news in brief

Harrisburg – Welfare recipients who were scheduled to lose their benefits starting in March will get a bit of a reprieve.



High school students who perform well on basic skills tests will receive special recognition on their diplomas.



And people who carry loaded paintball guns in their cars will be fined.



Such are the changes in store as the result of laws, regulations and policy decisions set to take effect during the upcoming year. Pennsylvania has few dramatic changes currently in the works for 2002, but some new measures will affect specific groups of people.



In perhaps the most notable change, the first group of welfare recipients is scheduled to have a “lifetime limit” of five years of assistance exhausted starting in March under the federal government’s 1996 welfare reform law. However, state officials have released a plan that would allow some recipients to continue receiving assistance.



Welfare recipients who are victims of domestic violence, mentally ill or physically disabled, or who are coping with a family crisis or caring for a disabled person are among those who can apply for the extension. Recipients will also have to enroll in a program that develops a plan to help them.



“It’s a mixed picture, with the intent of the department being laudatory, but still with risks that many vulnerable families may not have a safety net for them,” said Jonathan Stein, chief counsel for Community Legal Services, a publicly funded legal aid office for low-income people in Philadelphia. “A lot will be determined in the details.”



The state will automatically stretch the benefit limit to June for 2,100 recipients who will hit the cutoff in March. The regulations are expected to be completed by June.



New rules creating a program to give graduating seniors a special seal on their diplomas for scoring well on state basic skills tests will take effect for the 2002-2003 school year.



Beginning with this year’s juniors, students who score at the advanced or proficient level on statewide standardized tests known as the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment will be eligible to receive the seal.



“They’re designed as a way for the students to take the test seriously and as a positive motivator,” said Beth Gaydos, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Education.



Students who score in the two lower levels on either the reading or mathematics portion of the test will have the opportunity to improve their scores by retaking that section.



Another new law set to take effect early in the year gives people who lease cars the same protections under the state’s Lemon Law as those who buy the vehicles.



Under the law, someone who leases a car is entitled to free legal representation if the vehicle is not fixed after three repair attempts within the first year or 12,000 miles, or if the car is out of service for at least 30 days. Leasing makes up 20 percent of all new car sales in Pennsylvania.



Another new law set to go into effect shortly into the new year will make it illegal to carry loaded paintball guns in automobiles. The law was the product of a telephone call from an angry victim of vandalism.



The measure sponsored by Rep. Edward G. Staback, D-Lackawanna, and signed by Gov. Mark S. Schweiker on Nov. 21, makes it illegal to carry loaded paintball guns and paintball markers in vehicles on a highway. The law is scheduled to take effect Jan. 20.



Staback said the law resulted from a phone call from a Wayne County man who returned from an evening out to find stained-glass windows in his Victorian home shot out with paintball guns. The vandals had also continued to fire through the windows and into his house, ruining carpets and furniture, the lawmaker said.



Staback proposed the legislation after state police told Staback that the toughest charge they could come up with was criminal mischief.



“Anybody who drives around the streets with a loaded paintball gun is probably up to no good anyhow,” Staback said.



Under the law, an unloaded gun or marker being transported in a vehicle must be disassembled so the propellant canister is separate from the rest of the device, or the propellant canister must be emptied of its gas. Violators would be subject to a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a $300 fine.



The law provides an exception for passengers being taken to a playing area on a commercial paintball field by a facility’s operator.

Federal Court Rejects Detention of Alien Without Assessment of Flight Risk

Philadelphia – In an important immigration decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an alien who is jailed at the beginning of deportation proceedings that stem from an “aggravated felony” conviction must be given a bail hearing.



“We hold that mandatory detention of aliens after they have been found subject to removal but who have not yet been ordered removed because they are pursuing their administrative remedies violates their due process rights unless they have been afforded the opportunity for an individualized hearing at which they can show that they do not pose a flight risk or danger to the community,” Circuit Judge Dolores K. Sloviter wrote in Patel v. Zemski, PICS No. 01-2652 (3rd Circ. Dec. 19, 2001) Sloviter, J. (23 pages).



Sloviter, who was joined by Circuit Judges Richard L. Nygaard and Theodore A. McKee, stopped short of declaring the federal statute unconstitutional. Instead, the decision says only that due process requires immigration judges to hold bail hearings for such aliens despite the statute’s explicit prohibition against even considering release.



Only one other federal circuit, the 7th, has addressed the issue, and it went the other way, finding that Congress has “plenary power” over the treatment of aliens and that since virtually every alien who faces deportation as an aggravated felon will ultimately be deported, they have no liberty interest in being free from detention pending that final order.



But Sloviter rejected the 7th Circuit’s reasoning, finding instead that aliens facing deportation nonetheless have a “fundamental” interest in their liberty that does not evaporate until the day their deportation is finalized.



And since the right is a fundamental one, Sloviter found, the government must show a “compelling” interest that is furthered by a statute that deprives them of that right. Applying that test, Sloviter found that the government came up short.



“To deprive these individuals of their fundamental right to freedom furthers no government goal, while generating a considerable cost to the government, the alien, and the alien’s family. The goals articulated by the government – to prevent aliens from absconding or endangering the community – only justify detention of those individuals who present such a risk,” Sloviter wrote.



“Obviously, a hearing to evaluate flight risk and danger to the community presents a less restrictive means for the government to achieve its goals. It appears that such a procedure can be implemented with minimal burdens on the government,” Sloviter wrote.

Divorce Fight Now Over Slain Woman’s Insurance