Drug charges cover a broad range of offenses, from the less severe, such as simple possession of a small amount of drugs, to the more serious, such as participation in the ongoing manufacturing or distributing of drugs. Even minor drug charges, such as drug possession, can be frightening and carry the risk of serious penalties upon conviction. The more serious drug charges, of course, can give rise to even graver consequences. Past drug convictions, the amount of the controlled substance that was found, and the severity of the drug type usually dictate the severity of the charge(s) to be levied. Drugs posing a greater threat to the individual are typically treated with greater legal penalties. In addition to prison time, another significant consequence can be the loss of custody of children in the household.

Issues involving child custody are very complicated especially when one or both of the parents have been charged with a drug offense. Since the issue of child custody is a civil matter, the case will generally be assigned to a family court judge. It is important to note that the case in family court can proceed against a parent even though he/she has not been actually convicted of the drug offense. The standard of proof required in family court is much more relaxed than in criminal court and there is no limitation regarding the information the judge may consider in making a determination on the custody of a child.

If either parent is contesting that the other should not be given custody or visitation then the matter can get even further complicated. When one parent has placed the child in a dangerous situation (this includes exposing the children to illicit drugs) this parent’s right of visitation can be denied and the other parent awarded sole legal and physical custody. In the alternative, the court can also order sanctions such as drug treatment and random tests to insure the safety of child.

Ultimately, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. Of course, the fact of the personal relationships or circumstances of the parents are going to be relevant. The court will undoubtedly want to know if the fact that a parent is involved in drug activity is going to impact upon their ability to care for the child. The overall issue the family court will focus on is how the drug offense impacts that parent’s ability to adequately care for the children.

With so much great technology on the market these days, it is easier to record conversations than ever before, either over a land line, on a mobile phone or even in-person with a hidden recording device.

Recorded conversations (either tape or digital) are often very helpful in a variety of scenarios. These audio recordings may assist in an investigation of employee misconduct or in business or personal lawsuits, even in potential criminal investigations.

It is very important, however, to make sure that any recording, either of a phone conversation or an in-person conversation, complies with federal and state laws. Otherwise, you may very well open yourself up to criminal charges or civil suits. And it is unlikely that you will be legally able to use the recording for your original purpose.

So, if you’re thinking about recording some phone calls or placing a voice activated recorder in a room to record conversations, you’ll need to take a look at the applicable laws.

The first place to look is at the federal wiretapping statute, also known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Federal law allows phone calls (traditional, cellular and cordless) and other electronic communication to be recorded with the consent of at least one party to the conversation.

This means that if you are one of the people taking part in the conversation, it can be recorded because one person (you) has consented to the recording. If you are not taking part in the conversation, at least one of the people in the conversation must know about and consent to the recording.

You can’t stop, however, after considering federal law and assume that your recording passes muster. Each state and territory has its own statutes regarding the recording of conversations. Most state wiretapping and eavesdropping laws are based upon the federal law and allow recording with the consent of one party to the conversation.

The 37 states which allow one party consent recording of oral communications are: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The District of Columbia also allows people to record conversations with the consent of only one party. Nevada has a one party consent statute but there is some question as to how the law should be interpreted by the courts. It could be considered an all party consent state.

The 12 states which definitely require all parties to a conversation to consent before it can be recorded are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

In California, there is an exception. You can record a conversation with the consent of only one party if certain criminal activity (kidnapping, extortion, bribery or a violent felony) is involved.

So, the basic rule is that it is illegal to record conversations or communications in which you are not a participant, unless you have consent of at least one, if not all, of the participants.

The obvious exception to this general rule is that law enforcement officials can seek permission from a court to perform no-consent wiretaps as part of a criminal investigation. For the finer points of your own states laws and requirements, you should always consult with an attorney.

Are you thinking about installing Hidden or Surveillance Cameras in your place of business? Many employers consider video and other surveillance key to keeping an honest and productive workplace. It keeps employees on the straight and narrow – no fingers in the till, no time clock funny business, no drinking or drugging on breaks. Many business owners and managers also record or review phone calls and emails from the office.

But employers must be careful not to go too far in their surveillance or they will risk being sued by an employee for an invasion of privacy under federal or state law. This article is an overview of the laws applicable to workplace surveillance – you should always talk to your own attorney to determine exactly what the law is in your state.

VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
There are several variables when considering video surveillance in your place of business. Your choices include visible traditional and dome surveillance cameras or hidden cameras, with or without audio. Each of the variables has potential legal implications. Visible surveillance cameras (not hidden in any way) are generally not illegal if they are in a non-private place.

If the camera records sound as well as video, you must comply with federal and state wiretapping and eavesdropping laws. You will need consent of one or all parties to any recorded conversation, depending on your jurisdiction.

Hidden cameras are a slightly different story. Video recording (without sound) is usually okay, even if the camera is hidden unless the person(s) being recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the taping is done for some illegal purpose or there was trespass to record the video.

Courts across the country are finding with more and more frequency that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists with non-covert video surveillance or even with hidden surveillance if the physical space examined is a public space. Note that, if an employer uses union employees, the employer may be required to notify the union of its intention to use hidden cameras, but probably doesn’t have to disclose where the cameras will be installed.

There is a federal law which makes it a crime to secretly capture photo or video images of people in places and situations in which they have an expectation of privacy. Most states have followed suit. These laws are often referred to as “video voyeurism” statutes.

VIDEO VOYEURISM LAWS
As you can see, surveillance technology has advanced so much over recent years that excellent cameras can be completely hidden from view in a number of different ways. These Spy Cameras are a great tool for many employers but can also be used inappropriately. The federal government and most states have recently passed “video voyeurism” laws.

These laws make it a crime to secretly record or distribute images of people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, hotel rooms and tanning salons.

The federal law prohibits anyone from recording images of an individual’s “private areas” without consent when that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Every state in the U.S. now has some legal prohibition of video voyeurism or invasion of privacy, except Iowa and Washington D.C. About half of these statutes actually make this kind of video recording a felony. Many have an even harsher punishment for distributing such videos.

You will need to check your home state’s particular laws as the courts from state to state may have differing opinions as to what types of places are expected to be private – bathroom and changing rooms may be “no-brainers” but some states’ courts have even decided that employee break rooms or lunch rooms are “private” for purposes of video surveillance.

OTHER SURVEILLANCE IN THE WORKPLACE
The monitoring of electronic communications such as telephone calls, voicemail, email and IMs is covered by the federal wiretapping and eavesdropping statute – the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The ECPA does include several business use exceptions to allow employers to perform necessary investigations, protect trade secrets and keep an eye on inventory and receipts.

Under the federal law, the monitoring of things such as email and phone calls is allowed if either the sender or recipient consents or if it is done in the regular course of business. Employers can monitor only equipment which they own and do not have the right to monitor email hosted by a third party (like web-based email programs.

BEST PRACTICES
Whether they have a right to privacy at work or not, many employees find surveillance of any sort offensive. It is good practice for employees to be provided with written notification of the existence or possibility of any monitoring in the workplace – video, audio or otherwise.

Notices can be made a part of a written, distributed policy or a section in the employee handbook. Employees can even be asked to sign a consent to or acknowledgement of the monitoring. If you are cautious, ethical and respectful of your employees and of the law, video and other surveillance in the workplace can be a wonderful tool to keep your business running smoothly and profitably.

Limited liability is one of the most successful commercial creations of all time, almost singularly responsible for the growth and expansion of capitalism. Encouraging risk and promoting successful enterprise through both small and large businesses alike, limited liability has been the driving force behind economic success in the Western world and is one of the most celebrated legal creations of all time. But what is it about limited liability that makes it so successful? Indeed, is the structure of limited liability fair as regards creditors, who ultimately bear the brunt of this mechanism?

Limited liability in general means a sacrifice of privacy in return for the benefit of limited personal liability. In layman’s terms, this means that the company promoter is not personally liable for any of the company’s debts, thus encouraging risk and promoting enterprise. For most small businesses, it is a lifeline, and without it the economy would level out and stifle with fewer new start-ups each year. At the back end, however, these businesses leave behind a trail of debts that ultimately result in financial loss for lenders and those that operate on credit terms. This raises the general question of whether limited liability as a creation is fair for the creditors it so apparently prejudices?

Limited liability has given life to companies across the world, by providing the reassurances necessary to entrepreneurs to take the risk, safe in the knowledge that personally speaking they should come out unscathed. From this, more companies have grown and flourished, which has led to more jobs and better state welfare for virtually all capitalist economies. The strength of this function has gone a long way towards building the great superpowers, and is seriously underestimated as a legal construct.

Limited liability leaves a gap in the pockets of those companies that lend money or offer their customers credit terms during the course of their business. As a consequence of the promoter’s ability to walk away with his hands clean, many businesses find the squeeze of bad debts too severe, and end up having to take on credit of their own to meet the shortcomings. In theory, limited liability leaves creditors in a weak situation, with relatively limited powers to regain the full amount of any monies due.

In reality, limited liability doesn’t operate in that way. Of course, many businesses go under every year as their owners walk free of encumbrance, but generally speaking the economic world does not work between insolvent companies. However, the flexibility allowed by limited liability has meant debt in a sense has become effective currency, and has helped businesses to survive during tough times, and to seek the financial help necessary without the appropriate risk.

Limited liability might be seen as slightly unfair at the razor’s edge, but it works all round to ensure that everyone has access to credit and the benefits of limitation of damages when it is necessary. Ultimately, it promotes a more competitive, lower-risk environment within which business can flourish and economies can grow and multiply, providing jobs and economic strength to nations embracing its basic form. As legal fictions go, the limited company has undoubtedly prove itself to be one of the most popular ever created, and its growth looks set to continue as it is developed and refined across the world.

Copyright is a legal fiction designed to protect the works of artists, inventors and innovators.  In essence, it is a legal bar, allowing exclusivity for those who create works in the form of an intangible asset which can be sold or relinquished, and which expires upon a certain period of time.  With the growth of the internet, and the creation of more and more content, the question of copyright is becoming increasingly more relevant, and one which more and more webmasters are considering to protect their own interests.  Additionally, with the rise of the freelancer market, the issue of copyright is becoming a heated topic of debate for both buyers and sellers at every stage in the production chain, and the effects of not having the relevant rights could be potentially catastrophic.  In this article, we’ll look at what exactly copyright is, and how it relates to the internet in content creation.

Copyright is an artificial concept that gives the creator of a work, or the person he sells the right to, the legal right to use or modify in whole or in part, and to call their own.  It has a different meaning in most jurisdictions, however the basic principle is the same: the creator owns the original copyright to the work in question, and has the freedom to pass this on at will, usually in consideration for money.  Where a creator is working on commission, copyright is designed to act as a lien in his favour, meaning that if he creates and passes on but does not receive payment, he can withhold copyright and sue for breach where applicable.  Of course, he would also have remedies under the ordinary law of contract, but the grasp of copyright is a very powerful tool, which can even be used against the third party buyer from the original commissioner.

Copyright is designed as a tool to cover what is known as intellectual property.  Committing intellectual thoughts and ideas to paper, or making them tangible is usually sufficient to give rise to the copyright protection, which usually lasts for a number of decades in preventing others from steeling ideas.  This is primarily designed to encourage forward thinking and art, and can be a vital tool in protecting the financial interests of those responsible for some of the world’s most vital progressions.  Consider the inventors of the seatbelt, Volvo.  Volvo could have used their copyright to prevent other manufacturers from installing seat belts, and this would have been sufficient to protect any other manufacturer from doing so.  Of course they waived their rights for the safety of the general public, which is also a possible consideration for the creator of something new and innovative.

Copyright is an exhaustible right, and it usually expires on a given date, after which all works enter the public domain.  This means that those who create new products have sufficient time to capitalise on their idea before the world at large can join in.  Unfortunately for many musicians, this means their artistic works can no longer make them money specifically, and can be used royalty free; a fact that has caused much uproar and unrest in recent years.

Copyright is a dynamic area of the law, and is particularly relevant to the internet.  As more and more content of more and more varieties is created online, there comes a need to find protection in copyright law to prevent unscrupulous parties from using content without authorisation.  In combating this, a number of international legal organisations have been established with a view to tackling copyright violation, and helping those without legal support to fight cases for the protection of their work.  It is undoubtedly an area of law that is on the ascendancy, as lawyers worldwide strive to find a cohesive structure to online intellectual property law, and the protections online authors should be afforded for creating their works.  At least within national boundaries, it is highly possible to rely on copyright laws to protect and govern material.