C|M|LAW Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich and C|M|LAW student Brendan Heil  published a Op-Ed piece in today’s Cleveland Plain Dealer.  Titled Keep DNA evidence private,  their article appears in a written pro/con debate in the Sunday opinion pages responding to the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Emerson.  According to Witmer-Rich and Heil, in Emerson, the Court held that ‘the Fourth Amendment does not protect an individual’s personal DNA profile.’  In the Court’s words, “[a] person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her DNA profile extracted from a lawfully obtained DNA sample.”  Witmer-Rich and Heil argue that the Court  unnecessarily eroded DNA privacy for Ohio citizens.  The Plain Dealer, upon receiving the piece, solicited a response from Jacob S. Sherkow (a fellow at the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford Law School), linked below.  Although the Plain Dealer will not be publishing responses, Witmer-Rich and Heil respond below to Sherkow’s piece.

To read Witmer-Rich and Heil’s article, please click here: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/12/keep_dna_evidence_private_jona.html

To read the other side of the debate, written by Jacob Sherkow (Stanford), please click here: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/12/dna_profiles_vs_sequences_jaco.html

In response to Sherkow, Witmer-Rich and Heil offer the following:

First:  Had the Ohio Supreme Court reasoned the way Sherkow did–clearly distinguishing between a limited “DNA profile” and broader types of DNA information, and making clear it was only the former that enjoyed no Fourth Amendment protection–it would have been more plausible and less alarming.  The decision used much broader logic than Sherkow does, and thus has potentially broader implications than his (more reasonable) opinion.  That’s partly why we called the opinion not only “startling” but “unnecessary,” i.e. the case could have been affirmed on much narrower grounds.

Second:  Sherkow’s argument is that we need not worry about the government using our DNA profile, which “only” identifies us and does not represent the entire DNA sequence.  This suggests that there should be no objection to the government requiring everyone in the country to submit a sample to a national DNA database, so long as only the profile is used and not the sequence.  If you find this troubling, you should find something troubling about Sherkow’s view.

C|M|LAW Professor Brian Ray posted an article on i.CONnectblog, a blog sponsored by the Journal of Constitutional Law and ConstitutionMaking.org.  This piece is the first installment of I•CONnect’s Article Review & Response Series.  In it, Professor Ray reviews David Landau’s article on “The Reality of Social Rights Enforcement.” Professor Landau then responds to Professor Ray’s review.

To read the post, click here:

http://www.iconnectblog.com/2012/10/article-review-response-david-landau-on-social-rights-enforcement/#comment-1025

On October 22, 2012, C|M|LAW Clinical Professor Emeritus Kermit Lind was quoted in the Detroit Free Press in an article by Eric D. Lawrence, Metro taxpayers foot bill as banks walk away from homes.  The article was about homeowners who walk away from their homes when they can no longer make mortgage payments.  This leaves cities with unpaid taxes, and potential nuisances that have to be dealt with at the expense of the taxpayers.

According to Lind, “local officials often face a tough challenge in notifying the mortgage servicer when a problem, such as a nuisance issue, arises.  He said taxing entities seeking unpaid taxes — such as county treasurers, or municipalities dealing with nuisance violations — have no choice legally but to contact those listed on property records. And the company on file is likely not the loan servicer, the company that might be designated to handle things such as tax payments.  A simple solution, Lind said, would be for banks to file an affidavit with the register of deeds that lists the name of the servicer.

“It’s up to them to do something about it,” Lind said of banks. “If the servicer isn’t doing their job, then the burden shouldn’t be on the taxpayer for that.””

.
To read the full article, see:
http://tablet.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/DetroitFreePress/SharedArticle.aspx?href=DFP%2F2012%2F10%2F22&id=Ar00114

C|M|LAW’s James A. Thomas Distringuished Professor of Law, Chris Sagers, was interviewed on a new internet TV channel, Huffington Live, concerning the Universal-EMI merger.  The segment, titled “Music Merger: Peril For Music Business?”, was hosted by Mike Sacks and included co-panelists Brian Buchanan, a singer/songwriter for the band Enter the Haggis, Casey Rae, Deputy Director of the Future of Music Coalition, and Georgetown University Adjunct Professor of Music & Technology, Melissa Webster, Music Journalist, and Paul Josephs, an independent musician, songwriter and producer. This is the same transaction he blogged about on Huffington Post.

To view the web-based TV program, click here:
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/504e6bcd02a76032d1000327

C|M|LAW Professor Candice Hoke appeared this morning on WCPN’s Sound of Ideas radio show.  The show focused on a proposal by the non-profit group Voters’ First to change the system by which Ohio allocates its state legislative and U.S. House districts. Currently, whichever party is in power is able to exert influence over the process and draw boundary lines to its own benefit.  Voters’ First hopes to alter the system to remove much of the politics, but critics argue that the proposal lacks a mechanism for accountability and asks judges to play an improper role.  The proposal would ask judges to select and vet redistricting-commission members.   The Ohio State Bar Association has expressed deep concerns,” that the setup would be a conflict of interest and undermine the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers.” 

The proposal would create an independent citizens commission that would always meet in public sessions to discuss redistricting.  The commission would include equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, who would serve for 10-year terms.  They would be charged to create districts that are compact and which minimize division of counties, towns, and and municipalities.

Ohio Republican lawmakers redrew the state’s Congressional boundaries last year. As a result, many districts now appear to favor Republicans at the ballot box.  The Voters First proposal will be on the ballot in November.  This radio show addressed whether the proposed system would be an improvement over the current one.  Other guests included: Professor Dan Tokaji, Ohio State University Law School, Chris Redfern, Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, and Rob Frost, Chair of the Cuyahoga County Republican Party.

To listen or watch, click here: http://www.ideastream.org/soi/entry/48410