news in brief

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed several challenges to the state reapportionment plan after deciding that the plan complies with both the Pennsylvania and the U.S. constitutions.



The Supreme Court’s action approves the final reapportionment plan unanimously adopted by the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission on Nov. 19. The court heard oral argument on the matter Feb. 5, before releasing a 19-page opinion last week. The appellants came from 11 consolidated actions.



The reapportionment comes at a time when Republicans control both houses of the state Legislature, and the governor is a Republican. The state Supreme Court is also dominated by Republicans.



In writing for the four-judge majority in Jeffrey B. Albert, et al., v. 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, PICS Case No. 02-0214 (Pa. Feb. 15, 2002) Zappala, J.; Saylor, Castille & Eakin, JJ. (24 pages), Chief Justice Stephen A. Zappala stated, “The final plan divides the commonwealth into 50 senatorial districts and 203 representative districts.



“The challengers of the final plan assert, however, that the districts are not composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable because, in creating the plan, political subdivisions were divided where it was not absolutely necessary.”



Appellants also claimed, Zappala wrote, that the plan is unconstitutional because it failed to respect municipal and ward boundaries to the fullest extent possible, or failed to provide for compact districts to the fullest extent possible.



The challengers, however, “focused primarily on the impact of the plan with respect to their particular political subdivision, rather than analyzing the plan as a whole, as is required under a proper constitutional analysis,” Zappala stated.



The commission, Zappala said, argued that “the final plan meets the overriding constitutional mandate . . . that legislative districts be as nearly equal in population as practicable.”



“Further, [the commission] claims that the districts are composed of compact and contiguous territory and that no political subdivision was divided in forming a district unless absolutely necessary. Upon comparison of the instant final plan with those previously approved by this court, we agree.”



In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas Saylor signed on to the majority opinion because it was “fully consistent” with the court’s precedent on legislative redistricting.



Saylor, however, took the court to task for the way it has historically applied the state constitutional requirements of compactness and integrity of political subdivisions.



Saylor said he was “receptive to the concern” that the court has been “unduly passive” in its role of ensuring that the legislative redistricting plans the Pennsylvania Legislature is obligated to issue after each census meet the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution.



“Facets of the [2001 Legislative Reapportionment] Commission’s present plan for reapportioning the Pennsylvania Legislature test the outer limits of justifiable deference, at least in the absence of some specific explanation for why the constitutional prerequisites of compactness and respect for political subdivisions cannot be accommodated simultaneous with the maintenance of substantial equality of population and enforcement of voting interests of protected groups in the manner prescribed by federal law.” Saylor stated.



Saylor was joined by Justice Ronald Castille and the high court’s newest member, Justice J. Michael Eakin.



Justices Ralph J. Cappy, Russell M. Nigro and Sandra Schultz Newman supported Zappala in the majority opinion.

Justices to Decide if Cops Can Monitor E-mail

Philadelphia – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether police may look at a suspect’s e-mail and instant messages without first obtaining a court order.



The case involves a former Lehigh County police officer, Robert Proetto, who used the Internet to solicit sex from a 15-year-old girl. Proetto is appealing his conviction.



It’s the first time any state supreme court has agreed to review government access to private Internet communications, said Proetto’s attorney, Tommaso Lonardo.



“It’s a relatively novel question,” said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.



After meeting the girl in an Internet chat room, Proetto e-mailed her a nude photograph of himself. He also asked for a nude videotape of the girl, according to court documents.



Proetto and the girl chatted often for about a week and Proetto repeatedly ask her to have sex, documents say.



The girl reported Proetto to the Bristol Borough Police Department in Bucks County. Proetto was arrested when he made sexually explicit online comments to a detective posing as another 15-year-old girl.



Proetto was convicted of criminal solicitation and related offenses and served six months of house arrest. His probation ends this month.



At issue is whether Proetto’s e-mail and instant messages to the girl should have been suppressed at trial. Proetto claims police violated the state’s wiretapping law by looking at the messages without first obtaining a warrant.



Proetto also claims his Fourth Amendment privacy rights were violated.



Though federal law only requires the consent of one person before a telephone call or Internet communication can be recorded, Pennsylvania and 11 other states require the consent of all parties.



“I think most people would feel more comfortable knowing the other participant in a communication does not have the unilateral ability to bring the government into that conversation without court approval,” Sobel said.



The state Superior Court took a different view, ruling that Proetto had consented to the recording by the very act of sending e-mail and instant messages.

Pa. Women File Suit to Bankrupt Terrorists