Tag Archives: law enforcement

Party at Your Place?

Posted on by

photo by Devin Ewart

Realtor.com quoted me in Moved Out? Watch Out, Teens May Be Partying in Your Old Home. It opens,

Teenagers are always on the lookout for a house party—and there’s nothing better than a venue where it’s all but guaranteed that nobody’s parents will barge in and disrupt all their risky business: vacant homes!

That’s right, if you’ve moved out and planted a “for sale” sign on your lawn—or are waiting to move into a place under construction—it’s a sitting duck for young revelers to … revel in.

The latest victim of this fast-growing trend: a newly built home in El Dorado Hills, CA, where nearly 200 kids broke in and had a bacchanal before they were busted by the cops. According to the Sacramento Bee, most of the partygoers scattered to safety, but 14 were detained and cited for trespassing.

Sadly, by the time law enforcement arrived, the house had suffered enough damage to qualify as a felony. Cops noted numerous holes in walls, busted electronics, and other property devastation in the house (estimated to be worth around $500,000).

And this is hardly an isolated incident: Last month, a teen in nearby Ceres, CA, pulled up a “for sale” sign from the yard of an unoccupied house, then spread the word on social media to come on down—BYOB and BYOW (bring your own weed)—charging $10 a head for the 100 or so who showed up. The noise prompted neighbors to eventually call the cops, who suspect the “host” has made a habit of organizing fetes in abandoned homes.

All in all, such stories can haunt the dreams of homeowners who’ve moved out or are about to move in: Are hooligans holding beer pong tournaments in your abandoned (or soon to be occupied) living room every Saturday night? And if they do crack your granite countertops, who’s responsible for the damage?

The answer depends on your homeowner insurance, which rarely covers policyowners who aren’t living on the premises.

“Many homeowner policies won’t cover a home if it’s vacant,” warns David Reiss, research director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School. Funny right? But here’s the punch line: “Homeowners should also be concerned about injuries suffered by the teens. It is all too plausible that you will face a lawsuit if one of them gets hurt while partying at the house. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the teens had trespassed.”

In other words, if some drunk punk stumbles and falls off your balcony and lands on his noggin, it might be all on you.

Yet there are things you can do to head this problem off at the pass.

“Some insurance companies offer endorsements to your existing policy or altogether new insurance policies that cover vacant homes,” points out Reiss. “Some even offer special coverage for vandalism damages. It’s worth looking into them if your home will be vacant, even for a relatively short time.”

Your Neighbor’s Dog

Posted on by

SheltieBoy

Realtor.com quoted me in Salma Hayek’s Dog Shot by Neighbor: Was He Right? It reads, in part,

Actress Salma Hayek is mourning the death of her dog Mozart—a dog she nurtured from birth, according to her Instagram post. The 9-year-old pooch, a Belgian Malinois, was found dead on her Washington state ranch on Friday with a visible wound close to his heart. And this sad story only got worse once police discovered the culprit: Hayek’s neighbor.

According to TMZ, the neighbor was sick of Hayek’s dogs, several of whom regularly trespassed on his territory and attacked his dogs. So on that fateful Friday, this neighbor responded to a dogfight in his garage by shooting an air rifle just to scare off the one attacking his dog, the Associated Press reports. Mozart, who was hit, ran off and died from internal bleeding. In fact, the shooter’s wife Kim Lund told the AP, “We didn’t even know we killed a dog. I’m in shock.”

Claiming a pellet gun would normally not be deadly, the police ruled the shooting justified, but plan to send the case to prosecutors for additional review.

*     *     *

According to “When Killing a Dog Is Legally Justified” on Nolo.com, most state laws do not allow homeowners to shoot dogs that are merely running loose on their property. And even if they’re attacking your own dog or cat, you’re not off the hook.

“Someone who does injure a dog that’s chasing another dog … may be liable for damages to the dog’s owner,” writes . “And the killer may also be guilty of cruelty to animals.”

In other words, Hayek’s neighbor could pay for pulling the trigger. Plus there’s the bigger picture, points out David Reiss, research director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School: “How’s it going to be to continue living next door to your neighbors after you shot their dog?”

Imagine how awkward it will be for this guy to run into Hayek from now until the end of his days there. Maybe he could have tried to fix the problem earlier with something other than rubber bullets.

“There certainly are steps you could take before shooting the dog,” Reiss says. “You could call animal control or law enforcement. In some places, if a dog owner has received a warning about his or her pet, he or she could face liability for allowing it to roam free.” 

Bottom line: Talk first, shoot only as a last resort. 

Rigged Justice

Posted on by

photo by Toby Hudson

The Office of Senator Elizabeth Warren has released Rigged Justice: 2016 How Weak Enforcement Lets Corporate Offenders Off Easy. The Executive Summary states,

When government regulators and prosecutors fail to pursue big corporations or their executives who violate the law, or when the government lets them off with a slap on the wrist, corporate criminals have free rein to operate outside the law. They can game the system, cheat families, rip off taxpayers, and even take actions that result in the death of innocent victims—all with no serious consequences.

The failure to punish big corporations or their executives when they break the law undermines the foundations of this great country: If justice means a prison sentence for a teenager who steals a car, but it means nothing more than a sideways glance at a CEO who quietly engineers the theft of billions of dollars, then the promise of equal justice under the law has turned into a lie. The failure to prosecute big, visible crimes has a corrosive effect on the fabric of democracy and our shared belief that we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

Under the current approach to enforcement, corporate criminals routinely escape meaningful prosecution for their misconduct. This is so despite the fact that the law is unambiguous: if a corporation has violated the law, individuals within the corporation must also have violated the law. If the corporation is subject to charges of wrongdoing, so are those in the corporation who planned, authorized or took the actions. But even in cases of flagrant corporate law breaking, federal law enforcement agencies – and particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ) – rarely seek prosecution of individuals. In fact, federal agencies rarely pursue convictions of either large corporations or their executives in a court of law. Instead, they agree to criminal and civil settlements with corporations that rarely require any admission of wrongdoing and they let the executives go free without any individual accountability. (1)

I think the report’s central point is that the “contrast between the treatment of highly paid executives and everyone else couldn’t be sharper.” (1)

The report does not address some of the key issues that stand in the way of achieving substantive justice for financial wrongdoing. First, many of those accused of wrongdoing were well-represented by counsel who ensured that they did not violate any criminal laws, even if they engaged in rampant bad behavior. Second, contemporary jurisprudence of corporate criminal liability presents serious roadblocks to prosecutors who seek to pursue such wrongdoing. Third, many of these cases are incredibly resource heavy, even for federal prosecutors. This can incentivize them to go after other types of financial wrongdoing instead, such as insider trading.

It seems like it is too late to address much of the wrongdoing that arose from our most recent financial crisis. But if this report achieves one thing, I would hope that it gets Congress to focus on how corporations and their high-level executives could be held criminally accountable the next time around.