, when state lawmakers revised their software royalty tax because of Microsoft.

In April 2010, Washington State’s Legislature changed the definition of its software royalty tax and effectively granted amnesty to Microsoft, helping the company lock up $1.51 billion in savings from its thirteen-year Nevada tax dodge - and more than $100 million annually each year into the future.

Well, it wouldn't do for the state to simply have less tax revenue, so to make that amount up they decided to shake down Seattle clubs with a relatively ancient tax on "opportunities to dance" and demanding back taxes from tons of clubs. Just to throw out some numbers, we're talking about tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars owed per club. Moreover, this tax was actually never intended to be applied to night clubs, ballrooms, or bars. It was originally meant for clubs that partook in some ancient ritual called "jazzercise". Now it's being selectively reinterpreted to tax these clubs, even if their patrons don't dance at all.

It works like this: If the state believes that you give your patrons the opportunity to dance, then you pay the tax even when people don’t dance. That’s according to Mike Gowrylow, with the Department of Revenue. Gowrylow: “You could have somebody go into a nightclub, or a bar, or tavern, and they pay cover charges. Unless you followed every person around, you wouldn’t know if they actually danced or not, so the only simple way we could have of defining this is if you give them the opportunity to dance, then the tax applies.”

This has led to a sadly hysterical practice by club owners that involves strategically placing club furniture throughout their floors as a sort of obstacle course to prevent dancing. No, seriously, that is actually happening.

That said, while government could win championships in evil, they're not real big on doing actual work, so you'd imagine it would be quite difficult for Department of Revenue employees to go to different clubs and bars to see if the obstacle courses are obstacle-y enough to warrant no taxation. As it turns out, they don't even bother. Instead, they just troll the internet to see if anyone mentions any dancing at these places. Seriously.

Gowrylow says auditors search the Internet to find out whether people dance at specific clubs. One clubowner reports an auditor told him: “You have the opportunity to dance, and we verified it by 8 or 10 different references on Yelp.”

Think it can't get any stupider? Wrong. One club offers this.

“My auditor… came in with an obituary of a girl who committed suicide,” says another club owner. “When I argued that we aren’t primarily a dance club—we have ‘No Dancing’ signs up everywhere—she flashed this obit that said the girl liked to dance at [our club]. The auditor said, ‘I know this is ridiculous, but I have to do this.’”

Yay, bureaucracy. To pay these thousands-of-dollars fines, many of the clubs in Seattle are asking for donations, noting that, if something in the assessments doesn't change, their businesses may not survive. I know a decent-sized software company that should probably be donating right about now.

Filed Under: dancing, social media, taxes, washington

Proposed WA Bill Would Allow Employers To Request Facebook Passwords

from the no-more-private-life dept

The issue of employers reviewing and seeking to access the social media accounts of their applicants and employees is now several years old. To be honest, I'm more than a bit surprised the conversation persists, since it seems such an easy one to resolve, but I'll get to that in a bit. Still there are some companies who do ask for social media login info. While there's been some discussion about laws to forbid this practice, some in Washington state are trying to go in the other direction. Taking a bill that was constructed specifically to safeguard the passwords of applicants and employees, a proposed amendment would instead codify into law a company's right to request those passwords for the purposes of an "investigation." Via reader akp:

The amendment says that an employer conducting an investigation may require or demand access to a personal account if an employee or prospective employee has allegations of work-place misconduct or giving away an employer’s proprietary information. The amendment would require an investigation to ensure compliance with applicable laws or regulatory requirements.

Under the amendment, employees would be present when their social network profiles are searched and whatever information found is kept confidential, unless it is relevant to a criminal investigation.

One could easily be fooled into seeing this as reasonable compromise when it is in fact nothing of the sort. Let's be clear on what social media is and is not. A Facebook account can include aspects that are both public and private. The very nature of the site's privacy controls prove that to be the case. If I choose to share thoughts, messages, or anything else exclusively with my friends, which Facebook indeed allows me to do, what should it matter if those friends are sitting next to me on my couch or seated on their own couches reading my words on a website? It shouldn't, yet this amendment would open up those thoughts and communiques to corporate fishing expeditions. Worse, it would open up the responses of any of my comrades to those same investigations. Were I to use company equipment for any of this, that can and should be reviewed by my employer, but a line is crossed when a password is given. No longer is the company investigating what their employer has done on the company machine, they're investigating the account. That's completely different.

Moreover, the clamor over company secrets and financial information being disseminated via social media seems to me to be manufactured outrage. How many victims of this sort of thing have there been compared to the massive breaches in that same information occurring due to poorly insulated networks? I would think corporate America should want to get its own house in order before strolling through mine. That the bill includes broad language allowing for investigations over "work-related misconduct" makes it all the more worrisome, as the EFF rightly notes.

This amendment "says they have a right to enter your digital home," [Dave] Maass said. "It's astounding that they would try to codify this and that all employers could do this… the national trend is to move away from this. It's shocking that the amendment is going in the right opposite direction."

Part of that trend includes the CFAA, which potentially makes logging into other people's social media accounts, or giving out your password to anyone, a crime. Under those auspices, would every company that asked for the passwords in these investigations be party to criminal conduct? I would think those details would be ironed out in some way, but when you have to massage the bill to get around privacy of citizens, rather than protecting their privacy, you know you've got a bad bill.

Filed Under: employment, passwords, social media, washington

Washington State Stops Trying To Defend Unconstitutional Law Criminalizing Service Providers

from the moving-on dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about a ridiculous state law up in Washington that sought to place liability on service providers for the actions of their users, all in the name of "protecting the children!" The Internet Archive quickly sued to stop the implementation of the law, winning a quick injunction blocking the law from being put into place. The court made it pretty clear that the law appeared to violate Section 230 of the CDA, the federal law that grants service providers clear immunity from certain user actions.

While the case had continued to move forward, Washington has now decided to stop trying to defend the law, effectively letting it die. Of course, you might still wonder why it was passed in the first place, but of course, the answer to that is basic politics. Either way, some states like to fight these kinds of things through multiple levels of appeals, wasting taxpayer money all the way, so it's nice that Washington state seemed to know to stop digging early on in the process.

Filed Under: intermediary liability, secondary liability, washington
Companies: backpages, internet archive

Get Ready For The Political Fight Against Encryption

from the it's-coming dept

Among our many commenters here, we have one "regular" critic who presents himself as being actively involved in "policy circles" in Washington DC, and who was clearly active in the SOPA/PIPA efforts in trying to write those bills and get them passed. This individual provided enough information (along with plenty of insults in our direction) in the comments to make it clear that they were heavily involved -- if at a low level -- in those efforts. As the debate over this bills wore on and people kept pointing out how encryption would make them all moot in the long run, the commenter declared a few times his (or her?) next target: outlawing encryption. This is, of course, laughable. But if someone who is actually connected to that world thinks that it's a viable idea, then you know that it's only a matter of time until someone actually makes a hamfisted attempt at doing something like trying to outlaw VPNs. That this would go against the very same governments' efforts on "internet freedom" is generally ignored. Cognitive dissonance is strong with this crowd.

That said, with countries like the UK proposing legislation to snoop on all communications -- including encrypted ones -- the folks over at TorrentFreak are right to be wondering how long it will be until someone tries to ban VPNs. Some more authoritarian countries have tried to effectively do so already (without much luck), but as our anonymous commenter suggested above, this idea is at least being considered by plenty of so-called democracies as well.

Thankfully, there would be plenty of powerful forces to fight back against any such attempt. Beyond regular internet users speaking out (ala the SOPA/ACTA protests), you'd also have plenty of companies who rely on encryption and VPNs for their efforts to keep people and data safe. Considering Congress is already suggesting that it should get involved in forcing companies to better protect data, it would be ironic (though, not surprising) to then find them also trying to outlaw encryption/VPNs, not realizing that the two things are diametrically opposed to one another.

In the end, I don't see how a war against encryption or VPNs could actually succeed, but it won't mean that efforts in that direction won't be a painful annoyance when they come around. Either way, people should at least be paying attention to these discussions, and trying to educate politicians that encryption and VPNs are necessary parts of a secure internet.

Filed Under: acta, encryption, pipa, sopa, uk, vpn, washington

Judge Says Parts Of Washington's Publicity Rights Law Are Unconstitutional

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

Well, here's a pleasant surprise. We've been talking a lot about the rise of publicity rights as a relatively "new" form of intellectual property, driven by a collection of confusing state laws that create a poorly defined "right" for someone to block the use of their likeness (and, in some cases, their appearance, voice, mannerisms, gestures and more...). This has given rise to a new group of what can best be called "publicity rights trolls," looking for ways to exploit these laws for cash. There are some cases making their way through the courts that question whether or not publicity rights violate the First Amendment, but in a surprise ruling up in Washington, a federal judge has ruled that the state's publicity rights law is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the ruling isn't on the larger First Amendment issues, but on a separate issue. The case is complex, to say the least, involving a variety of claims between the heirs of Jimi Hendrix and a Washington-based company that sells Jim Hendrix-related merchandise. There are legitimate trademark claims in there, which resulted in a limited preliminary injunction, which Hendrix's heirs pretended said a lot more than it really said in convincing a retailer to stop purchasing the other firm's merchandise. That resulted in claims of defamation back. Then, Hendrix's heirs tried to avoid even mentioning Washington's publicity rights law, even though they seem to rely on it for part of their argument. And, oh yeah, part of the issue is that Washington's law got updated a few years ago, switching from one where publicity rights only apply to the living, to one where they pass on to heirs. As I said, the case is complex -- you can read all the details in the ruling embedded below.

Instead of the First Amendment issues, this case hinges on the question of whether or not the law can apply to celebrities who live (or lived at the time of their deaths) outside of the state. The Washington law says that it can apply to anyone, even if they didn't live in the state at the time of their death. The court notes that this creates some due process questions, such as by enabling the ability to "forum shop." Separately, this court finds this same issue violates the Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause by creating an effective "national" publicity rights law, well outside of Washington's borders.

In the end, the specific ruling is a bit down in the legal weeds (and likely will be appealed), but it's nice to see at least some pushback on publicity rights laws...

Filed Under: jimi hendrix, publicity rights, washington

Olympics Tries To Block Olympian Newspaper (From Olympia, Washington) From Trademarking Its Name

from the and-the-gold-medal-in-trademark-pushyness-goes-to... dept

It's no secret that the Olympics can be ridiculously over aggressive with trademark claims, often getting governments to pass special intellectual property rules to allow the Olympics special control over certain names or phrases well outside the contours of existing intellectual property law. The various Olympic committees insist they "need" this to protect their revenue stream, but we didn't realize that gov'ts had any responsibility in helping the Olympics make lots of money. The latest move is that the US Olympic Committee is protesting a trademark application for the name of The Olympian, a newspaper in Olympia, Washington (thanks to Erik for sending that in). It would appear that the Olympian has been operating since 1889. That would be seven years prior to the first modern "Olympics" in 1896.

While I am left wondering why the Olympian suddenly decided to try to register the trademark on its name now (leading to the attempt to block the trademark), it does seem pretty ridiculous that the Olympics could suddenly claim that there might be confusion between the two after over a century of the two "brands" living together peacefully.

Filed Under: olympia, olympian, olympics, trademark, washington

Why Is Washington Singling Out Newspapers For A Tax Break Instead Of Journalism?

from the these-things-make-no-sense dept

We've discussed in the past the rather annoying tendency of some bemoaning the trouble facing newspapers (due to bad business decisions, such as taking on too much debt) of confusing "newspapers" for "journalism." They all too often assume that newspapers are the only source of journalism, when that simply isn't true. Unfortunately, it appears that politicians are guilty of the same basic fallacy. With reports that Washington State has created a special tax break for newspapers, Danny Sullivan is asking why isn't the tax break for journalism? By singling out newspapers, the politicians are effectively punishing journalists who work for other forms of media who didn't screw up their business, and rewarding the newspaper owners and management who made so many bad decisions.

Filed Under: journalism, newspapers, tax break, washington