Direct-to-consumer (DTC) shipping for craft breweries has rightly become a hot issue and is gaining momentum. With the COVID-19 pandemic wiping out two of craft beer’s main sources of income, taproom sales and keg beer sales for restaurants and bars, the only main income stream that breweries had during the pandemic was DTC sales. They simply weren’t enough for many breweries.

The laws surrounding DTC are a mess and differ from state to state.  Some states allow out-of-state alcohol manufacturers to ship to customers within the state, some prohibit it entirely, and some allow in-state breweries to ship within the state but not out-of-state breweries. This raises an interesting and tumultuous relationship between the dormant commerce clause’s anti-discrimination principle and the Twenty-First Amendment’s relegation of alcohol control to the states. It’s complicated and the subject matter of my summer law review article that I am working on now.

An interesting wrinkle in this arena is that due to the wine lobby’s national strength, wineries have enjoyed more permissive DTC laws across the country—think wine clubs. Everyone wants Napa wine, right? So someone in Michigan could order a fine Napa vintage from California directly from the winery, but that same person couldn’t order a Pliny the Elder or an El Segundo Brewing Company Mayberry IPA from the same state. It makes no sense and likely raises equal protection issues as well.

California, to its credit, is trying to rectify this problem through legislation instead of courts. Current California law, like many other states, allows a winegrower who holds a direct shipper permit to ship directly to a California consumer. Notably, California allows in-state breweries to ship to in-state consumers. A new bill, SB 517 (2021) seeks to allow “a person licensed in this state or any other state as a beer manufacturer who obtains a beer direct shipper permit to sell and ship beer directly to a resident of California….” If SB 517 passes, craft beer fans will be able to point and click and have that Heady Topper or latest Tree House Brewing Company IPA delivered directly to their doors.

This bill is smart. With mounting pressure and legal challenges to DTC restrictions across the country, SB 517 seeks to head off the litigation morass. In my opinion, the days of DTC prohibitions are coming to a close primarily due to the economic protectionism that such prohibitions encourage—namely, favoring in-state breweries over out-of-state breweries. The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in and recently denied certiorari in a case that would have addressed this issue for reasons not relevant here. And while several web-based ordering platforms exist out there, they operate in a regulatory gray area that could pose a risk to breweries.

DTC is overall a good and healthy thing for independent beer. It’s not without its headaches, like permitting and making sure taxes are properly paid. But as we saw with the pandemic, independent beer needs new markets. And while relying on the local community will and should continue to be the main source of income for most independent breweries, the opportunity to reach new consumers over the internet can only be helpful.

Here’s to ordering those hard-to-find unicorns and having them show up at your front door. Let’s hope SB 517 passes. Don’t be surprised if Big Beer is in the background opposing it.

Here’s a link to the bill:  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB517

 

Criminal Procedure is a poorly named class: you don’t learn how to become a kingpin. It should just be called “Totally Legit State-Sponsored Violence.” We read case after case justifying horrific police misconduct. The court goes out of its way to prioritize officer safety and discretion. It’s insane. One case was only an excerpt: Utah v. Strieff.

Me being me, I ignored the reading assigned and read Thomas’ full opinion and Sonia’s dissent. Then, I reread the dissent. And then I told my friends and family about the dissent. And now, Internet, I am here to share the good news with you: I love this dissent and so will you. Let’s start with the first paragraph:

The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.

Okay, wait the police can do what? I’m over here minding my own business literally just existing and the police can just “Give me your identification, Ma’am”? Shouldn’t they need to–oh, I dunno–suspect that I am one of the uber-terrible criminals they are supposedly hunting for with their military gear? Aside: shouldn’t I have learned this without going to law school? Ugh.

Here’s the setup: Strieff walks out of a house; officer stopped him, questioned him, took his identification, and ran it through some sort of active warrant database. The officer did not suspect Strieff of wrongdoing. The State of Utah recognizes “this stop was illegal.” There is also precedent (which supposedly matters):

An officer breaches that protection when he detains a pedestrian to check his license without any evidence that the person is engaged in a crime. — Delaware v. Prouse

The officer deepens the breach when he prolongs the detention just to fish further for evidence of wrongdoing. — Rodriguez v. United States

After his arrest, the officer searched Strieff, found drugs, and Strieff was ultimately charged with illegal drug possession. That’s the only reason this case even happened, the only reason the Supremes heard it, the only reason I read it, and the only reason why I am telling everyone about it. If the officer had not found drugs after this totally illegal (aka unconstitutional) seizure, Streiff would have basically no recourse. Sure, he *could* file a civil rights lawsuit, but oh wait, qualified immunity! Double ugh.

It is tempting in a case like this, where illegal conduct by an officer uncovers illegal conduct by a civilian, to forgive the officer. After all, his instincts, although unconstitutional, were correct . . . When “lawless police conduct” uncovers evidence of lawless civilian conduct, this Court has long required later criminal trials to exclude the illegally obtained evidence.

The law calls this ill-gotten evidence “fruit of the poisonous tree” and excludes it from admission at trial under, wait for it, the Exclusionary Rule. The *idea* is that officers will follow the rules and build a case based on evidence they can actually admit to the court. Scoff along with me! Scoff scoff scoff.

Applying the exclusionary rule, the Utah Supreme Court correctly decided that Strieff’s drugs must be excluded because the officer exploited his illegal stop to discover them. The officer found the drugs only after learning of Strieff’s traffic violation; and he learned of Strieff’s traffic violation only because he unlawfully stopped Strieff to check his driver’s license.

Did you catch that procedural tidbit? Both Utah’s Supreme Court and the State of Utah agree this was an illegal stop. Utah, progressive bastion and trend setter, thinks their officer crossed a constitutional line; the Supremes think otherwise.

To the Court, the fact that a warrant gives an officer cause to arrest a person severs the connection between illegal policing and the resulting discovery of evidence. This is a remarkable proposition: The mere existence of a warrant not only gives an officer legal cause to arrest and search a person, it also forgives an officer who, with no knowledge of the warrant at all, unlawfully stops that person on a whim or hunch.

Who cares about all that pesky illegal or unconstitutional misconduct, right? There’s a warrant now! So, everything is fine. The Court goes so far as to cobble together a bogus “good-faith mistakes” argument that characterizes the officer’s illegal, unconstitutional misconduct as “‘negligent’ and therefore incapable of being deterred by the exclusionary rule.”

To recap: police can stop you for no reason, demand your ID, and then arrest and search you if you happen to have any active warrants in their handy database. But I mean, come on, how common are warrants anyway?

Outstanding warrants are surprisingly common. When a person with a traffic ticket misses a fine payment or court appearance, a court will issue a warrant . . . When a person on probation drinks alcohol or breaks curfew, a court will issue a warrant.

That’s all it takes. And there are a lot:

The States and Federal Government maintain databases with over 7.8 million outstanding warrants, the vast majority of which appear to be for minor offenses. Even these sources may not track the “staggering” numbers of warrants, “ ‘drawers and drawers’ ” full, that many cities issue for traffic violations and ordinance infractions.

Remember Ferguson, Missouri? A 2015 Department of Justice Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department  revealed that in a city of 21,000 people, 16,000 had outstanding warrants (76%). Under Strieff, an officer can just walk up to over 3/4 of the people in Ferguson and arrest them. I don’t remember this during any of the media coverage, but maybe I missed it. And it’s not just Ferguson. Sonia drops stats from New Orleans, Newark, and St. Louis. It’s widespread, systemic, and ripe for abuse. I mean “good-faith mistakes.” Right.

If you never read another case, just read this final section from Sonia’s dissent:

Writing only for myself, and drawing on my professional experiences, I would add that unlawful “stops” have severe consequences much greater than the inconvenience suggested by the name. This Court has given officers an array of instruments to probe and examine you. When we condone officers’ use of these devices without adequate cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner. We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens.

Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more. This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants—so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact. Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813 (1996) . That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, Terry, 392 U. S., at 21, but it may factor in your ethnicity, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 –887 (1975), where you live, Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 147 (1972) , what you were wearing, United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1 –5 (1989), and how you behaved, Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U. S. 119 –125 (2000). The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction—even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U. S. 146 –155 (2004); Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U. S. ___ (2014).

The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. See Epp, Pulled Over, at 5. The officer may next ask for your “consent” to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 438 (1991) . Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand “helpless, perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised.” Terry, 392 U. S., at 17. If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then “frisk” you for weapons. This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may “ ‘feel with sensitive fingers every portion of [your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.’ ” Id., at 17, n. 13.

The officer’s control over you does not end with the stop. If the officer chooses, he may handcuff you and take you to jail for doing nothing more than speeding, jaywalking, or “driving [your] pickup truck . . . with [your] 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter . . . without [your] seatbelt fastened.” Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318 –324 (2001). At the jail, he can fingerprint you, swab DNA from the inside of your mouth, and force you to “shower with a delousing agent” while you “lift [your] tongue, hold out [your] arms, turn around, and lift [your] genitals.” Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2012) (slip op., at 2–3); Maryland v. King, 569 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 28). Even if you are innocent, you will now join the 65 million Americans with an arrest record and experience the “civil death” of discrimination by employers, landlords, and whoever else conducts a background check. Chin, The New Civil Death, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1789, 1805 (2012); see J. Jacobs, The Eternal Criminal Record 33–51 (2015); Young & Petersilia, Keeping Track, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1318, 1341–1357 (2016). And, of course, if you fail to pay bail or appear for court, a judge will issue a warrant to render you “arrestable on sight” in the future. A. Goffman, On the Run 196 (2014).

This case involves a suspicionless stop, one in which the officer initiated this chain of events without justification. As the Justice Department notes, supra, at 8, many innocent people are subjected to the humiliations of these unconstitutional searches. The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner. See M. Gottschalk, Caught 119–138 (2015). But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. See M. Alexander, The New Jim Crow 95–136 (2010). For generations, black and brown parents have given their children “the talk”—instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them. See, e.g., W. E. B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (1903); J. Baldwin, The Fire Next Time (1963); T. Coates, Between the World and Me (2015).

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are “isolated.” They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. See L. Guinier & G. Torres, The Miner’s Canary 274–283 (2002). They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.

Now that’s a dissent.

Learn more about this case and these ideas:

Oral Arguments & Case Background
Opinion & Dissent
Fourth Amendment: Overview
Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry
America’s “Offender-Funded” Probation Industry

Deepest condolences to the family and friends of civil rights legend, Justice Cruz Reynoso, who passed away today.  Justice Reynoso was the first Latino Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, first Latino appointed to the Third District Court of Appeals and one of the first Latino law professors in the country. A native of California, Justice Reynoso grew up in a family of farmworkers who immigrated from Jalisco, Mexico. As a child growing up, he picked grapes, walnuts and plums in the Central Valley. He was told that he would never attend college.

Justice Reynoso not only went to college, but law school and later became one of the co-founders and the first Latino director of California Rural Legal Assistance. He fought for striking farmworkers and advised Cesar Chavez. “When your justice bone is hurt very often you need to be a trouble-making person,” he would say.

His legacy included helping to draft the 1986 “amnesty” bill under President Reagan, which allowed nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants to gain status. In 2000, Justice Reynoso received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States’ highest civilian honor, for his efforts to address social inequities and his public service. Justice Reynoso’s life was commemorated in a 2010 documentary by Abby Ginzberg called “Cruz Reynoso: Sowing Seeds of Justice.”

In 2016, the Sacramento chapter of the state’s preeminent Latino lawyers group, La Raza Lawyers, decided to rename itself the Cruz Reynoso Bar Association in his honor. Justice Reynoso helped found the organization four and a half decades ago. Learn more about Justice Reynoso in this video narrated by clinic alum Brian Lopez, ’12 current president of Cruz Reynoso. And find his full obituary in the L.A. Times.

Thank you for your legacy, Justice Reynoso. Si se puede!

 

 

The eight third-year students in the Federal Defender Clinic in Spring 2021 have been busy working on every stage of misdemeanor federal cases.  “Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, their participation has been remote, but this has not deterred them from ably representing their clients as certified misdemeanor student attorneys in federal court,” says Federal Defender Clinic co-director Rachelle Barbour.

The students of the Federal Public Defender represented dozens of clients each month during regular misdemeanor and veterans court intake calendars.  The students also engaged in motions hearings and disputed sentencing hearings.  The federal misdemeanor docket has particularly impacted by COVID closures in 2020, with numerous cases being prepared for trial in the next few months.  Despite the changes in practice, the Federal Defender Clinic students have rapidly learned how to use technology to continue to provide strong, effective representation for their clients.

Student Spotlight

To date, Federal Defender Clinic students have participated in three bench trials on Zoom. One bench trial was done by Richanne Roope with assistance from Gonzalo Duran—both who were also alums of the Immigration Clinic. And recently, students Hector Perla and Garrett Porter represented a client accused of alleged timber theft from the El Dorado National Forest.  The government failed to prove the case and the client was acquitted. In their case, student attorneys showed that the client had properly used his timber permit.  “Key to that victory was an excellent opening statement by Garrett and a superb cross-examination of an officer by Hector,” reports Linda Allison, co-director of the Federal Defender Clinic.

Allison shares that Student lawyers Josh White, Brittany Gamlen, Henry Ng and Ryan Dugan have been doing fantastic work as well in helping to prepare for the trials and managing their own caseloads. “Josh was singled out by a judge after court today for going above and beyond for a blind, homeless client,” reports Allison. “His client did not have the means to appear via Zoom so for each court appearance Josh went and picked her up in his car and appeared in court with her.” Students continue to work hard as the Clinic prepares for a number of bench trials scheduled for April and May.

This week, I am returning to my series on innovative courses.  This posting will feature courses that focus on law and technology.

The list below reflects courses from nine different law schools and includes twelve law and technology courses that I divided into four categories: (1) Courses that focus on creating and using technology in the legal space, (2) courses that focus on digital currency and business, (3) courses that focus on law practice technologies, and (4) courses that focus on cyber-torts, cyber-crimes, and digital privacy and security.

However, I will start with a quick overview of Penn State Law’s Law, Science, and Technology Concentration.

A Quick Aside on Penn State’s Law, Science, and Technology Concentration

The concentration requires JD students to complete 12 credit hours. Particularly exciting courses (to me) include:

  • AI’s Past, Present, and Future
  • COVID-19: Law and Tech Policy
  • Cybercrime
  • Emerging Technology & Legal Practice
  • Information Privacy Law
  • Information Security Law
  • Internet Law
  • Virtual Lab (detailed below)

For more details on the concentration, see this link.

Courses that Focus on Creating and Using Technology in the Legal Space

Southern University Law Center offers an intriguing course called “Intro to Intelligent Legal Systems.”  In this course,

Students will learn the entrepreneurial experience firsthand to better serve tomorrow’s clients by experiencing tech entrepreneurship themselves, learning about business by running a business that involves the creation and launch of legal apps. Students will design technology that helps solve criminal and social justice problems facing many urban areas today. Through this exercise, students will hone their abilities to educate themselves about an area of the law and use that knowledge to imagine tech solutions, solutions with commercial potential. The goal of the course is to inspire students to launch their legal apps in real-world situations to real-world clients.

The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law offers a similar course.  “Selected Projects in Law, Technology & Public Policy” is a 2 or 3 credit, project-based course that is:

[T]aught collaboratively with law faculty, business faculty, and an engineering faculty member. Law students are taught about community engagement, project planning, design thinking, change management, interviewing, surveying, and focus groups. Students work on technology-related, civic and social entrepreneurship projects for Kansas City or other municipalities with technology support from the Code for America Brigade.

University of Connecticut School of Law offers a 3-credit seminar on “Technology and Law Practice,” which is described as:

In this course, students are expected to work in small teams with a legal service organization to develop a platform, application, or automated system that increases access to justice and/or improves the effectiveness of legal representation. For the final project, each team will have developed and/or built a functional app or automated system that is adopted by the legal service organization and put into use for the organization or its clients. Students are not required to have coding or programming experience and will not be expected to write software.

Boston University School of Law and UC Berkeley collaborate on a course offering called “Law for Algorithms” taught by Andrew Sellars. The course description explains:

Algorithms – those information-processing machines designed by humans – reach ever more deeply into our lives, creating alternate and sometimes enhanced manifestations of social and biological processes. In doing so, algorithms yield powerful levers for good and ill amidst a sea of unforeseen consequences. This cross-cutting and interdisciplinary course investigates several aspects of algorithms and their impact on society and law. Specifically, the course connects concepts of proof, verifiability, privacy, security, trust, and randomness in computer science with legal concepts of autonomy, consent, governance, and liability, and examines interests at the evolving intersection of technology and the law. Grades will be based on a combination of short weekly reflection papers and a final project, to be completed collaboratively in mixed teams of law and computer science students. This seminar will include attendees from the computer science faculty, students and scholars based at Boston University and UC Berkeley.

Finally, Loyola Law School’s “Artificial Intelligence and Access to Justice Practicum” 3-credit course gives students the opportunity to:

work in small teams with a legal service organization to develop a platform, application, or automated system that increases access to justice and/or improves the effectiveness of legal representation. For the final project, each team will have developed and/or built a functional app or automated system that is adopted by the legal service organization and put into use for the organization or its clients. Students are not required to have coding or programming experience and will not be expected to write software.

Penn State’s Virtual Lab offers a distinctive variant. According to the linked story, the Virtual Lab:

The Legal-Tech Virtual Lab reinvents the idea of a computer lab, piloting the lab of the future as a virtual space, built around a set of technologies and opportunities to learn about them rather than simply a physical room. Partnering with leading legal technology companies and interdisciplinary partners across Penn State, the lab will (1) train Penn State Law students in the ways these groundbreaking technologies are being implemented in today’s legal practice; (2) enable law and other Penn State students to explore the legal issues surrounding emerging technology; and (3) develop innovative educational content using those technologies.

Courses that Focus on Digital Currency, Law, and Business

The Northern Kentucky University Chase College of Law’s “Digital Commerce and the Law” 3-credit elective course addresses e-commerce law and digital currency.

The course description explains:

As commerce shifts to the Internet and mobile technologies, the law has been forced to adapt to the realities of the e-commerce marketplace. Consumers and businesses buy and sell goods or services through virtual storefronts using digital contracts, paying with digital currency, and, in some cases, resolving disputes online. Meanwhile, blockchain technology has offered new ways to document and to pay for e-commerce transactions through smart contracts and cryptocurrencies, like bitcoin. This course will address e-commerce common and regulatory law, with a special emphasis upon blockchain technology.

In “Smart Contracts and Financial Technology,” a course developed by Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, CA, students explore blockchain technology and its legal effects. The course description explains that the course is:

A workshop exploring the legal implications of blockchain and distributed ledger technologies, with a focus on cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin), smart contracts and other financial use cases. The class will feature a close exploration of the network and cryptographic features of Bitcoin, the first and most utilized cryptocurrency built on the blockchain. The class will then review blockchain technology more broadly in order to appreciation its suitability (advantages and limitations) for a variety of ‘smart contract’ use cases, including payments, swaps and other derivatives, and land transfer. A number of biomedical blockchain use cases will also be examined.

Courses that Focus on Law Practice Technologies

The third course in this category is “Law Practice Business and Technology” taught at NSU Florida’s Shepard Broad College of Law.” The course description for “Law Practice Business and Technology” explains:

This course examines the operations of successful private practice require an understanding of the primary tools used to efficiently deliver legal services and meet the ethical and professional obligations to provide competent representation. Lawyers need to understand the law firm business, operations, and relevant technology if they are to succeed in the profession. This workshop provides hands on experience for students on a number of key operational aspects of the practice of law, including the business foundation of a successful law firm management; privacy and data security in a law office environment, including but not limited to security and confidentiality of client information; marketing, public relations, advertising and social media; duties of technological competence under ABA “Ethics 20/20” amendments to the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility; predictive coding and other eDiscovery issues; client intake and case management; and issues related to the scope and composition of representation including the unauthorized practice of law and unbundled legal services.

The University of South Carolina School of Law offers a course called “Technology Law: Law of the Newly Possible” taught by Associate Professor Bryant Walker Smith. This course:

[E]xplores the relationship between law and technology through unique, immersive, and collaborative case studies that emphasize impact. The class has partnered with Virgin Hyperloop One on state regulatory strategies for ultra-fast tube transport and with UberElevate on policy considerations for flying taxis. Most recently, students consulted numerous stakeholders to develop public recommendations for the local regulation of e-scooters. In each case, students work closely with each other and with experts in academia, government, industry, and civil society to understand not only law but also technology, policy, and business.

Courses that Focus on Cyber-Torts, Cyber-Crimes, and Digital Privacy and Security

The last category is a bit of a catch-all and includes three courses from Northern Kentucky University Chase College of Law.

  1. “Digital Crimes and Torts” is described as:

This is the age of the invisible criminal and tortfeasor, harming individuals, businesses, and governments under a cloak of anonymity and through the boundless reach of the Internet. Many crimes and torts were rare or nonexistent until this century—like cyber-attacks, cyberbullying, cyberextortion, cyberstalking, cyberterrorism, and cybertheft. This course will examine New Age crimes and torts and the legal challenges in imposing criminal and civil liability upon those who commit them.

  1. “Legal Boundaries in the Digital Age” is described as:

Technology extends the reach of individuals, organizations, and governments beyond borders, posing one of the greatest legal challenges in the Digital Age. A single action on the Internet can have consequences far beyond where the actor resides—stealing an identity, subverting an election, threatening a public utility—raising questions about what laws, and what governing bodies, will protect victims and punish those that harm them through technology. This course will examine the obstacles to enacting and enforcing laws to govern cyberspace and the real world when developing technologies create challenges to the lawful authority of governments to regulate technology.

  1. “Digital Privacy and Security” is described as:

The exponential and infinite proliferation of big data raises both privacy and security issues, as the sensitive information of individuals, organizations, and governments are collected and stored online where it can be hacked or misused without authorization. This course will explore the developing, complex web of laws, national and international, that govern data privacy and cybersecurity. More specifically, it will examine the limitations of the existing legal framework and consider the policy implications of greater regulation of data collection over the Internet and the evolving Internet of Things.

In May 2020, McGeorge alumnus Aaron Brieno, ‘14 joined Professor Cathy Christian as Co-Director of the McGeorge Legislative and Public Policy Clinic. “One of the biggest reasons why I teach is to ensure that students of all backgrounds have access to public policy making tools,” says Brieno, who currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Staff for California State Senator Ben Hueso. “Ideally the Clinic provides students with tools they can bring back to their community as social impact leaders.”

Despite the challenges of COVID, Legislative and Public Policy students are thriving. “I am so proud that all of our students groups were able to either introduce a bill or work on a bill this year,” says Brieno. “No small feat since the California Legislature has limited the introduction of bills during COVID.”

Brieno and Professor Christian have exposed students to a number of legislators and public policy advocates during the course of the year. “We wanted to provide our students with a well-rounded experience and expose them to impactful leaders,” Brieno says. This spring alone, students heard from a panel of women legislators about their experiences in the Capitol and from “Just Mercy” film producer Scott Budnick about his anti-recidivism work in California.

Brieno himself has come full-circle since his days as a student at the Clinic. The grandson of migrant farm workers, Aaron was born and raised in California’s rural San Joaquin Valley. As a McGeorge student, the Legislative and Public Policy Clinic shaped the trajectory of his career. “The Clinic had a tremendously huge impact on my life,” says Brieno, crediting the mentorship of then clinic co-director and founder Rex Frasier,’00 and co-director Anthony Williams,’05.

As part of his mission to pay it forward, in 2016, Aaron founded a community-based organization, Inspire California, which provides free college prep resources, mentorship and college campus tours to high school students of Central Valley migrant farmworkers.

“My advice to McGeorge students interested in legislative and public policy work is to reach out to us,” says Aaron. “We are more than happy to set up a virtual coffee or put you in touch with a current student.”

The Elder and Health Law (EHL) clinic, a civil practice clinic serving those age 60 and older, offers clients legal representation on matters including protection from physical and financial abuse, estate and end-of-life planning, contract disputes and more. In 2020 alone, the clinic recovered and/or protected $1,424,190 in assets for elders and fine/fees forgiveness.

Ten students joined the Elder & Health Law Clinic (ELHC) in the fall, which expanded to twelve this spring. Lacey Mickleburgh our fearless staff attorney and clinical fellow, Kendell Bennet, rounded out the team. Although COVID-19 presented significant access to the courts, student attorneys were able to assist and represent elders in a variety of legal matters. Cases included estate planning and powers of attorney to give peace of mind to their clients, consumer protection from suspect businesses, elder abuse restraining orders and elder financial abuse litigation.

During this period, the courts were not accepting cases other than requests for elder abuse, domestic violence, or civil harassment restraining orders. Because elders are often the targets of undue influence and false promises, many transfer their homes, their only asset, to family or friends. The ELHC was able to protect these assets through a restraining order and order to re-convey the property to our client. This novel and creative approach saved three homes from sale, and our clients from being evicted from their own homes.

When the courts did open up for trials, student attorneys achieved major settlements in three financial abuse cases, each in the heat of litigation. Students took depositions, propounded and responded to discovery, filed motions and briefs; all of which let to successful results for happy clients. They, successfully represented a client in a multi-day Zoom trial and helped recover substantial assets that had been taken from them. The case began in 2019 and took the efforts of multiple students who assisted with depositions, trial preparation, and more.

During 2020-2021, McGeorge Legal Clinics continued to represent individual clients in spite of the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, providing essential services to vulnerable members of our community who have no place else to turn. There is no way our clients would have had access to the courts without the advocacy provided by our Legal Clinics. The grit, dedication, creativity, and resourcefulness of our Student Attorneys has been remarkable.

On campus, Community Legal Services, McGeorge’s year-round legal clinic, provides pro bono legal services to the greater Sacramento community in the areas of Immigration, Bankruptcy, and Elder & Health Law. This March, we celebrated one full year at our new home, on 2925 34th Street. Last year, CLS closed 236 cases for 586 low-income clients in the Sacramento area. Since 2019, CLS has recovered 2.75 million for financially exploited elders and 1.7 million in discharged consumer debt. Off campus, our Legislative & Public Policy Clinic, Prisoner Civil Rights Medication Clinic and Federal Defender Clinic students continue to show equally impressive results.

In June 2020, we welcomed our first-ever graduate legal fellows. Not only did they work diligently at CLS, they studied for and each passed the October bar exam. Four for four! I am so proud of their success and the contributions they have made and will continue to make to the legal profession.

Despite being isolated from friends, colleagues, professors, and resources, our Student Attorneys illustrated their commitment to social justice by providing zealous advocacy. Thank you to our students, staff attorneys, post-graduate fellows, legal coordinator and clinical colleagues for another successful and impactful year. Despite a most challenging year, you persevered in providing high-quality legal services to the community.

The past year has posed some unique challenges to law students. Chiefly, the shift from in-person to at-home learning required most of us to adapt to our learning environment. But we have also adapted similarly at least once before: when we started law school.

If you are like me, your undergrad study habits were day and night different from those you had to adopt in law school. But just because transitioning to law school or adapting to virtual learning can be daunting, it’s not impossible. And there are tools that I have found make a significant difference when it comes to cutting out distractions and organizing all of my drafts, outlines, class slides, notes, and work files.

Today, I want to share the top five resources that I have used for the past three years. These tools are not exclusively used for law school, so feel free to apply them at work or while pursuing your undergraduate degree. Most of these suggestions can be used for school, work, or just personal use. So, let’s get into the list:

1. Note Taking

Some of you may see this section and think “Why is this #1? I already have a notebook and pen to take notes.” No doubt you are one of the many who prefer to take notes by handwriting them. And of course, most people are likely aware of the research suggesting that handwritten notes increase a person’s understanding and retention of the material. More on that here.

And if you still want to handwrite your notes, I would suggest getting a tablet and e-pen. For instance, I use my iPad and Apple Pencil to handwrite notes during class that I can then transcribe and add to outlines or other study resources.

But notebooks are bulky. Pens get lost. There is no way to transfer those written notes into an outline. That is why having a note-taking app on your computer and/or tablet is so important. These apps allow you to type notes, copy/paste them, organize them in books, binders, pages, cards, and several other digital formats.

Here are the apps that I would suggest:

One Note

At OU Law, all of our students have Office 365 accounts with access to the complete suite of apps. One of Microsoft’s most popular tools is One Note. One Note is an open format note-taking space. It allows the user to organize notes into folders with subsections that contain each individual “page.” And I say “page” because there are no page breaks. You have a vast expanse to dump as many notes as you want into.

I suggest One Note because I use it as part of my Office 365 suite. It stores all my notes on a cloud server so I can access and edit them from any of my devices. The fact that it synchronizes with all of my other Microsoft apps is a massive convenience.

Evernote

I used Evernote in Undergrad. From what I recall, it is a good note-taking app that allows for plenty of personalized organization and formatting. The primary reason I switched to One Note over Evernote was the fact that I use Microsoft apps almost exclusively like a majority of the legal profession does. However, that does not mean that Evernote deserves to be discarded. If you prefer a different interface and aesthetic that One Note doesn’t offer, check out Evernote.

Craft

This one is pretty new. Craft is an iOS app that I use to take notes and organize my podcast projects, blog ideas, and personal book studies. I have, so far, really enjoyed the functionality and organization of Craft because it allows me to move content freely on each document. Also, it allows the user to create pages and cards within documents that contain additional content. If you are a visual learner, or if you juggle more creative responsibilities in an iOS environment, I would suggest trying it out.

2. Cloud Storage

I mentioned this briefly in the previous section, but it definitely deserves a place on this list. Cloud storage isn’t new, and it keeps growing more relevant. For a brief explanation, storing your data on the cloud means that you are most likely saving it on an encrypted server owned and protected by a company that enables you to access it through the internet. These services allow you to access and edit your documents from almost any device from anywhere with a connection to the internet.

I can’t even begin to adequately emphasize the importance of auto-save during law school. Auto-save is a function that most cloud services offer that will track your changes to a document and save them in real-time. This means that if your computer dies or crashes after you just spent hours drafting an outline, your progress will be saved!

Of course, all cloud services will offer slightly different experiences, so I would first suggest using the one you are most comfortable with. However, I would also be remiss if I didn’t also stress the importance of vetting the security of the service. If you work with or have sensitive data, make sure that the service you use has adequate security. Multiple server locations also protect your data against loss due to natural disasters.

Suggestions:

I won’t go into too much detail on my suggestions for these because I think it really depends on how well the service you use integrates with the rest of your apps and software. But, I do suggest either OneDrive or Google Drive for students, because they both allow you to work collaboratively and they will auto-save your work when you edit on the cloud. If you are using a cloud service for work, I would suggest using a business account, which will provide better encryption and security.

3. Ambient Noise

Alright, this one is big for me. I took a lot of online classes in undergrad and obviously have taken a majority of classes virtually since the COVID outbreak last March. That means I spend a lot of time at my computer, at home, surrounded by distractions. One way I stay focused; ambient noise. For me, this works best with the sound of a breeze, rain, thunder, a crackling fire, or some repetitive melody. If you are interested, you can read an article about the effect of background noise on studying here.

Suggestions:

Again, this one really depends on what you find most useful. There are so many apps and webpages that provide ambient noise that trying to name and differentiate them in a blog post would be foolhardy. However, I will say that there are three platforms that I am likely to turn to which depends on the project that I am working on at the moment.

Brain Fm

If you are a science fan, you will probably like this one. Brain FM is a premium service that offers ambient music scientifically developed to improve brain function and information retention. I have used this when I need to dig deep into class readings or extensive legal research. If you are interested but not ready to pay for the service, Brain FM does offer a three-day free trial.

Noiisy

The app I use most often is Noiisy. Noiisy allows me to mix my own ambient noises by selecting what sounds to include and adjust their respective levels. I enjoy this especially because it allows me to decide exactly what I want to hear. I also use this for providing ambiance when I read at night or am having trouble falling asleep. It also includes a timer to set your playback to anything from 1 to 120 minutes. And it’s free!

YouTube

If you don’t know where to start, and you don’t want to install an app, you can always turn to YouTube! YouTube is famous for having a massive library by creators in nearly every corner of the internet. This includes a massive library of hours-long ambient noise mixes. Any time I want to mix it up, I will go to youtube and browse its libraries until I find something that appeals to me. And, again, it is free!

4. Password Manager

You should have unique, strong passwords for all of your accounts on the internet, which, admittedly, can seem almost impossible. In law school, you are going to accumulate a lot of new logins. A lot. So, how are you supposed to come up with passwords for all of those sites? Come up with one good one and just apply it to all of them? No.

Instead, you should get yourself a password manager to help you create and save your login information. This way, all of your accounts will be more secure, and you won’t have to consistently go looking for your old passwords. They will all be in one place! I cannot stress how useful a password manager is when you use several different legal research sites, class pages, and personal accounts like Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon Prime. And if you aren’t convinced yet, take a look at this article by the NY Times about why you need a password manager.

Suggestions:

First, I would decide how much you are willing to pay for a password manager. Because you will have to pay for a really good one. But they are not all that expensive in comparison to the security they provide. I am comfortable suggesting both 1Password and LastPass, but if you are interested in exploring more options you can start with this guide.

5. Browser Extension

Now, it is time to talk about the window you will spend most of your time using; your browser. I use Google Chrome because it has always been the most reliable browser in my opinion, although Safari has improved lately and is the other browser that I use more for personal browsing. Chrome offers a vast market of extensions that run within your browser window and offer added functionality. For me, these are the extensions that have added the most value to my browser:

PowerNotes

If you have ever conducted academic research online, you know the struggle of copy/pasting information and keeping it organized. If you ever thought “there has to be a better way to do this” then you are right. PowerNotes was created to specifically help law students and lawyers organize their research by developing a tool that works within your browser. This means that you can read a case on Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg, or anywhere on the internet and save it directly to your outline. For me, it has saved me a ton of time and streamlined my research process because I don’t have to constantly switch windows to save my research. If you do any research and drafting, check out PowerNotes.

Momentum

Do you like pretty pictures and motivational quotes? Then download Momentum. Momentum is an extension that changes your default new tab page with a daily photo and mantra. You can also personalize it with your name, show the weather for your location, and run a to-do list on it. I enjoy the relaxing and stunning photography that it uses. It is always nice to have a peaceful screen when you are in the middle of a stressful project or just starting. Momentum helps me be productive and find some peace of mind at the same time. And it is available on several browsers!

Grammarly

Of course, no list of browser extensions would be complete without mentioning Grammarly. After all, we are all human, and we make mistakes. So, let Grammarly help out and flag any misspelled words, comma splices, or conflicting verb usage. I won’t go into depth on this because I feel like most everyone has enough of an understanding of what it offers.

I hope you have found something valuable from this blog. Again, any of these suggestions are freely offered for students of any variety as well as attorneys or other professionals. Ultimately, I see these apps and tools as ways to improve productivity and reduce overall stress.

In craft beer law, one of the most aggravating and seemingly unstoppable issues we see is Big Manufacturers’ constant efforts to undermine, diminish, and erode tied-house laws through the legislative process. Here we go again.

California Assembly Bill AB-1070 (Irwin), introduced on February 18, 2021, is shining example of the shenanigans that deep pockets empower Big Manufacturers to engage in.  The Bill provides as follows [with my bracketed insertions]: “This bill would authorize specified licensees [manufacturers], without direct or indirect charge, to give up to 12 retail advertising umbrellas to an on-sale retail licensee [bars and restaurants], per licensed location [all locations the bar or restaurant has], each calendar year for use at the location [a new set of umbrellas every year!].  This bill would prohibit the retail advertising umbrellas from exceeding the value of $250 per unit [LOL] and would prescribe other requirements in this regard.”

Ask yourself who would want this. Do you think your local craft brewery could afford to give even one $250 umbrella to each of the retail locations that serve its beer? When you multiply $250 by 12, you get $3000. Really? A free $3000 worth of fancy umbrellas? This would be yet another major exception to the tied-house laws.

The primary purpose of tied-house laws is to prevent Big Manufacturers from having undue influence over retailers. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25500 et seq. The primary restriction to achieve this goal is to prohibit manufacturers from giving “anything of value” to retailers so that retailers will not be subject to pressure to favor certain brands over others. In addition, California’s alcoholic beverage control scheme, like most states’ schemes, seeks to promote temperance in the consumption of alcoholic beverages.  See id. at § 23000.

AB-1070 (Irwin) patently flies in the face of the legislative purposes behind tied-house laws and California’s alcoholic beverage control scheme. Does allowing manufacturers who can afford to give $3000 x [add up as many on-premise locations as you wish] further the goals of reducing undue pressure on retailers or promote temperance? Nope. Not at all.

Instead, this reflects a larger plan that Big Manufacturers have effectively employed over time to snuff out the pesky little guy. The more exceptions to the tied-house restrictions that Big Manufacturers can pass, the less veracity the whole system has—exactly what Big Manufacturers want. If there are no restrictions on Big Manufacturers giving away free stuff (even money in some cases), the pressure on retailers to push their products, and only their products, will be insurmountable. A small mom-and-pop, or even a large chain restaurant, would be hard pressed to deny such enticing freebies—especially when the Big Manufacturer can quickly supply its own shiny and new crafty beers from the formerly independent brewery down the street that it just bought (with no reference to ownership, of course).

Two cycles ago, it was free glassware; now it is free branded umbrellas. Anyone seeing a pattern? Educate your legislators. This is ridiculous.