03/22/2012 - A state appeals court rules that an employer did not violate privacy when it tracked a worker with a GPS unit; and lawmakers consider bills on issues such as border security, criminal activity, and cybercrime.
02/29/2012 - Colorado post offices say more people are trying to mail marijuana out of state. Court rules that "test on arrest" policy doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment. A government agency has approved identity theft rules for publication. And more.
02/28/2012 - A bill (H.R. 822) that would require states to honor the concealed weapons permits of other states has been approved by the House of Representatives. The bill is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
01/30/2012 - A student who created a MySpace page to ridicule another student is not protected by the First Amendment. A federal appeals court ruled that the school’s discipline of the student was permissible because “the student used the Internet to orchestrate a targeted attack on a classmate.” Other courts have ruled that students’ social media postings are protected so long as they do not cause disruptions and are created off school property.
01/30/2012 - New York’s high court has ruled that The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is immune from liability for the 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) bombing. According to the court, the port authority was acting in a “governmental capacity” at the time of the bombing and, thus, has legal immunity.
12/20/2011 - A university did not violate a mortuary science student’s rights to free speech when it sanctioned her for writing that she wanted to “stab a certain someone in the throat” on her Facebook page. The court found that the student’s posts could be construed as serious threats and that the university had the right to address potentially threatening conduct.
12/20/2011 - A federal appeals court has ruled that police officers in two separate incidents engaged in unreasonable force when discharging their Tasers. However, because case law was not established at the time of the incidents, the officers are protected from liability.
12/20/2011 - An assistant manager’s refusal to return the calls of an employee out on medical leave is sufficient to support a case of retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In the case, an employee out on FMLA leave put in weekly calls to her assistant manager to provide an update. The manager never returned the calls and the employee was fired for not returning to work as agreed. The district court found that the failure to return calls indicated an “antagonistic attitude.”