On the record: Obituary for Professor Mike Brogden – sociologist, social historian, policing scholar, troublemaker of sorts

In 1991, Mike Brogden was a Visiting Professor at the then Institute of Criminology at the University of Cape Town. Recently, in the process of archiving the material pertaining to the Institute, we came across a stack of printed teaching notes for a course he convened, titled the History of Criminal Justice. It was not a course for those with short attention spans and little interest in history. The course stretched over twenty-odd lectures and the file contains 122 pages of typed notes. The subject matter was sweeping in scope and the timeline expansive: sixteenth- to nineteenth-century England. The notes illustrated that Brogden had a remarkable ability to situate conversations on crime, criminal justice and policing in the context of social history. At heart he was a social historian or an historical sociologist

Impact of scribing history and physical notes and procedure reports on endoscopist efficiency during routine procedures: a proof-of-concept study

BACKGROUND: Efficiency is an important aspect of endoscopic practice that has received limited study. We evaluated the impact of scribing electronic pre-procedure history and physical examinations, and electronic procedure reports on endoscopist efficiency. METHODS: We used a stopwatch to measure the time between the procedures (scope out to scope in), pre-procedure patient assessment time, and procedure report generation time for 180 consecutive procedures performed by a single endoscopist with or without a scribe for recording history and physical and procedure reports. Schedulers were unaware of whether a scribe would be present. RESULTS: Mean times for recording the pre-procedure history and physical and procedure reports were reduced by 34% (p = 0.001) and 71% (p < 0.0001), respectively, when scribes were used. The mean time saved by the endoscopist from scribing the history and the physical and procedure reports was 2.12 and 1.59 min, respectively. When both processes were scribed, the endoscopist spent 42% (p = 0.033) longer in the recovery area (absolute mean increase 1.01 min) compared with when no scribes were utilized. The total time saved per 6.5-h procedure block with both scribes averaged to 41.7 min. CONCLUSION: The use of scribes to record history and physical examination notes and procedure reports saved enough endoscopist time to allow additional procedures or longer procedures, or to free the time for other tasks

A Review of the Proposed Michigan Rules of Evidence

On January 6, 1977, the Supreme Court of Michigan entered an order stating that it is considering adoption of the proposed Michigan Rules of Evidence which were submitted to the Court by the committee which it appointed in March 1975. The Court has solicited comments from interested persons regarding the proposed rules. A copy of the Supreme Court\u27s order is published in this issue of the Bar Journal. The proposed rules are published in the January 26, 1977, issue of North Western Reporter, Second Series (Michigan Edition). The purpose of this article is to review in general the background and substance of the proposed rules. More detailed information concerning the rules may be obtained by consulting the text of the rules and the committee notes thereto. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss in detail the policy considerations supporting adoption of each proposed rule which conflicts with prior Michigan law. For the most part the proposed rules are identical with the Federal Rules of Evidence and the policy considerations favoring adoption of the rules are discussed in the Federal Advisory Committee Notes and the legislative history of the Federal Rules

A Review of the Proposed Michigan Rules of Evidence

On January 6, 1977, the Supreme Court of Michigan entered an order stating that it is considering adoption of the proposed Michigan Rules of Evidence which were submitted to the Court by the committee which it appointed in March 1975. The Court has solicited comments from interested persons regarding the proposed rules. A copy of the Supreme Court\u27s order is published in this issue of the Bar Journal. The proposed rules are published in the January 26, 1977, issue of North Western Reporter, Second Series (Michigan Edition). The purpose of this article is to review in general the background and substance of the proposed rules. More detailed information concerning the rules may be obtained by consulting the text of the rules and the committee notes thereto. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss in detail the policy considerations supporting adoption of each proposed rule which conflicts with prior Michigan law. For the most part the proposed rules are identical with the Federal Rules of Evidence and the policy considerations favoring adoption of the rules are discussed in the Federal Advisory Committee Notes and the legislative history of the Federal Rules

Widening the Lane: An Argument for Broader Interpretation of Permissible Uses Under the Driver\u27s Privacy Protection Act

This Note argues that the recent judicial interpretations of the DPPA by the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have improperly limited the scope of permissible uses. The imposition of reasonableness limitations on disclosure, and the judicial analysis of disclosure to determine the exclusive predominant purpose, were novel judicial interpretations of a longstanding and established statute. Courts’ narrow interpretations of the permissible uses of the DPPA are contrary to the text of the statute and do not advance the statute’s central goals. The courts’ approaches are also likely to have significant practical effect contrary to general policy aims. Such changes are better considered by Congress than in the courts. Part I of this Note details the origins of the DPPA and identifies the congressional intent underlying the text of the statute. Part II provides a brief history of the constitutional challenges to the DPPA and notes the past treatment of the statute’s permissible uses in various circuits. Parts III and IV give a detailed account of two recent court cases that have imposed new limits on permissible uses of personal information. Part V argues against these interpretations and explores their likely practical implications. The argument highlights the plain language of the statute and its relationship with the Act’s legislative history and purpose, while remarking on the implications of civil liability, the role of the rule of lenity, and the need to ensure proper notice of violations falling under the statute. The Note concludes that if new constraints are to be placed onto the scope of permissible uses under the DPPA, the limitations should arise from congressional action and should not be imposed through judicial usurpation of the lawmaking role

Widening the Lane: An Argument for Broader Interpretation of Permissible Uses Under the Driver\u27s Privacy Protection Act

This Note argues that the recent judicial interpretations of the DPPA by the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have improperly limited the scope of permissible uses. The imposition of reasonableness limitations on disclosure, and the judicial analysis of disclosure to determine the exclusive predominant purpose, were novel judicial interpretations of a longstanding and established statute. Courts’ narrow interpretations of the permissible uses of the DPPA are contrary to the text of the statute and do not advance the statute’s central goals. The courts’ approaches are also likely to have significant practical effect contrary to general policy aims. Such changes are better considered by Congress than in the courts. Part I of this Note details the origins of the DPPA and identifies the congressional intent underlying the text of the statute. Part II provides a brief history of the constitutional challenges to the DPPA and notes the past treatment of the statute’s permissible uses in various circuits. Parts III and IV give a detailed account of two recent court cases that have imposed new limits on permissible uses of personal information. Part V argues against these interpretations and explores their likely practical implications. The argument highlights the plain language of the statute and its relationship with the Act’s legislative history and purpose, while remarking on the implications of civil liability, the role of the rule of lenity, and the need to ensure proper notice of violations falling under the statute. The Note concludes that if new constraints are to be placed onto the scope of permissible uses under the DPPA, the limitations should arise from congressional action and should not be imposed through judicial usurpation of the lawmaking role

History, Governmental Structure, and Politics: Defining the Scope of Local Board of Health Power

Local boards of health often issue regulations that have broad effects that surpass the borders of the city or county to which they apply. Promulgation of such rules by board of health members appointed by the executive branch implicates separation of powers concerns; because such regulations may so extensively burden a locality’s citizens, it may be more appropriate for elected officials to adopt these regulations. Indeed, local businesses or other interested parties often bring suit challenging local board of health actions. Courts apply different analytical methodologies to review these challenges, which often leads to incongruent local health agency discretion for different boards in different states—or even between different local boards in the same state. This Note suggests that the above concerns implicitly affect how courts assess local board of health action. Based on an examination of four local boards of health and their relationships with their local and state governments, this Note posits that there are three factors that courts and policymakers should examine when assessing the parameters of a local board of health’s regulatory discretion: the locality’s history, the locality’s government structure, and the locality’s politics. By taking into account these three factors before applying traditional doctrines of local agency review—including nondelegation, preemption, or Dillon’s Rule—courts may be better positioned to decide which of these doctrines should apply. In conducting this analysis, this Note also furthers the understanding of the place local boards of health hold in the grander struggle between local and state governments

Conceptualizing and Reconceptualizing the Reporter’s Privilege in the Age of Wikileaks

The examination of the reporter’s privilege in light of WikiLeaks gives rise to several imperative questions. Could WikiLeaks claim a federal reporter’s privilege if the U.S. government were to ask it to disclose the sources of its documents? Does the current federal law on reporter’s privilege adequately address new media, such as WikiLeaks? And if not, how should the law evolve to sufficiently accommodate organizations like WikiLeaks? This Note seeks to answer these questions. First, this Note advocates that WikiLeaks would be able to claim the privilege under current federal law. Second, this Note concludes that the current law on the reporter’s privilege has not sufficiently evolved to account for entities like WikiLeaks. Third, this Note discusses policy proposals to address the current shortcomings and ultimately advocates for a qualified privilege, the scope of which is determined by the source’s expectations, where the reporter presents the source’s expectations in court on behalf of the source