Courtroom Weekly: School vouchers and lottery tickets

March 7, 2013

by: the State Court Staff

Courts tackle school vouchers, workers' compensation, speeding tickets and grocery stores

Courtroom Weekly The latest and greatest in court cases around the nation In this issue... Featured case News from California News from Florida News from Indiana News from Vermont

Featured case Colorado School Voucher Program Found Constitutional   Court: Colorado Court of Appeals The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the Douglas County program offering tuition assistance to private schools is not unconstitutional. The February 28, 2013 ruling overturned a lower court ruling which found the program, known as Choice Scholarship Program, in violation of the state's constitution. The Douglas County School District program offers up to 500 students in the county $4,575 for tuition assistance at any private school. Students are not barred from using the funds at religious schools. Because of this, the group Taxpayers for Public Education brought suit to have the program shut down, stating "it violated the constitutional separation of church and state." In the Court of Appeals opinion, the court averred that Taxpayers for Public Education "failed to prove they suffered any injury from the program and that the actions violated state statutes." The decision was not unanimous, though; Judge Steve Bernard dissented, voicing his belief that the Colorado state constitution banned the use of public funds to pay for religious education. He stated, "I think that the Choice Scholarship Program is a pipeline that violates this direct and clear constitutional command." The program lasted long enough for 200 students to receive funds for private education. Some see it as a victory for the school voucher movement across the nation. The battle is not over yet, though; it is likely Taxpayers for Public Education and the ACLU, a party to the original lawsuit, will appeal the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court.

News from California Los Angeles grocery bag fee not a tax, rules California court   Court: California Second District Court of Appeal A 2011 Los Angeles ban on plastic bags and a fee for paper bags will stay in place for grocery stores in the Los Angeles area. The California Second District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the plastic bag ban and paper bag fee last month, saying that the 10-cent fee cannot be considered a tax because it is retained by the store and not collected by the government. The ruling went against the plastic bag manufacturer Hilex Poly Co. LLC, who argued that the ban and fee amounted to a tax on the people of Los Angeles County. “ We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling. We continue to believe that the 10-cent bag 'charge' is a violation of Proposition 26, which mandates that 'any levy, charge or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government' must be approved by local voters. We intend to seek Supreme Court review. - Attorney James Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP ” Hilex plans to appeal the ruling to the California Supreme Court.

News from Florida Florida court strikes critical component of workers' compensation law   Court: Florida First District Court of Appeal Last week, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that a workers' compensation reform that was instituted in 1994 is unconstitutional. In the case of Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, the court found that the 104 week limit on Temporary Total Disability benefits conflicted with Article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution, which states that, "The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." The case involved Bradley Westphal, a firefighter and paramedic who was injured on the job and who's disability would prevent him from working for longer than the 2-year limit for which he could receive compensation. The court increased the length of time that one could receive workers' compensation to 260 weeks, or 5 years, which is what it was set at prior to 1994. Now, it is up to the Legislature to change the law. Associated Industries of Florida, a business group, stated in a press release, “ This case could have significant rate and claims impacts for many employers and carriers across the state. ”

News from Indiana $9.5 million lottery payout at center of lawsuit   Court: Indiana Superior Courts Marion County superior court judge Heather Welch has frozen the payout on a $9.5 million Indiana Lottery ticket as a result of a pending lawsuit. Christina Shaw, a hair stylist at Lou's Creative Styles in Indianapolis, had possession of the winning lottery ticket, claimed it was her own, and attempted to collect the winnings. However, seven other stylists at the salon have brought a lawsuit alleging that the ticket was one of many bought in a company pool. Shaw has conceded that she did buy tickets for the group pool at the same time and location as her winning ticket, but that she also bought tickets specifically for herself, of which the winning ticket was one. While the lawsuit is pending, no payout will be made.

News from Vermont Vermont Supreme Court finds trooper's visual estimate of speed enough to justify a traffic stop   Court: Vermont Supreme Court On March 1, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that radar and laser devices are not needed to pull over a driver suspected of speeding, because a police officer's visual estimate of a car's speed is enough to justify a traffic stop. In reaching this conclusion, the high court considered the cases of Heidi Tatham and Todd Dunham. In September 2011, Heidi Tatham drove past a Vermont State Trooper who could not get a radar reading on her vehicle because he was positioned perpendicular to Tatham's direction of travel. He guessed that she was driving 45 mph in a 25 mph zone, and pulled her over; she was arrested for driving under the influence. Later that year, Todd Dunham drove past a Vermont State Trooper who was sitting in a parking lot. The trooper did not have enough space to use radar, but watched Dunham over his shoulder as he drove away and guessed that Dunham was driving 45 mph in a 30 mph zone. Dunham was pulled over and found to be driving under the influence. Tatham and Dunham both moved to suppress the evidence against them, arguing that the troopers had no probable cause to pull them over based on a mere guess that they might be speeding. The troopers testified that at the academy, they were required to learn to estimate the speed of a vehicle within 5 mph. According to the majority opinion, written by Justice Marilyn Skoglund, officers must... “ "articulate facts, which, in light of [their] experience and personal knowledge, together with reasonable inferences drawn from those facts, would warrant a temporary intrusion on the freedom of the person detained." ” In other words, it is not enough for an officer to make "a mere conclusory statement as to a violation." According to the court, an officer's visual estimation of speed meets the standard of an "articulable fact," and is therefore sufficient to provide probable cause for a traffic stop. Legal experts speculate that the high court's decision could allow for an expanded definition of probable cause, which police could use to target drunk driving.

See also

• Courtroom Weekly