Baseball - Biogenesis

Today at 4 PM baseball's non-waiver trading deadline passed with no decision on suspensions for the players implicated in dealings with Biogenesis.  Biogenesis allegedly supplied the players with performance enhancing drugs that are banned.  The uncertainty led to at least one trade in the last few days in case the suspensions go through.  Generally players can appeal suspensions and continue playing and suspensions are set depending on the number of previous violations, but in this instance Major League Baseball (MLB) pursued suspensions under a separate part of the collective bargaining agreement.  That part of the agreement allows MLB to suspend players for more than the usual set number of games.  This gave MLB leverage to seek plea bargains with the players where the players would accept shorter suspension in exchange for not appealing the suspension.

MLB sued Biogenesis for intentional tortious interference with its player's contracts by providing them substances banned under those contracts.  Office of the Commissioner of Baseball v. Biogenesis of America LLC, Case No. 2013-10479-CA-20, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.  MLB claims lost profits and damage to its relationship with its fanbase(goodwill) as damages.  A Miami judge recently denied a motion to dismiss the case meaning that discovery, including depositions, will begin shortly.  Biogenesis had argued that the complaint was too vague in that it did not state which contract was interfered with.  MLB countered that attachments to the complaint made specific allegations in that regard.  Attorneys for third parties MLB subpoenaed argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction as the case involved a collective bargaining agreement that is regulated by federal law.  The prospect of MLB obtaining more information from the discovery process makes striking a deal now more attractive to the players involved. 

Tortious interference with a contract by helping a party to the contract do something they promised  not to do is an interesting argument as most of these cases involve interference with something that the party promised to do rather than something that he promised not to do.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/29/3529803/judge-allows-major-league-baseball.html

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/22934780/florida-judge-mlb-can-pursue-lawsuit-against-biogenesis

http://www.law360.com/articles/449354/health-clinic-can-t-dodge-mlb-s-drug-suit

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/6/12/4424256/mlb-biogenesis-lawsuit-tony-bosch-alex-rodriguez-ryan-braun

The Law Office of Kurt T. Koehler, 308 1/2 S. State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan (MI) 48198 (Washtenaw County); Copyright 2012 by Kurt Koehler

Domestic Drones/UAVs

Florida has adopted a new law that limits the ability of the state to use drones for surveillance. 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/us/florida-drone-law/index.html.  The law requires judicial approval before state and local law enforcement may use surveillance drones.  The law makes exceptions for instances where there is "imminent danger to life or serious damage to property" or where there is "credible intelligence" which indicates "a high risk of terrorist attack."  Currently few law enforcement agencies in Florida  have drones.   The CNN article states that Miami and Orange County each have two.

In terms of the Fourth Amendment it is important to note that states may adopt more privacy protections, by statute or by constitutional provision, than are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.  Florida has done so by statute in this instance. 

At the federal level the U.S. Supreme Court has decided cases involving surveillance by manned aircraft.  California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).  In that case the police were not required to obtain a warrant before flying over and observing with the naked eye the backyard of the defendant.  Using other equipment beyond human eyesight during the overflight to observe the property would entail a different analysis than Ciraolo.  Also the Supreme Court has recently placed an extra emphasis on property rights in the Fourth Amendment context.  United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___; 132 S.Ct. 945; 181 L.Ed.2d 911(2012).  The common law property maxim of cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos implied that a land owner owned all the land beneath and above his property.    This legal maxim is now limited to the area above or below the ground that the landowner can occupy or use in connection with the land so overflights are not prohibited in this regard unless they are too low to the ground.  United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256; 66 S.Ct. 1062; 90 L.Ed. 1206 (1946).  So there might be a property rights based Fourth Amendment argument against drones flying too close to the ground without a warrant.

The Law Office of Kurt T. Koehler, 308 1/2 S. State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan (MI) 48198 (Washtenaw County); Copyright 2012 by Kurt Koehler

The Takings Clause and Permits

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Managment District.  A landowner in central Florida sought a permit to develop his property.  The Water Managment district required him to set aside 11 out of his 14.9 acres for conservation and pay for improvements on state owned land several miles away from his property that would have cost between $10,000 and $150,000.  The landowner refused and was denied a permit to develop his property.  He sued claiming that the refusal to issue a permit constituted a taking without just compensation under the 5th Amendment.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0115/Supreme-Court-hears-oral-arguments-in-Florida-property-rights-case

Transcript of Oral Arguments: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-1447.pdf

"Stand Your Ground" Laws

The link below is to a tragic situation in Florida involving Florida's stand your ground laws.  I'm not going to get deeply into the facts on this one other than to point out that the shooting happened outside in the parking lot of a gated community.  The local law enforcement decided not to arrest the shooter or press charges due to the stand your ground self-defense statute.  The state authorities are also investigating and I suspect that the federal government will definitely get involved if Florida declines to prosecute the case.  The story is linked below.

At common law self-defense in both civil and criminal cases required retreat before using deadly force unless a person asserting self-defense is in their own home.  The modern trend is for states to modify this rule by statute.  Florida is one state that has significantly modified the rule by statute.  The stand your ground laws do away with the duty to retreat in many settings outside of the home. 

The point of the duty to retreat is obviously to see if a situation can be resolved without resorting to deadly force.  Eliminating the duty to retreat tends to escalate situations.  People have a tendency to resort to the method of self-defense that is safest for themselves even if it is wholly disproportionate to the situation.  This is particularly true as a person feeling threatened may not accurately assess the actual level of danger presented by a situation and is likely to over-react especially if they have a gun.  Whereas over-reaction with less than deadly force will likely end without anyone getting killed, over-reaction with deadly force will problem end with a death. 

There are most likely other factors at play in the case discussed in the article.  The most obvious one, and the one that might lead to federal charges, is race.  However, I only wanted to write about the stand your ground statutes in general so I'm not going to get into that today.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0316/Trayvon-Martin-killing-in-Florida-puts-Stand-Your-Ground-law-on-trial/(page)/2

s/ Kurt Koehler
308 1/2 S. State Street Suite 36
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48198
(Washtenaw County)