Accessing law online is easy, but can you rely on what you find?

As more laws become available online, it becomes easier for average citizens and lawyers without easy access to Lexis or Westlaw to research legal issues--Maybe. Although many sources of law seem reliable, such as laws and and cases made available on state legislature or supreme court websites, much of what is published online is unofficial and not authenticated. See Ruth Stevens and Jane Edwards, State Primary Law Materials in a Digital Era, MICH. BAR JOURNAL, July, 2009, at 20.

In Michigan, only the Michigan Register, the Michigan Administrative Code, and the Michigan Administrative Code Supplement, which are published on the State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules ("SOAHR") website, are official, meaning "governmentally mandated" or "approved by statute or rule." See Id. at 22 (quoting the State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources.) Cases published by the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals are not official, and neither are the statutes published on the website of the Michigan Legislature. And none of these resources, including those published by SOAHR, are authenticated, which means that they all may contain transcription errors or otherwise vary from the official print source (except for the Michigan Administrative Code, but only because SOAHR is not required to publish a print version).

One plus? Authenticated laws online are normally marked as authentic in some way. Also, the Federal Government has acknowledged the importance of this issue, and taken positive steps towards authenticating the information it publishes. For example, the U.S. Government Printing Office is now working on an authentication initiative called the Federal Digital System ("FDSys"). Moreover, there is even talk of drafting model legislation to address the authentication issue.

But in the meantime, be careful what you rely on.

Keep Your Pants On (even at school)

In a decision that should please civil libertarians and awkward adolescents alike, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, in light of the circumstances, a strip search of a junior high student by school officials was unreasonable. Justice Souter wrote for the 8-1 majority in Safford Unified School District #1, Et Al., Petitioners v. April Redding. Referring to the strip search, Souter notes that "Its indignity does not outlaw the search, but it does implicate the rule that the search [be]‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.'" According to the Court, the circumstances failed to justify such extensive intrusion.

On the issue of liability for the school officials who ordered and performed the search, the Court determined that due to the unsettled nature of the law at the time of the search, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

Blind justice?

Justice still may be blind, but after last Wednesday it will get a better look at witnesses who appear in court in Michigan. Despite the ACLU's opposition, the Michigan Supreme Court has approved revised Michigan Rule of Evidence 611; judges may exert control over what witnesses wear when testifying in court. Specifically, judges may require Muslim women to remove their veils, or niqabs, thus violating a tenet of their faith, or loose their day in court.

Read more on court room attire. And more about Rule 611 and the confrontation clause.