Students’ right to privacy is limited in public schools, random searches of lockers/contents permissible under the 14th Amendment…

/in , , , , /by
Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

To the relief of parents and the chagrin of students, summer is over and a new school year has begun. That makes this an opportune time to convene another session of Professor Dave’s Shade Tree Legal Academy. During today’s lecture I will discuss whether the law allows public school teachers and administrators to search students and their property. It’s a fascinating topic that involves the Fourth Amendment, a landmark Supreme Court decision, and state statutes.

Class is about to begin so please no gum chewing, turn off your cell phones and handheld devices, and, as usual, there will not be quiz or test on this material because Professor Dave doesn’t have time to grade them.

Let’s begin our exploration of the topic with a look at the Fourth Amendment which states in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” For years various state and federal courts reached various conclusions regarding the applicability of the Amendment to public schools. The issue finally was resolved in 1985 when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in New Jersey v. T. L. O.

The case revolved around TLO, a 14-year-old New Jersey high school student who was caught smoking in a school bathroom by a teacher. The teacher escorted TLO to the school office where she was questioned by assistant vice principal Theodore Choplick. During the questioning, the student denied that she had been smoking and said she “did not smoke at  all.” At that point, Mr. Choplick demanded to see her purse, opened it and found a pack of cigarettes and rolling papers. He continued to search the purse and found a small amount of marijuana and a list of students to whom she had sold pot. The police were called and TLO was eventually found to be delinquent by a juvenile court judge and placed on probation for one year.

During the juvenile court proceeding TLO filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse because the search had violated the Fourth Amendment. The juvenile court judge denied the motion because Choplick “had reasonable cause to believe that smoking, a violation of school policy, had occurred” TLO’s appeal of the juvenile judge’s ruling was rejected by the New Jersey Superior Court. The New Jersey Supreme Court then ruled that Choplick’s search of TLO’s purse had violated the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure and reversed the decision. The state then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Byron “Whizzer” White, the Court ruled that students were protected by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately for TLO, the justices also held that in the interest of maintaining order and discipline, officials could search students in a public school environment without a warrant or meeting the probable cause standard that applies to adults as long as they had a “reasonable suspicion” to believe a rule or law had been violated. Because she had been caught smoking in the bathroom and taken directly to the office, the justices found it was reasonable to assume she had cigarettes in her purse which, in turn, gave the vice-principal reasonable cause to search the purse.

Voila, a new precedent—and the basis for laws and regulations that govern searches in public schools was born.

What does that mean for Ohio students? It means that under ORC 3313.20  a principal may search any pupil’s locker and its contents if they reasonably suspect that “…the locker or its contents contains evidence of a pupil’s violation of a criminal statute or of a school rule;”

In addition, the statute permits the random search of all lockers and contents at any time provided the school has posted signs in conspicuous places that notify students that all lockers are the property of the board of education. In this situation neither the Fourth Amendment nor the “reasonable suspicion” standard apply. Bottom line: if that notice is posted in your school don’t put anything in your locker you don’t want a teacher or principal to find.

The reasonable suspicion standard also applies to searches of desks, backpacks, and cars parked on school property. One exception: the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the standard does not apply to searches of unattended backpacks.

The standard does not apply when students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, i.e. items that are in plain view, school property such as computers, including laptops owned by the school that students are permitted to take home. Student activity on school internet networks and the browsing/download histories are also subject to search and review.

While the rules that apply to public schools may seem to invite invasion of students’ privacy, the rules that apply to private schools are even more draconian because, for all intents and purposes, privacy protections exist do not exist.

So there you have it class—understanding your rights, or lack thereof, will help you avoid trouble. And, oh, by the way, you don’t have to worry about Professor Dave searching your locker or electronic devices, I respect the Fourth Amendment and anyway, I just don’t have the time.

Atty. David Betras, family members call for independent investigation of Betty Jean Winston’s death while in custody at the Mercer County Jail, 36-year-old was found lifeless in her cell after being maced and tased by deputies

/in , , , /by

Citing serious concerns and numerous unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding Betty Jean Winston’s death while in custody at the Mercer County Jail, Attorney David Betras and members of Ms. Winston’s family today called on Mercer County District Attorney Peter Acker to allow an independent agency to investigate the tragic incident. Ms. Winston, who was 36 years old, was found dead in her cell on Wednesday, July 26 after being maced and tased by a Mercer County deputy.

“The Mercer County Sheriff’s Department should not be conducting the investigation into Ms. Winston’s death because they will in essence be investigating their own potential misconduct,” Atty. Betras said. To avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, my clients demand that District Attorney Acker immediately ask the Pennsylvania State Police to assume control of the inquiry. We believe that will ensure that the truth is uncovered and revealed to the family and the public”

Ms. Winston, who has a documented history of mental illness, was taken into custody on July 22, 2023 and charged with third degree misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct-Unreasonable Noise. Her bail was set at $15,000 which is more than seven times the maximum fine allowable for the offense under Pennsylvania law. She was unable to post bail and remained in jail. On July 26, deputies used a taser to subdue Ms. Winston and confined her to a cell and failed to provide her with any medical attention. She was discovered lifeless later that evening in the same location where deputies had left her earlier.

“We are disturbed by the fact that this African American woman died in and was spirited out of the Mercer County Jail in a manner that appears to have been designed to avoid media and public scrutiny,” Atty. Betras said. “This family and this community need and deserve answers from all involved and we will do whatever is necessary to obtain them.”

Text of the letter sent to Mercer County District Attorney Peter Acker:

RE:     The Estate of Betty Jean Winston, Deceased

            Date of Death: July 26, 2023

Dear Attorney Acker:

As you know, I represent the family members of Betty Jean Winston who tragically died while being held as a prisoner at the Mercer County Jail on the above date. Ms. Winston, a 36-year-old African American woman with documented history of mental illness, was taken into custody on July 22, 2023 on charges of third degree misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct-Unreasonable Noise, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5503(a)(2). Ms. Winston’s bond was set at $15,000 which is more than seven times the maximum fine allowable for the offense by Pennsylvania law.

While the facts have been limited, it has come to my attention that Ms. Winston was suffering from a schizophrenic episode throughout the time she was an inmate at the County Jail. On July 26, 2023, deputies used a taser to subdue Ms. Winston and confined her to a cell without any medical attention. Ms. Winston was discovered lifeless later that evening in the same locations where deputies left her.

It is my understanding that the Mercer County Sherriff’s Department is currently investigating the circumstances surrounding Ms. Winston’s death. This includes an inquiry into the Department’s own potential misconduct. To avoid any impropriety, my clients are demanding that the investigation be conducted by an independent agency such as the State Police. This act of transparency will allow Ms. Winston’s family to uncover the truth and ensure the public that the Mental Health Procedures Act of 1976 is being properly implemented at the Mercer County Jail.

I appreciate your prompt attention towards addressing my clients’ concerns.

Sincerely,

David. J. Betras, Esquire

A look back at SCOTUS’ 22-23 term, predictably conservative with a dash of surprise

/in , , , /by
Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

On Friday, June 30, the nine learned women and men who preside over the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued their final decisions for the 2022-2023 term, sent their black robes to the dry cleaners, and high-tailed it out of the nation’s capital—some, perhaps on private jets, a topic I’ll address in a future column.

That means it is time for me to hand down my annual review of the justices’ work over the past 12 months, beginning with just how much work they actually did. Each year 5,000 to 7,000 cases are filed with the Court, the vast majority arrive as appeals from the federal Appellate and District Courts and the highest court in each state. In an average year SCOTUS accepts 75 to 80 cases or approximately one percent. This year the justices took up 60 and decided 58. Given the Court’s conservative majority, people on the left of the political spectrum probably wish the number had been six, those on the right would be thrilled if 600 or more had made it onto the docket.

Although a number of the 58 decisions deal with significant issues that will effect millions of Americans for decades to come, none will have the seismic impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which reversed Roe v. Wade and gave each state the authority to regulate abortion within its borders.  The aftershocks of that ruling are still being felt across the country, including here in Ohio, where a citizen initiated constitutional amendment guaranteeing reproductive freedom and abortion access may appear on the General Election ballot later this year.

With all that as preface, let’s take a look at some of the most important and closely watched cases decided during the term:

Biden v. Nebraska. Americans owe more than $1.78 trillion in student loan debt which is more than any type of debt other than mortgages. During the 2020 presidential election Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of that debt per borrower. Wonder of wonders, after he won, he kept his promise and signed an executive order that wiped out $10,000 in student loans for borrowers with an annual income of less than $125,000. 

Officials in Nebraska, Missouri, and three other states were not amused. They sued, arguing that the Biden Administration did not have the statutory authority to implement the loan forgiveness program. A 6-3 majority of the Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts agreed and basically said everyone who owes has to pay up. As I write this the President, who noted that the government has forgiven $757 billion in loans to businesses made under the Paycheck Protection Program, is searching for a new way to deal with the problem.

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and v. University of North Carolina. In these two separate cases, Students for Fair Admissions argued that Harvard’s affirmative action admissions program violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian American applicants in favor of white applicants. The same plaintiffs argued that UNC’s program violates the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as a factor in admissions. The programs were upheld by the District and Appellate courts.

SCOTUS disagreed and in a 6-3 ruling overturned the lower courts and held that the use of race in college admissions is unconstitutional. In response, a number of colleges and universities are exploring utilizing class rather than race as a factor in making higher education more accessible to a wider segment of Americans.

Moore v. Harper and Allen v. Milligan These two cases which involve legislative redistricting and gerrymandering produced decisions that were surprising in light of the fact that the Court has in recent years handed down a number of decisions that eroded the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and approved partisan gerrymandering.

In Moore the Court rejected North Carolina lawmakers’ claim that the “independent state legislature” theory gave them the sole authority to draw whatever districts they wanted in any way they pleased. In a 6-3 opinion written by the Chief, the Court held that districts drawn by state authorities were subject to review by the federal courts. The ruling has special significance for Ohio that I will address next week.

In Allen, a 5-4 majority, again led by CJ Roberts, found that Alabama officials had violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by packing Black voters into a single district in a way that made it nearly impossible for Black voters to elect the candidates of their choice.

The two rulings provide a glimmer of hope that at some point before the end of the 21st Century our gerrymandering will be outlawed, and our electoral process will feature a modicum of fairness. OK, I’m not holding my breath, but I can dream can’t I?

Don’t let the clock run out: if you’ve been injured allowing the statute of limitations to expire could stop you from receiving the justice and just compensation you deserve

/in , , , , , , , , , /by
Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

Statutes of limitations (SOL), laws that establish the maximum amount of time that parties involved in civil or criminal matter have to initiate a legal action, have been with us since the days of the Greek Republic and the Roman empire, which means they have been vexing and frustrating attorneys and citizens for thousands of years. And believe me, there are very few things as frustrating as having to tell someone who has been injured or wronged in some way that I can’t help them because the SOL that applies to their situation has run out.

In the vast majority of cases, it is not the potential client’s fault—aside from those of us who practice law most people have no idea that SOLs even exist or what the time limits are. To address that dilemma and reduce the chance that one of my loyal readers will be denied justice because the jurisprudential clock has run out, this week’s column will serve as a primer on this ancient, complicated, and confusing area of the law.

One caveat—how’s that for throwing a little Latin lawyerly lingo into mix—because SOLs are complicated and critical to the pursuit and disposition of cases, the information I’m providing should not be construed as legal advice. If you have been injured or harmed in some way and believe you have a cause of action, please, please, please consult the attorney of your choice immediately. Waiting too long or failing to do so could result in the courthouse door being needlessly slammed in your face—you should not allow that to happen.

Now, onto the topic of the day. Let’s begin with a look at the SOL that applies to personal injury cases like vehicle accidents, dog bites, product liability, premises liability which in common parlance is referred to as “slip and fall” and harm caused by other types of negligence. Under Ohio law the injured party has two years from the date the incident occurred to file suit. In addition, if a loved one is killed as a result of another party’s negligence families have two years from the date of death to file a wrongful death claim.  

Here’s a tip: don’t wait 23 months and 29 days to seek legal advice. It’s far better to explore whether you have a valid claim than to let the clock run out.

You probably noticed that medical malpractice was not listed above. That’s because med mal claims must be filed within one year of the date the injury was or should have been discovered or when the doctor/patient relationship ended, whichever occurs later. This more flexible time frame exists because it may not be immediately apparent that an injury has occurred.

In the interest of fairness, I feel compelled to note that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice mirrors the med mal SOL. Clients have one year from the date they discover or should have discovered that malpractice occurred or when the attorney-client relationship ends, whichever is later.

There is, however, a complicating factor when it comes to malpractice: something known as a statute of repose which sets a virtually non-flexible time limit for bringing actions against practitioners in Ohio. That means claims against attorneys, doctors, dentists, optometrists, and chiropractors must be brought no later than four years after the alleged malpractice took place.

There are exceptions—of course there are…Anyway, if a client exercising reasonable care and diligence, could not have discovered the legal malpractice within three years after the occurrence of the act or omission, but discovers it before the expiration of the four-year period they have a year after the discovery to bring an action.

A similar exemption exists for med mal and there’s a bonus exception: the statute of repose does not apply to situations in which a foreign object is left in a patient’s body during a procedure. If a scalpel turns up in an x-ray ten years after you had surgery, you’re free to file suit.

Here’s the bottom line: SOLs and statutes of repose were created to protect defendants, particularly those who are rich and powerful. Are they fair to injury victims and other plaintiffs? Probably not, but they won’t be disappearing in our lifetime, if ever, so it’s up to every citizen to avail themselves of the civil justice system when the need arises. 

Democracy word cloud

DAVID BETRAS: August’s ballot decision asking to create a 60% supermajority goes against majority rule

/in , /by

In the 220 years that elapsed since Ohio became a state, the General Assembly has never scheduled a special election for the sole purpose of considering a legislatively initiated constitutional amendment. That streak is about to come to an end. As I write this week’s column, the state’s 88 county boards of election, are preparing to do exactly that. This extraordinary situation provides context for a Civics lesson that I hope will provide voters with the information they need to make an informed decision when—and if-they cast a ballot on August 8.

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

I say “if” because turnout for August specials is incredibly low. For example, only eight percent of the electorate participated in last year’s primaries for seats in the state house and senate. In fact, turnout has been so abysmal that the very same legislators who just scheduled the upcoming election actually voted to do away with them just a few months ago. I’ll have more to say about that in a bit.

For now, back to the Civics lesson. Let’s start with the basics: our form of government. While commonly referred to as democracies, the United States, Ohio, and the other 49 states are democratic republics in which the people vote for the representatives who do the actual governing. The Founding Fathers embraced this model because they believed it was the most effective and efficient way to manage the nation’s affairs.

The principle of majority rule is the engine that drives democratic republics. According to famed mathematician Kenneth May, majority rule is the only “fair” way to conduct elections because it does not allow some votes to count more than others and unlike super majority rules, it does not allow the status quo to prevail even though it received fewer votes.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. When our elected representatives abandon or ignore the will and wishes of their constituents due to corruption, gerrymandering, or the influence of big money, the public justifiably loses faith in government. That is exactly the situation that existed in Ohio at the beginning of the 20th Century. Outraged by a state government that was being sold to the highest bidders, a group of reformers and progressives convinced the voters to convene a Constitutional Convention in 1912.

During weeks of deliberations delegates wrote and voters later approved a proposal that serves as the antidote to unresponsive government: Article 2, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution which enables citizens to place an amendment directly before voters on a statewide ballot who must approve it by a simple majority vote.

The citizen-initiated amendment process is, as it should be, complicated and laborious. Over the past 111 years, 71 proposals have been placed before the voters, 19 have been approved. Many have improved our quality of life including imposing a10-mill limit on unvoted property taxes, home rule authority for cities and counties, banning smoking in public places, and raising the state’s minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. By any measure, the process has benefited Ohioans.

Which brings us back to the impending unprecedented August election. For a reason I will not address here, the Republican majority in the General Assembly is placing an amendment that will fundamentally change the rules that govern the initiative process on the ballot in  August. Their proposal will raise the threshold for approving initiated amendments from the century-old 50% plus one standard to a 60% supermajority. If passed it will erase the principle that is at the very heart of our system of government and replace it with minority rule.

And, in a final bit of irony, they will only need to secure 50% plus one vote to do it in  election they hope most Ohioans won’t notice.

Constitutional scholar and former Ohio House members Mike Curtin believes trashing Ohio’s 220-year-old tradition of respecting voters is a historic and contemptuous act of bad faith. Fortunately, the voters, thanks to the 1912 Constitutional Convention, will have the final say.

BKM Managing Partner David Betras admitted to Florida Bar and is now officially licensed to practice in law in Florida

/in , , /by

Betras, Kopp & Markota (BKM) one of the region’s leading personal injury and complex litigation law firms, is pleased and proud to announce that Managing Partner David Betras is now officially licensed to practice law in the state of Florida. While Atty. Betras will continue to spend most of his time at the firm’s headquarters in Canfield, he will travel to BKM’s Tampa office to consult on cases and represent clients when the need arises.

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

The BKM co-founder’s admission to the Florida Bar is the final step in what he describes as a long and arduous journey that began during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Brian Kopp has been urging me get my Florida license for years, but I simply didn’t have the hundreds of hours I knew it would take to study for and pass the bar exam,” Betras said. “Then the COVID lockdowns hit and suddenly I had plenty of time, so I began studying longer and harder than I had at any time since I graduated from law school 37 years ago.”

Hitting the books, or in this case, his laptop, paid off. Betras was notified in the summer of 2021 that he had passed the exam. That good news was tempered by the knowledge that he had to study for and pass a test on legal ethics, complete and submit a monstrous 600-page application, , and answer questions about his career and tenure as a member of the Mahoning County Board of Elections at an in-person hearing. He cleared every hurdle and was granted his Florida license on (insert date).

Betras said he has been energized by the process and the prospect of collaborating with BKM’s outstanding Tampa team which along with Brian Kopp includes attorneys Christopher Knopik and Douglas Titus. “I’m eager to put my experience, expertise, knowledge and insight to work for our existing Florida clients,” he said. “And now that I’m licensed and can raise my profile I’m sure we’ll be able to attract new clients from among the thousands of Valley natives who now live or winter along the Suncoast and recognize and respect our firm.”

“I want to emphasize that I will not be moving to Florida, reducing my case load, or retiring,” Betras said. “I love practicing law as much today as I did when I passed by first bar exam, I’m excited about having a new place to utilize my skills, and I thoroughly enjoy having the opportunity to work with the attorneys and staff who make BKM an exceptional firm.”

“If I have my way, I’ll still be doing what I do every day, fighting to secure justice for our clients, for at least another 20 years.”

What were they thinking? Why did Alex Murdaugh’s lawyers allow the now convicted killer to testilie for hours on end?

/in , , , , /by
Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

Judging by the number of people who have yelled, “Hey Betras, what the xxxx (readers are free to insert the word of their choice) is up with that Murdaugh trial?” I am not the only person who has been obsessed with the sordid saga of the once prominent South Carolina trail lawyer who was recently found guilty of murdering his wife and his son.

Okay, I wasn’t “obsessed” with it, I was consumed by it. I watched every moment of the trial, hours of analysis of each day’s proceedings offered by “expert” criminal lawyers, as well as all of the documentaries, docudramas, and special reports that streamed into my smart TV, smart phone, and laptop.

The discussion and speculation that raged during the trial continues today—much of it focused on Murdaugh’s decision to take the stand. In the immediate wake of his testimony, in which he basically admitted to being a pathological liar who couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it, which it did, a number of talking head criminal lawyers told the media the defense team had to allow the accused killer to look the jurors in their collective eyes and refute the charges. One of the pundits, criminal attorney and former prosecutor Mark Eiglarsh told CNN “If you’re going to have somebody testify, having a lawyer who’s smart, who’s been in the courtroom, who’s lied for 20 years … that’s the guy you want on the stand…all it takes is one juror to connect with him emotionally.” 

To be frank, Mr. Eiglarsh and anyone else who thought it was a good idea for Murdaugh to hitch up his pants, take the stand, and admit to being a drug-crazed criminal who did everything but murder his wife and son is just plain stupid—a fact underscored by the verdict.

During my career I have represented numerous clients charged with murder and I have never put one of them on the stand, including those who have literally begged me to allow them to proclaim their innocence in open court. I have adopted this strategy for a number of reasons beginning with the fact that it is not my job to prove my client is innocent, it is the prosecutor’s job to prove they are guilty, and I refuse to do anything that will make that job easier.

And permitting a client to give up their Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination by testifying does exactly that.

Think of it this way: the accused takes the stand, I ask them if they committed the crime, they emphatically say no. This has absolutely no impact on jurors who fully expect defendants to say they didn’t do it. I sit down, the prosecutor stands up and immediately begins tearing my client apart limb from limb. Check the video of the Murduagh cross and you’ll see how this works—or I should say how it doesn’t work for the defense.

Clients also ask to take the stand because they fear the jury will believe they are guilty if they just sit quietly as I defend them. I point out that this is, for the most part, not true and that judges are required to instruct jurors that they may not draw any inference from the fact that a defendant does or does not testify—the presumption of innocence that is the beating heart of our judicial system stands.

Whether Murdaugh would have benefited from keeping his mouth shut is a question that will be debated in legal circles for years. One thing is certain, however, testilying for hours on end didn’t help at all.

Nothing frivolous about it: Trial lawyers who hold doctors and other providers accountable when they injure or kill patients play a major role in improving America’s health care system

/in , , , , /by
Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

Over the years I’ve developed a relatively thick skin—something that is basically a job requirement for criminal defense and personal injury attorneys and chairs of political parties. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been called an “ambulance chaser,” “shyster,” “commie,” “hack,” yelled at for getting criminals off, and been told the “What do you call 99 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?” joke, 99,000 times. (The answer: a good start.)

For the most part, this stuff just rolls off my back. But there is one two-word phrase that simply sends me over the edge: “frivolous lawsuit” as in  “If you ambulance chasers would stop filing frivolous lawsuits health care costs wouldn’t be so high. Thanks to you shysters medical malpractice insurance premiums are skyrocketing. You’re forcing doctors to practice expensive defensive medicine and driving them out of the profession.”

Aside from the fact that my firm has never filed a lawsuit that in any way comports with the definition of frivolous: i.e. not having any serious purpose or value, the medical malpractice cases trial lawyers like us bring play an important role in preventing doctors, other health care providers, and hospitals from killing and maiming patients.

And believe me, there is nothing at all frivolous about that when you consider that a John Hopkins University School of Medicine study found that medical errors and malpractice could feasibly be the third leading cause of death in the U.S. killing between 250,000 and 440,000 Americans each year. Imagine how much higher the death toll would be if lawyers like us were not holding medical professionals accountable.

Those statistics in and of themselves are troubling, but when you put a face, a name, and an actual case to the numbers they become downright heart wrenching. For example, last year, Brian Kopp who heads BKM’s complex litigation practice group and is one of the nation’s preeminent medical malpractice and wrongful death attorneys, represented the family of Megan Clay, a perfectly healthy 20-year-old who died after having what should have been a routine tonsillectomy on March 29, 2018.

More than four years after Megan passed away, her case went to trial and a Common Pleas Court jury awarded her family significant damages. After the verdict was returned Brian offered this comment: “I am the father of seven daughters and have one granddaughter and I cannot imagine for a moment what it is like to walk in the shoes of Jay Clay and his family. Jay, his wife Christine, and Megan’s brothers and sister have suffered a devastating loss. It is always humbling to represent a family that has suffered as they have.”

Despite all the data about the number and consequences of medical errors and tragic stories Megan Clay’s, the insurance industry, doctors, and business groups continue to use frivolous lawsuits as a stalking horse for their attempts to enact tort “reform” laws that severely limit the ability of victims and families to seek justice and just compensation—even though fewer than 2% of those impacted by malpractice ever file suit.

I mention all of this because the Center for Justice and Democracy at New York Law School recently issued a comprehensive briefing book “Medical Malpractice by the Numbers” that refutes the misinformation regularly dispensed about the impact lawsuits have on the practice of medicine. Here are few relevant facts:

So-called “defensive medicine” is a myth. Researchers found that physicians order tests because they are focused on patient safety not malpractice risks, or “more focused on not harming patients than on not getting sued.”

Medical malpractice premiums are rising even though claims are dropping. More than 6 in 10 medical groups report their doctors’ malpractice premiums have increased since 2020 even though overall claims throughout the United States have dropped.

Caps on damages harm patients while doing nothing to stop insurance premium price-gouging. Researchers found that while caps drive down insurer costs, premiums do not fall and that by lowering the risk of suit for malpractice … imposing caps is associated with a 16% increase in adverse events.

The United States health care system is severely failing women. Among women of reproductive age in high-income countries, rates of death from avoidable causes, including pregnancy-related complications, are highest in the United States.

The Briefing Book is bursting with facts about they intersection of the legal and medical professions and, take if from your favorite ambulance chaser, is well worth a look.

A message from David Betras to anyone who is being questioned by the police: Shut Up!

/in , , , , , /by
Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

On a number of occasions, I’ve addressed what people should do if they are stopped and questioned by the police. Here’s an excerpt from an August 2021 blog post on the topic:

“First, if you are stopped by law enforcement and questioned you are under no obligation to do anything other than provide your name and ID.
Second, remember, the police will delay placing you in custody so they can use what you say to establish probable cause for arrest.
Third, your pre-arrest statements are admissible in court.
Fourth: Shut up. What you do not say cannot be used against you.”

That’s right I said just shut up.

I raise the topic today because as New York Times columnist Faraj Manjoo points out in his most recent piece, prosecutors in New Mexico plan to charge actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchinson. Hutchinson was working on the set of the movie rust when Baldwin pulled the trigger of a gun that was not supposed to be loaded with live ammunition. She was struck by a bullet and died shortly thereafter.

After the shooting Baldwin agreed to be interviewed by police without his attorney present, waived his Miranda rights, and did anything but shut up: “Still, for about an hour, Baldwin not only answered detectives’ many questions about the shooting but also offered his own theories about the incident and suggested the next steps the police might pursue in their investigation.”

As Manjoo notes, “The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution allows Americans to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement. Yet despite the ritualistic incantation of the Miranda warning on every TV police procedural, silence is a right that people can find hard to accept. If you’re convinced of your innocence, aren’t you obligated to help the police solve the matter under investigation? Refusing to talk to the police seems like something people do only when they’ve got something to hide.”

I’ve lost count of how many clients I’ve defended in court because they decided to abandon their Fifth Amendment rights and “help” the police who in turned helped themselves to an arrest.

In the column Manjoo praises the work of law professor and former defense attorney James Duane, one of the nation’s leading proponents of just shutting up when questioned by law enforcement. The video of his lecture “Don’t Talk to the Police,” has been viewed millions of times on YouTube, you should make it millions plus one by watching: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

In his lecture Duane offers this quote from former US Attorney General Robert Jackson: “Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.” It’s good to know that AG Jackson, one of the most respected lawyers in the history of American jurisprudence would think I am worth my salt.

“The average American — even if they’re a highly sophisticated college graduate or a law school student — really doesn’t know an awful lot about the many different ways in which even innocent people can regret for the rest of their lives the biggest mistake of their lives, the decision to waive their Fifth Amendment right and agree to talk to the police,” Duane said.

Duane argues that a key danger is that in trying to defend yourself to the police, you may unwittingly admit some wrongdoing. Navigating around such dangers is made all the more difficult because courts have given the police wide leeway to lie to people being interrogated.

“They will lie to you about what crime they are actually investigating,” Duane writes in his book, “whether they regard you as a suspect, whether they plan to prosecute you, what evidence they have against you, whether your answers may help you, whether your statements are off the record, and whether the other witnesses have agreed to talk to them — even about what those witnesses have or have not said.”

Manjoo closes his column with this passage: “The Fifth Amendment is no mere formality. It is among the best defenses against government overreach that Americans enjoy. We should guard it vigorously. Anytime you’re asked to talk to the police about an incident you are involved in, there are just four words you need to say: “I want a lawyer.”

And then please for the love of God, shut up.

The weather outside is frightful so now is the time to check out BKM’s winter driving tips…

/in , , , , , , /by

Just in case you haven’t looked outside yet, our “Three Ps” of safe winter driving tips will be extremely relevant and useful over the next couple of days.

Please be careful on the roads, and remember, if someone who isn’t driving safely runs into you or a member of your family, contact Betras, Kopp & Markota right away to arrange a free consultation to discuss your accident. Our experienced team of investigators and attorneys will evaluate your case, provide rock-solid advice, and fight to get the money your family needs and deserves.

So, call the LOCAL law firm big enough to win millions from the insurance giants: Betras, Kopp & Markota.

SAFETY ON WINTER ROADS

Bad roads can lead to bad wrecks. Driving on snow-covered, icy roads is tricky—even for those of us who have been doing it for decades. In order to help drivers avoid accidents, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and OSHA have developed the “Three Ps” of winter driving safety:

PREPARE for the trip; PROTECT yourself; and PREVENT crashes on the road.

Some of the advice is pretty obvious—like making sure all the ice and snow is scraped off all your windows before you head down the road. But even though common sense dictates that being able to see is critical to safe driving, we’ve all seen people weaving around as they peer out of the very small space they’ve cleared on their windshield that looks like a porthole on a tank’s gun turret. There’s only one difference: a car isn’t a tank rolling through woods, it’s a car lurching down a road crowded with other vehicles that can be hit because the driver can’t see them, lane lines, traffic signals or stop signs. So let’s start with the obvious, clear off all your windows, it’s great way to prevent collisions. We’re talking to guys in particular, because as the graphic shows, men are a lot more likely to drive in cars with ice-covered windows then women…

Here’s rest of NHTSA’s “Three Ps:

PREPARE

Maintain Your Car: Check battery, tire tread, and windshield wipers, keep your windows clear, put no-freeze fluid in the washer reservoir, and check your antifreeze.

Have On Hand: flashlight, jumper cables, abrasive material (sand, kitty litter, even floor mats), shovel, snow brush and ice scraper, warning devices (like flares) and blankets. For long trips, add food and water, medication and cell phone.

Plan Your route: Allow plenty of time (check the weather and leave early if necessary), be familiar with the maps/ directions, and let others know your route and arrival time.

Practice cold weather driving when your area gets snow — but not on a main road. Until you’ve sharpened your winter weather driving skills and know how your vehicle handles in snowy conditions, it’s best to practice in an empty parking lot in full daylight. Note our emphasis on the word “empty.”

Know what your brakes will do: stomp on antilock brakes, pump on non-antilock brakes.

Stopping distances are longer on water-covered ice and ice.

Don’t idle for a long time with the windows up or in an enclosed space.

PROTECT YOURSELF

Buckle up and use child safety seats properly.

Never place a rear-facing infant seat in front of an air bag.

Children 12 and under are much safer in the back seat.

Stopped or Stalled? Stay in your car, don’t overexert, put bright markers on antenna or windows and shine dome light, and, if you run your car, clear exhaust pipe and run it just enough to stay warm.

Don’t idle for a long time with the windows up or in an enclosed space.

PREVENT CRASHES

Drive slowly. It’s harder to control or stop your vehicle on a slick or snow-covered surface. On the road, increase your following distance enough so that you’ll have plenty of time to stop for vehicles ahead of you.

A word of caution about braking: Know what kind of brakes your vehicle has and how to use them properly. In general, if you have antilock brakes, apply firm, continuous pressure. If you don’t have antilock brakes, pump the brakes gently.

Stay calm and ease your foot off the gas while carefully steering in the direction you want the front of your vehicle to go if you find yourself in a skid. Stay off the pedals (gas and brake) until you are able to maintain control of your vehicle. This procedure, known as “steering into the skid,” will bring the back end of your car in line with the front.

Drugs and alcohol never mix with driving.

Texting while behind the wheel is especially dangerous in winter conditions. Put your phone down.

You can check out NHTSA’s interactive winter driving safety website by clicking here.

Here’s one more tip: even though you do everything right, someone who does just one thing wrong in icy conditions can cause an accident in the blink of an eye. If you’re involved in a wreck caused by a careless or distracted driver, contact Betras, Kopp & Markota BEFORE you talk to an insurance agent or adjuster. We’ll arrange a free consultation that will give us the opportunity to evaluate your case and provide you with sound advice that will protect your rights and your ability to secure justice and the financial settlement you and your family needs and deserves.