Re: The Binding Of Isaac Home
Siri Vonbank
A recent example is the trial of Timothy Verrill in New Hampshire for a double murder. [2] Verrill, who is awaiting trial in October, stands accused of the brutal stabbing murders of Christine Sullivan and Jenna Pellegrini after Verrill became suspicious that one of the women was acting as a police informant who was snitching on his criminal activity. An Amazon Echo was located in the home near where the murders took place. Last November, upon a warrant requested by law enforcement, the judge hearing the case ordered Amazon to release hours of audio recordings captured on the device at or near the time of the murders. It is unclear if and to what extent the Amazon recordings will be used in trial as relevant evidence, but having access allows the prosecution the opportunity to review them for potential evidence.
These examples highlight the new age of data policing and the debate between privacy versus criminal justice concerns. Judges may face a dilemma in deciding how easy or difficult it should be for law enforcement to access recordings on these personal gadgets. Ordinarily, police must demonstrate probable cause in order to search personal property, which is a pretty low threshold. Typically, courts find probable cause to allow police officers to search homes, cars and personal belongings located at or near crime scenes, but the new norm of smart devices in every home raises fresh privacy questions. Searching a house where a murder took place is one thing as there is unquestionably probable cause that the house may be scattered with physical clues linked to the crime. However, searching the recorded contents of a smart speaker that happened to be located at the scene of a crime, but which may not have been actually used and therefore recording, is a gray area that still poses a number of unanswered questions about privacy.
In practice, courts so far seem to be favoring access and finding probable cause to search these tiny data hubs but if tech companies continue to resist the government, the smart device debate could make its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For now, it seems that law enforcement will continue to push for smart spies to act as evidence and influence criminal trials. One thing is for sure, the world will be watching the next time Alexa gets summoned to the witness stand.
David Moser is an attorney with Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor, LLC in Columbus, Ohio. A former county and city prosecutor, Moser is passionate about law enforcement topics ranging from misdemeanor enforcement to civil liability involved with uses of force. Moser practices in the Public Law Group and can be contacted for further questions at DMo...@isaacwiles.com.
Stephanie Davis bought a house in Kelowna, B.C., to get away from the noise and bustle of the big city. But when a nearby wildfire made it temporarily impossible to insure her new home, she was stuck.
Insurers email brokers to alert them to the restrictions and update their websites to stop customers from changing policies online. Customers must wait until the restrictions are lifted to change their policies or buy new ones.
Insurance companies often apply restrictions to areas as far as 50 kilometres away from a wildfire, said Aaron Sutherland, spokesperson for the Insurance Bureau of Canada. He said restrict binding stops customers from purchasing home insurance when they know fires are burning nearby.
In late September, more than a month after it began, firefighters got the 139-square-kilometre McDougall Creek fire under control. It destroyed nearly 190 homes and properties. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, wildfires in the Okanagan and Shuswap areas cost about $720 million in insured damage.
Wildfire risk is increasing with climate change. Recent research in the scientific journal Nature found the wildfires that burned across B.C. last year were fuelled by a climate-driven lack of moisture and record temperatures. Wildfires, drought and prolonged heat will occur more frequently and more intensely with climate change.
Last summer, several American insurance companies pulled out of California, partially citing the risk of wildfire. There, insurance companies must file their insurance rates with the state. Rates are subject to government approval, which makes it difficult for insurance companies to charge higher premiums.
I'm kind of sympathetic, but not very sympathetic. I really dislike large corporations, and I'm certainly no fan of insurance companies, whose business is basically to make a bet with you that they won't have to pay you as much as you pay them, and who can make sure their bet pays off because they have all the data and you don't.
But come on. If I were running an insurance company, there's no way I'd sell someone fire insurance when wildfires are in their neighborhood. Any insurance company stupid enough to do that wouldn't be in business long. And meanwhile, if someone's going to move into a place where there are lots of fires, they don't have a lot of complaint coming if fire insurance is expensive. You want cheap insurance, go somewhere low risk.
The sales contract also contained a binding arbitration provision that stated: " [A]ny controversy or claim ... arising out of or relating to this Contract or any agreements or instruments relating to or delivered in connection with this Contract ... shall ... be determined by arbitration, reference, or trial by a judge as provided below. A controversy involving only a single claimant, or claimants who are related or asserting claims arising from a single transaction, shall be determined by arbitration [pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act]." Separate and apart from the warranty and the sales contract, Thomas Walton also signed a "Binding Arbitration Agreement" at the time of sale. This agreement stated: "All disputes ... resulting from or arising out of the design, manufacture, warranty or repair of the manufactured home ... will be submitted to BINDING ARBITRATION [pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act]."
The Waltons also named Greenpoint Financial Corporation (the company that financed the purchase) as a defendant in the lawsuit, arguing that the failure of the mobile home purchase gives the Waltons a defense to Greenpoint's secured claim against them. This issue is not before this court
The MMWA establishes standards governing the content of consumer product warranties,see 15 U.S.C. 2301-08 (1994), and creates a legal remedy for consumers who are harmed by a warrantor's failure to comply with the obligations established in a warranty, see id. 2310. Both parties agree that the MMWA's provisions are applicable to the transaction at issue.
Because Rose issued no express written warranty to the Waltons, all claims against Rose were deemed subject to arbitration. Accordingly, Southern Energy is the only remaining defendant in this action
The provisions of the MMWA governing informal dispute settlement procedures appear to be applicable only to claims brought pursuant to written warranties See 15 U.S.C. 2310(a) (2) (1994) ("The Commission shall prescribe rules setting forth minimum requirements for any informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of this chapter applies.") (emphasis added).
We note again, as we stated in Part II.B, that the MMWA requires consumers to submit to informal dispute settlement procedures for breach of written warranty claims, if the warrantor has established such procedures, before filing a civil action See 15 U.S.C. 2310(a) (3). Our holding in no way conflicts with this provision.
Any mechanism established in a warranty must be funded by the warrantor, 16 C.F.R. 703.3(a) (2001), but must be sufficiently insulated from the warrantor "so that the decisions of the members and the performance of the staff are not influenced by either the warrantor or the sponsor,"id. 703.3(b). The regulations establish guidelines for investigation and collection of evidence, rendering of decisions, oral presentation by parties, and monitoring of settlement obligations. Id. 703.5.
The FTC's interpretive regulations under the MMWA (promulgated two years after the legislative regulations) further clarify the Commission's position on the use of binding arbitration clauses in written warranties. These regulations explain that " [a] warrantor shall not indicate in any written warranty or service contract either directly or indirectly that the decision of the warrantor, service contractor,or any designated third party is final or binding in any dispute concerning the warranty or service contract.... Such statements are deceptive since ... the Act gives state and federal courts jurisdiction over suits for breach of warranty and service contract." 16 C.F.R. 700.8 (2001) (emphasis added).
It merits notice that this standard of deference appears to be applicable to the Commission's legislative regulations, but not necessarily to its interpretive regulations. The legislative regulations, 16 C.F.R. 701-03 (2001), were promulgated pursuant to Congress's express grant of rulemaking authority to the FTC in the MMWA, 15 U.S.C. 2309-10 (1994). As the Supreme Court recently recognized, "express congressional authorizations to engage in the process of rulemaking" are "a very good indicator of delegation meriting Chevron treatment." Mead Corp., 121 S. Ct. at 2172. Accordingly, to the extent that the statute is "silent or ambiguous" with respect to an issue, we must defer the Commission's interpretation in its legislative regulations if that interpretation is reasonable. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Assocs., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 481, 121 S. Ct. 903, 149 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2001).
The FTC requested comments on its rules and guides interpreting and implementing the MMWA "as part of its regulatory review program, under which it reviews rules and guides periodically in order to obtain information about the costs and benefits of the rules and guides under review, as well as their regulatory and economic impact." 64 Fed. Reg. 19700, 19700 (Apr. 22, 1999). "After careful review of the comments received in response" to its request, the Commission decided to retain the interpretations and rules without change Id.
d3342ee215