The Law of Spider-Noir at San Diego Comic Con

Recorded Live at San Diego Comic Con on July 24, 2026!

Lawyers take on the Amazon series Spider-Noir. What are the rules for private eyes fighting organized crime? What war crimes are committed by performing experiments on prisoners of war? Which crime carries the more stringent penalty: vigilantism or violating Prohibition? A panel of judges and attorneys examines the web of legal issues in Spider-Noir, taking on the black-and-white questions of the law. Featuring Kathy Steinman (San Diego Deputy City Attorney), Michael Dennis, Stephen Tollafield, Vana Palacio (Greenberg Traurig, LLP), and Michael Skeen. Moderated by Kate Bridal (Now It's Ruined Podcast). Presented by The Legal Geeks.

Transcript

Meet The Lawyer Panel

Kate Bridal 0:28

Thank you. You may know me from my podcast now, it's room where my friend and I are doing every day's stuff with dark history and facts about it, or from my comedy sketch series on Instagram and TikTok called Living with Lecter, where I pretend to be in a relationship with Hannibal Lecter. But I am also a licensed attorney. And I'm here with the ladies for the third time at STCC, and I'm so happy to be here. I will hand things over to our esteemed panelists to introduce himself, starting with Steven.

SPEAKER_00 0:56

Hi everyone, I'm Stephen Tomblefield. I'm a licensed attorney here in California.

Vanessa Palacio 1:00

Hi everyone, I'm Vanna Pellasio. I am licensed in Florida, California, and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. I do mostly IP work, so patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and some trial stuff. Slows. I am chief of the City Cathy Steinman. I am a I work for the City Attorney's Office in San Diego.

Kate Bridal 1:22

Woohoo!

SPEAKER_01 1:23

Hi, Mike McScane. I'm an

What A Private Detective Can Do

SPEAKER_01 1:25

attorney practicing in San Francisco, licensed actually in News Outlet.

SPEAKER_06 1:30

I'm Mike Dennis, still a practitioner at Modesto. I'm the executive director of the Ray Ladinia Court, an organization of attorneys and judges trying to make the legal profession more civil and professional. And most important, I am a guitarist in their in-house band. So if anybody needs an awesome bad email cover band, you can find me afterwards.

Kate Bridal 1:52

Yeah, braceless. Alright, well, Spider-Noir is full of legal issues, stickier than the Spider's web, so let's get into it. Michael, what can a private detective legally do when working in case?

SPEAKER_01 2:06

Sure. This is always a big question for me since while my whole exposure to private detectives has been TV shows and movies. And based on how accurate legal shows seems to be, it's not accurate at all. So as of any profession, private detectives are saying to get license. Technically, it wasn't until 1939 in New York they're required. So 1933, Ben's fine. He doesn't need to get a license. However, if he wants to continue working, he'll eventually need to. And so New York General Business Law, Article 7, Section 70, covers the licensing requirements. First, you have to be at least 25 years old. And we go out on a limb and say Ben is probably at least 25. You need to have at least three years of investigative experience. Ben certainly has that. Best print exam. That shouldn't be a problem with Ben who seems to know the rules as he chooses to ignore them. Proof of a $10,000 surety bond. But Ben, of course, you know, like every Spider-Man in pretty much every Marvel universe, Spider-Verse, Multiverse, whatever, has money problems, so getting the $10,000 bond might be an issue for him. And then the fingerprinting background check, this could also be pretty tricky since Ben Riley's not his original name. And so it depends on whether he actually made one through the legal steps to change his name from, say, Peter Parker to uh Ben Riley. And if he hasn't, then getting maybe passing the background check will be pretty problematic. But um, so somebody gets placed in so what can a private detective do? So what they normally do is they're investigating gathering information on behalf of a client. Some of the common investigative activities include interviewing people, conducting background checks, um, surveillance, although this is very tricky because there are limitations to what's allowable by law. Um, assume the subject doesn't consent to mean surveillance, um, and they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and surveillance could be illegal and a potential felony. Um, also recording conversations, I'll give the classic attorney answer, it depends. Um, New York has a one-party consent recording law, which means only one person in part of the presence part of the conversation needs to consent to the reporting. California is actually different, it requires everybody. Um but so as far as what they that's what a private detective can do, what a private detective cannot do is trespass on private property, but listen to devices in someone's home officers have the phone. That may seem anachronistic for the time, but actually private detectives and law enforcement was using wiretaps in the 1920s pretty regularly. In fact, the legality of it remained ambiguous until 1928, the United States Supreme Court in Homestead versus the United States held that the government's warrantless wiretapping of a suspect's telephone did not violate the Fourth Amendment. And that was actually the law of land for almost 40 years until it got reversed in Katz versus the United States. And then they also can't impersonate law enforcement, and they can't hack into private accounts, not really an issue in spite of the noir. And then sort of the consequences of illegally obtaining information, they can actually be inadmissible in court. So let's look at some of the actions Ben did do as a private detective, and is any of it problematic? Well, he eavesdropped and took photos from a fire escape. Um, fire escape is private property, it's part of the building, and he didn't have authorization to be there. So he's illegally trespassing, and then also taking photos into the hotel room. Um there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, so that would probably also be considered illegal surveillance. Um broke into Flint Markman's apartment, that's illegal trespassing. Breaking into Silver Main's apartment is stealing a thousand dollars, burglary. Um breaking into hospital stealing medical files, burglary. Having Janet bribing police with food to get um legal files, that's also not surprising, illegal. But that said, I simply want to try whatever Janet brought in. It must taste fantastic to hand over lots of classified information. But anyway, so based on all of his actions, they're all very illegal, but you know, it's also part of the course for fictional detectives out there, so I guess it's okay.

Custody Rules Before Miranda

Kate Bridal 6:06

Um might be in trouble for impersonating a police officer, but the cops themselves aren't behaving that well either. So, Vanda, let's talk about that consumable interrogation of Megalott.

Vanessa Palacio 6:18

Sure, let's talk about it. Um, all right. So, as lawyers today, our first question is pretty simple. Was Megalott in custody? And under modern law, we'd ask whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. And look, we've got a bunch of lawyers in the room here, we can all go back and forth about what's reasonable and but let's look at the scene here, guys. I'm gonna go with probably not. Like if you're handcuffed on con air, you're probably not free to leave. So, same idea. Next slide, please. Alright. So today, our instinct, whether we've seen it in movies or TV or gone to law school, is usually wait, wasn't this guy supposed to get Miranda warning? You know, when they tell him you have the right to remain exiling, and anything you say you can will be used against you in a court of law. Well, not exactly here. Now, before any constitutional law nerds come at me, yes, the Fifth Amendment already existed in the 1930s when spider war is set. But Miranda didn't. You know, the fifth the constitutional provision itself existed. It's been on the books since 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. But the Miranda framework didn't exist yet. So the question isn't whether the constitutional rights existed, it's really whether courts had developed the procedures and remedies that we now associate with those rights. So if we look at spider noir overall, the investigative methods that we see kind of fit right into the cage universe. And I mean they occasionally resemble those we see from Benjamin Franklin Gates. Step one, see clue. Step two, follow clue. Step three, equal procedure. Question mark, question mark, question mark. Figure out the legality. Most of the time, to be serious, uh, law enforcement's gonna get a warrant, they're gonna have a probable cause, they're gonna provide the usual warnings. Um, you know, Ben Gates. Oh, sorry, previous slide, sorry.

unknown 8:38

Great.

Vanessa Palacio 8:39

So Ben Gates stole the Declaration of Independence. What we see in Spider-Man falls somewhere in the middle of that. And now I'm speaking. I know, I know, I'm kind of timely, but I don't care. Okay, guys, so the real lesson isn't that constitutional rights didn't exist. It's that the legal framework looked really different back in the 30s. Spider-Man operates in the world before many of the procedural protections that modern audiences have come to instinctively like respect and expect. Which is fortunate for us because otherwise this would just be some real boring court hearings about how none of this should really be admissible in court and tell people. This the spider noir is much more exciting than now.

unknown 9:26

Okay.

Kate Bridal 9:26

Agreed. Well, so obviously Mangalott is not the only one with superpowers running around. Here are two more of our friends, and

Hoovervilles And Depression Era Evictions

Kate Bridal 9:35

they are defending a Hooverville. So, Stephen, talk to us about whether they are, you know, in the right or if the raid was AMK.

SPEAKER_00 9:42

Yeah, so Hoovervilles were the name that was kind of popularized during the Depression. They were a reference to the shanty towns that people lived in during the economic crisis when so many people were rendered homeless by the crash of the stock market. Um, and um it was a reference to President Hoover and his inability to provide federal aid to people who were um experiencing poverty in really record numbers. Um so we saw a Hoover bill in um Spider-Noir where even tombstone and sandman has kind of jumped in and defended the people who were being forcibly evicted from their shantytown by law enforcement. So, what was the legal status of these Hoover bills? Um, technically, they were illegal. They were encroachments on private and public land. They people were camping in parks and in private property. So the playbook in the 1930s for law enforcement was pretty straightforward. They would enforce um anti-trespassing laws, anti-vagrancy laws against people who were camping on these properties, and put them through the legal system, put them in jail. But um, as the depression kind of wore on, um the judicial system became really saturated by all these people who were homeless and being brought in um under these uh trespassing and vagrancy laws. So um there was a story even pretty early in the depression in 1931 when a bunch of men were arrested from Camden Central Park, and the judge just dismissed the charges because there was no room for them to be incarcerated in the city jails. And in fact, the story goes that the judge opened his wallet and beat each of the men some his own money because he felt so sorry for them. So this kind of indicated this real shift in the legal system away from strict enforcement, and because there was a little bit of a lack of stomach to enforce the um the unfairness of this when the due process was really a suspect, they would get these very short 10-day uh eviction notices before they were forcibly removed from the Shantytowns. And then also the city just didn't have the capacity to offer homeless shelters. Those weren't a thing in the Depression. And so um it was really unjust. The legal system came to view with the enforcement of these of these statutes. So ultimately the law just adjusted through non-enforcement. Um, and so the urban shantytown became kind of tacitly legal, even though they were strictly illegal. Um, and um they were just sort of um the the shantytowns would regulate themselves through sort of their own internal governance pairs and their own law enforcement, so they didn't attract the attention of the official law enforcement and then the official legal system. So this is kind of a cool reminder, I thought, in in um Spider-Noir that these sorts of moving people out of homeless encampments involves a really complicated intersection of property rights and constitutional rights and just senses of justice. And I thought it was really interesting how in Spider-Noir the the heroes who came to save the people who were living in the shanty town were kind of villains but also kind of anti-heroes. So it's just I thought it was a really cool reflection of the moral complexity of these kinds of uh enforcing actions.

Kate Bridal 12:48

Agreed. Uh well, Janet might wind up in a Hoover bill if Ben doesn't pay her. Uh so let's

Not Paying Janet And Wage Theft

Kate Bridal 12:55

turn to Mike to talk about uh whether or not he's supposed to be paying her.

SPEAKER_06 12:59

Alright, damn it, Janet. Um wait, how many people here are attorneys?

unknown 13:05

Alright.

SPEAKER_06 13:06

I have three, I have three minutes to give you a semester of employment long. So as we know, Janet's been working for Ben for a while and he's not paying her. So, what kind of liability does he have for doing that? And when I was watching it, it just kept coming in like, bit better have my money. Pay me what's your own. Work, work, work, work, work. So, what can he be responsible for? In New York, if you don't pay your secretary, it is a crime. It's considered wage that. That's very different than California. California, you're subject to sanctions, you're not going to go to jail in New York anymore. In New York, you're responsible for back pay. You have to pay attorney fees, you have to pay costs. Most problematic for me is they also can give you liquidated damages, where up to 100% of what you didn't pay can be assigned as damages. In California, this would be so constitutional. Because liquidated damages are supposed to replace actual damages. And in this case, they're giving you actual plus liquidated damages. And liquidated damages aren't supposed to be a handling, they're supposed to replace it. So this will not fly in California at all. So the question is, um, what kind of defense does Nick have defense? Oh, let's go back to bed. The pun officers will fail. Because you remember when he revealed he was the spider, his oopsie boopsie. So in this case, you would say, um, whoopsie putsie, I didn't pay my secretary, but it's okay because we have a contract. She knows that she can only get paid if I get paid. These are very common contracts, which you see in construction deals a lot, where the contractor's like, once the property enter pays me, I can then pay the subs. The law is wise for this when it comes to employee-employer relationships. They do not allow you to contract around minimum wage or over time. So that defense is gonna fail right at the top. Second, she's a volunteer. I mean, okay, she worked for two weeks, I gave her that money. She kept coming to work. So that's on her. She's a volunteer at that point. She knows she's not getting paid. Maybe she felt sorry for him because you know Ruby died and he's his acts not together. So um, she's volunteering her time now, so I don't know what her amount. Law is also wise to this. Although he makes no profit, he is not a nonprofit. That's where volunteers work. You can't reclassify someone as a volunteer for a naturally paid position. Secretaries are naturally paid, you can't call them a volunteer and try to get real paid now. Now the last defense this is hot, hot, hot litigation in California right now. And it's misclassification of workers. Saying, I don't have to pay something over time, I don't have to pay in minimum wage because they're executives. They're not subject to it. And she's like, Well, you call me your secretary. Uh law doesn't care. You can name yourself anything you want. What are her doings? Is it purely secretarial? And he's like, No, she's not misclassified. She's actually, look at what she does. She develops my picture, she's going off to city hall to research stuff, she's bribing cops with baked goods. Um she controls his calendar. Um at one point he says, You're a better investigator than I am when he's gonna run off the closing to Santorini and the Black Sand region. Um he's gonna give her up a whole business. Then you look at the end, it's now Riley and Ruiz makes her a partner. So it looks like maybe she looks like Dark, maybe she's been his partner the whole time. They they share the exposure, they share the profits, they um have a say in how the business is run. And I just want to say, yes, like these presentations and want to really get into whether it's a partnership. Go to LadegoGeeps.com, and our founder, Josh Gibbellan there, has a big one on whether Indiana Jones and Marion Ravenwood were in a partnership to find the Ark of the Covenant. So it's it's pretty fun reading on that. So, more than likely, um, based on how it plays out, she was misclassified as the secretary. She was really his partner the whole time, and maybe you can get around not paying her.

Kate Bridal 17:15

Right, and great plug for the legal geese. Yeah. Well done very

Marking Cash And Counterfeiting Laws

Kate Bridal 17:20

smooth. Uh well, speaking of money, Kathy, can Silvermade mark up his bills?

SPEAKER_10 17:26

So, as we learn in the series, uh Silvermade makes a distinct mark on the bills that he uses to pay his employees. And by using that mark, he's actually able to track the money and determine whether or not his employees are loyal or they're a traitor. Um, but is it legal to mark the bills? Under USC 1833, whoever mutilates, cuts, defines, defaces, disfigures, or tears um currency, that's illegal if it renders the bill unusable. So I pulled up a couple examples of some bills that I found through Google Images. And the top one, has anyone seen that one before? It's the Where's George? How many of you show of hands and have gotten one of those bills and you went in, you entered the Sierra Lember and you tracked it? All right. How many of you think that one is illegal based on the standard? Okay, I see one hand. How many of you think it's that was okay? All right, you guys are probably right. Um, what about the bottom one? This one maybe they made it look like it's 713, and I don't know what where this came from. I don't know if I've done something offensive or not here. I apologize if I didn't. Georgian kind of looks like a hobo. How many of you think that one is probably violating the statute? Lot of hands. I would agree. I think that's probably violating the statute. But in our example, silver oh, sorry, there's another law. But so you cannot use, even if you it doesn't render the bill um unusable, you can't use it, you can go for the next slide, sorry. You can't use it to advertise. So here's an example I found where they're advertising a website. Under a different statute, this actually would be illegal because they're advertising a website. Um, so let's go to the next slide. So what Silvermane did was he oh my bad, sorry? No, it's okay. Silvermane's markings are really, really small. Um, and so like the one for Cat Party, there's a little red dot in the corner. The one for I can't remember his name, but the other guy that's played by Lucas Haas. Um, that's also a really small mark. So, anyone, do you think that was unusable? Yeah, I see a lot of heads. Yeah, so I think Silvermain's markings were not only clever, but also lawful. Fantastic.

Kate Bridal 19:49

And you all are doing such a great job. We are right on time, so keep going, keep being faster than that quick change between Ben and Robbie behind the bar in that last episode. Uh well, let's shift gears a little bit. There is a lot of talk about medical information in the show. So,

Medical Privacy Before HIPAA

Kate Bridal 20:05

Vanna, what did medical privacy look like in the 1930s?

Vanessa Palacio 20:09

Alright, so thinking about medical privacy when probably the normal reaction to watching spider car is wait, that's a HIPAA violation. Um we are all probably familiar with HIPAA or the Health Insurance Affordability and Accountability Act and HIPAA privacy and security rules, and those help protect us. Uh, they limit who can view and see your protected health information or PHI, and they require covered entities like your healthcare providers, health plans, clearing houses, things like that to implement safe on us. But remember, Spider Mar is in 1933, but is still more than 60 years away. So, what protected medical information in 1933? Now, doctors doctors generally treated patient information um as confidential at that time, but the legal protections were nowhere near what we expect today. Much of medical privacy depended on professional norms rather than detailed government regulation. Uh, in other words, your privacy largely depended on whether your doctor enjoyed gossip. So today, modern medical records help, among other things, uh verify identity, track treatment, and uh protect sensitive information. Spider-Man takes place decades before those kinds of systems existed, though. So think about it. How much easier would face off have been in 1933? If your answer is substantially easier, congratulations. So The bottom line is that Spider-Man takes place in a world where personal information was often much easier to access than modern audiences expect. And the legal lesson here is privacy rights, they evolved. Privacy existed in 1933. It just wasn't regulated the way that it is today. And we are thankful that it's regulated.

Kate Bridal 22:23

Yes, we are. Speaking of laws that have evolved, Stephen, talk to us about the other legal protection against uh POW experimentation. Just a light, a light.

SPEAKER_00 22:33

Nothing says a Friday night war crime. So the this is a you're right, this area of the law, the international law has really evolved a lot since the 1930s when the show takes place. And um the flashback where we see Ben encounter in World War II, the prisoners of war being experimented upon in the concentration camp, um, which leads to all sorts of body war and power acquisition we don't need to get into. But so he's uh he observes the people being horribly mistreated in the prisoner of war camp. Um, and at the time, the only thing that regulated the treatment of uh captured enemy combatants was the 1907 Hague Conventions, which very loosely required that uh countries treat their prisoners of war humanely, but it didn't outline with any specificity prohibitions against experimental treatments or um experimentation um on prisoners of war in camps once they were captured. But fast forward, so that was what was happening during um during Ben's experience in World War I. Fast forward to World War II and all the atrocities that happened there, there was a huge wake-up call to the international community that some standards really needed to be developed. So within a couple of years after World War II

POW Experiments And War Crime Law

SPEAKER_00 23:55

in 1947, um the international community promulgated the Nuremberg Code, um, which is not a legal framework, but do we have any like researchers or graduate students in the audience who work with human subjects and any studies? Good. As a lawyer's work kind of, we have a natural um competition with God terms. But um so the um anyway, um this exactly. Um the um the Nuremberg Code regulates the ethical treatment of um of uh anyone participating in a human study. Um so it's and it's governed by institutional review boards or regulated by institutional review boards at hospitals or universities who look at studies to make sure that the human subjects are going to be protected. And if there's federal grant money involved in a federal study, um USDA or the Health and Human Services Agencies might oversee the ethical treatment of human subjects. But that again, that was not a legal code. Um that did become a legal code a couple years later in 1949 in the third Geneva Conventions, which elevated the mistreatment of prisoners of war of this nature to a crime, a war crime that was actionable. Um fast forward to modern times, this is a very well accepted principle. The uncoerced, um, unambiguous consent of any participant in a human study must be gotten before they're put through the study. Um, and it's captured in the statutes of the International Criminal Courts. It's a crime that you can be prosecuted for in pay. But also in all of the sort of large countries and even small countries have these types of provisions in their military manuals that regulate the military, the um military forces' treatment of their captured opposition. So, um this, like we said, this really demonstrates an evolution from the time that Ben was experiencing World War I'm sort of modern uh legal regimes that protect the rights of bodily integrity. It's an absolute unalienable right for even people who are captured during conflict. Fantastic.

Kate Bridal 25:59

Uh well, given everything that Ben and the POWs went through, no wonder he turns to the bottle. Uh Michael, what are the legal and illegal ways he can get loose?

SPEAKER_01 26:09

Sure, yeah, how can we get a drink around here? Okay. So, yeah, so prohibition came out with ratification of the 18th Amendment on January 16th, 1919. They took effect on January 17th, 1920. Pay attention to that, it's important. Um the Bullsted Act was passed to enforce the 18th Amendment, and it defined basically toxicity as anything containing 0.5% or greater alcohol by volume. An interesting omission of the Bullsted Act is it never makes it illegal to consume alcohol. Instead, it focuses on sale, production, and shipping of alcohol.

Prohibition Loopholes And Deadly Bootleg Booze

SPEAKER_01 26:40

And you know, as any of its lawyers will tell you, you should all find you some loopholes, and there are some exceptions for being able to get a drink. Um the most common one is stockpiling. Prior to the 18th Amendment, it took a year for the 18th Amendment to go into effect, and anyone with beans and space stocked up on as much alcohol as they get their hands on. And um another exception to this is with religious use. So the Wolf Sedak did have an exception for alcohol use for sacramental purposes. Many people apparently found religion. Sacramental wine increased by 800,000 gallons over a two-year period. Another exception would be medicinal purposes, which is Section 7 allowed. And so doctors could prescribe up to one pint of spirits for 10 days. And interestingly enough, the American Medical Association's stance on alcohol before prohibition is that alcohol contained no medicinal value. At prohibition, two years later, suddenly the American Medical Association comes up with almost 30 ailments for alcohol. And so it's so there was an estimated 11 million prescriptions for alcohol were made every year throughout the 1920s. One doctor wrote 475 prescriptions in one day. Close to the prescription of alcohol, there were some over-the-counter products that also contained alcohol in it, they call it medicine. Um the the on the ad there, Jeffson's Malort is probably one of the most famous versions of that, which is basically just hard liquor that was sold as alcohol. That it was sold as medicine, excuse me. And uh taste, apparently it's terrible. Um police would question the legality of what Jeffson was selling, and in response, he would offer them a taste of it, and after they had one shot, the police would agree that the product was so terrible that no one would buy it for recreational purposes. Apparently, on our panel, there's someone who actually has a bottle of it, but unfortunately happy to say that this is not it. Um I can actually drink that. And the Midwesterner, of course, they have a warning. So then uh so now we go into the illegal methods for taking a drink. Um, another exception in the whole SIDAC is that it allowed the production of alcohol for industrial purposes. Well, bootleggers would take this alcohol and then redistill it and then resell it. The government got wind of this, and so then they mandated that horrible toxins get added to the alcohol that cannot be redistilled. And uh the result of this is the denaturing of chemicals resulted in blindness, paralysis, or even death. As many as 50,000 people died from consuming the denatured alcohol, and thousands more had life-altering injuries consuming it. So pretty horrific things. Um, another way that uh probably everyone's heard of is classic speakeasy, which were legal establishments that sold alcohol to consume at the establishment during prohibition. Speakeasy owners use clever waves to hide their locations and are required a special password to gain entry. And the quality range from literally someone's uh room in their apartment with a bottle of alcohol sitting there to you know, like the alcove where you've got top quality entertainment and top quality liquor flowing. And so it ran, so it ran the gamut. Although it's hard for sure to say, it's estimated between 20,000 and 100,000 speakeasies were operated in New York City. Um they did all this effort to shut it down, but kind of like the Hydra, cut off one head, two more take its place. And so it really just kept going and going and going. And so, but fortunately the 21st Amendment um was uh ratified, was repealed the 18th Amendment, and that happened on December 5th, 1933. And interesting fact, the state that provided the final vote needed to ratify the 21st Amendment came from my home state of Utah, so yay, Utah. Cheers.

Kate Bridal 30:49

There you go, bring that.

SPEAKER_00 30:51

We should clear it as a team.

Kate Bridal 30:56

There you go. I wasn't saying when you drink the lord, you feel like you're gonna go blind. Um my favorite tagline from Alord is Lelord, you're gonna fight your dad tonight.

Raids, Warrants, Cars, And Open Fields

Kate Bridal 31:07

Uh so if you go the illegal booze route, you might get busted. Mike talk to us about raids.

SPEAKER_06 31:15

When you think about the prohibition era, you always think about place raids as you see the people being acting for cakes. I was gonna give a first sort of a Mike talking about earlier. Um my hometown is one by a winery whose name we do not say. And during prohibition, they would sell bricks of bridges on it, and there would be a warning that says, whatever you do, do not mix this with two to three quarts of water, eight tablespoons of baker cheese, do not let it ferment in the window for six weeks, because that'd be illegal. So that's how they they got around doing that. But what I like about Spider-Navar is that he makes a lot of mistakes. He is such not a good screw. Um he gets beat up, he's out of shape, he makes wrong decisions, and he screws up the police raid that would have ended the entire series on the first uh episode. Because he interrupts Silver Mean on the way to the police raid. So let's say he didn't. Would we have been able to do the legal raid? So let's start with uh the warehouse. Yeah, that counts from a cat who gave an anonymous tip to the mayor. Would that be enough to get a warrant? I'm gonna say absolutely not. She told the mayor, the mayor wants that they told the police chief and yeah, you still see this, but then probably told a police officer, then had to tell a judge that we have an anonymous tip that there's gonna be a lot of booze at this particular warehouse. We like anonymous tips because it allows people come forward, but you need more. You gotta have some sort of uh separate collaboration of what the source is saying. We now kind of look at a totality of circumstances test when it comes to like what is the veracity and reliability of a source? I think the only thing Kat was honest about was she was in love with the dentist.

SPEAKER_09 33:03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_06 33:04

And I don't even know if that's true. So she's and plus, you know, she's part of a criminal organization. Can you trust her? I mean, she's a rat. That's an inherent problem with uh getting sources inside a criminal organization on it. And did they have any kind of independent way to verify this is where the alcohol has been stored? Have they seen shipments going in and going out? Have they been seeing drivers that have been arrested before going in and out of this place? Something more than just being on this tick. So then the question becomes well, maybe we should have nailed um while you're still in this car. You gotta think that when the Fourth Amendment came out, there were no cars. So how are we going to adjust to um the current state of affairs? Like, well, can we get a warrant for a car? Not really, because you say, okay, I need to execute this warrant at first in May. Okay, the car's driving. I mean now second in May, third in May, rock for it, it's a right, single and so you can't get a warrant for a car. So we really wanted to enforce prohibitions, so you had to uh make up some rules around it. So okay, you don't need a warrant, however, you still need problem cause in order to search a car. And that's what Jay-Z is talking about here, where he's like, you can't get into my locked trunk, you're gonna need a warrant for that. Yeah, depends on how they pulled him over. If the officer suspected that it was carrying alcohol in that trunk, they can search it. If he got pulled over for Jay-Z's muscle, or uh a churn signal was out or weaving, you're not gonna be able to get into his trunk. So, more than likely than they wouldn't be gonna get silver being because there's no indication that in his car there's any alcohol. That leaves the outside area of his warehouse. This is where the government really decided we're gonna try to get people prohibition. Like, okay, let's read the Floyd Amendment. Has to do with uh dwellings and property, it doesn't handle the outside like your backyard area. So, you know what? You don't need a warrant for that area. It's called the open fields doctrine. So you see something going on in someone's backyard, that's fair game, you don't need a warrant. You just need probable cause. And so they're like, well, okay, we're not gonna go blank check. What is probable cause? Well, do we have a reasonable belief that there's some kind of crime there? And for the attorneys in here, the word reasonable is just like a crack. We love that word. Because what is that? Everyone in this room thinks they're reasonable. The person next to them, eh, maybe we don't think they're reasonable at all. So what is it that leads to a reasonable suspicion that uh there's something going on here? And the open field doctrine is still law for federal. But states have cut back on what they consider to be an open field. So they call the curvilege. That's the only place you'll ever hear it that word. They say, well, if you've enclosed it and you have an expectation of privacy and the general public can't get into it, we're gonna protect that. And the last slide, this is just the stats for prohibition of how many cases were related to prohibition. And if you look at it, by the end of prohibition, two-thirds of all cases were prohibition related. You can't run a judicial system with that much taken up on one subject matter. And I'm just leaving you with this thought. The Fourth Amendment was written almost 250 years ago. These cases interpreted it 100 years ago. So when you look at what are your rights, um, what is reasonable, are we talking about people that wrote it 250 years ago, people that wrote it 100 years ago? And this is very important because our current Supreme Court has decided we're not gonna follow case precedent, but we're gonna look at original, um, how it's written, and then we're gonna look at history, and then that's we're gonna decide that's how we're gonna interpret statutes. So just think about that as you know, people go off into the night and do reasonable things.

Kate Bridal 37:05

Right. Also, I love that you quoted rap lyrics, and we could call you Mike D, like the BC boy. That's very appropriate. Alright, well, Kathy, on the

Can A Mayor End Prohibition

Kate Bridal 37:15

topic of prohibition, bring us home with uh whether or not a local official can repeal a constitutional order.

SPEAKER_10 37:22

So I'm asked the San Diego City attorney's actually in the audience, and I hope this doesn't go into my performance evaluation. But the short answer is no. So in the series, uh Mayor Morse is running for re-election, and he promises as one of his uh on the on the campaign trail that he will end prohibition. So, how do you actually amend the Constitution? Article 5 of the Constitution sets out how it can be amended, and it has to first be proposed by either uh two-thirds of a vote in both houses of Congress or by uh at a constitution constitutional convention um when requested by two-thirds of the state legislatures. So after proposed, then it must be ratified by the state legislatures of three-fourths of the states. So that's how we actually amend the constitution. So let's then go into the 18th Amendment. So as we know, as Michael said, the 18th Amendment um regulated or is basically established prohibition. And what's interesting about that is prior to the 18th Amendment um actually being enacted, um some states have already um begun to ban alcohol or really regulate it um post-World War I, um, because there was a growing movement to uh conserve grains for food and for the war effort. I'm not actually sure why it went to the war effort, if unless it was to provide food for um troops and whatnot. Um the 18th Amendment was passed by two herds by Congress and then ratified in 1980, 19 and went into effect in January of 1920. So it took a bit of time to get all of those states to actually ratify it. Um and then uh after the ratification of and the establishment of the 18th Amendment, then we have the Bolstead Act, which Mike uh Michael talked about in his um uh portion of the panel. Then we get the to go to the 21st Amendment, which actually repeals the 18th Amendment. And I'm gonna give you constitutional law nerds, a quick tips on how to remember these ones. So when you're 18, 19, you can't drink, but you can vote, because the 18th Amendment established prohibition. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, but when you're 21, you can drink. So the 21st Amendment repealed prohibition. So that's a quick way to remember it. That's how I remember it when I took the bar example. Um but in February of 1933, um the uh 21st Amendment was ratified. I'm sorry, it was it was introduced, and then it was ratified in December of 1933, so it actually went really quick. So repealing the 18th Amendment was max of people who are not happy. Um and what's interesting is the 21st Amendment is the only constitutional amendment to date that was ratified by the state conventions rather than the state legislatures. And North and South Carolina were the only two states at the time that rejected the repeal. Um, and so the 21st Amendment allowed states to continue their own bans, though. So the state, so for example, North and South Carolina wanted to keep the ban on alcohol. So that's why even today you can have dry states, not really that, but we have dry counties if everyone's if anyone lives in a woman, I'm sorry. But that's how that can happen. The 21st Amendment repealed prohibition, but states and uh can still enact or local um counties and cities can enact their own payment. So, in short, mayor Morris cannot repeal a constitutional amendment.

Kate Bridal 40:51

Right. Well, thank you, panel. That's a bit for a button, they have for your questions because people have to wait on time

Q And A On State Law Differences

Kate Bridal 41:10

they could use the lunch, made me very happy. So there is a mic right there, you can line right on up, and then um, yeah, you can line, we'll give people a chance to hustle over there all the time. All right, yeah.

SPEAKER_07 41:23

Hi, um, I come to your panel every year. Love it. Um, so I know you guys practice in California. Um, I'm actually from New York City, and there were a couple of occasions during the panel in which you were discussing how the vast differences from state to state have a significant impact on the events of Spider-Noir and beyond. So, in addition to some of the things you talked about, I was wondering if you could elaborate more on how you know New York specifically or just in general, like state to state variations impact um, you know, real issues that occurred in history. Are there examples of that?

SPEAKER_00 42:00

Great question. I'm just trying to think of a specific example. Um I think employment launch varies very vastly in between the states.

SPEAKER_06 42:10

Um I have a lot of clients that complain about how employee-friendly California is. And then I was looking at New York, and New York is way more employee-friendly. Because they actually um the governor had an e-ding that came out and just said, we are gonna go after people for wage theft. So that means subpoenas, they're gonna get the police involved. That's not gonna happen in California. There's a million billboards between here in my hometown or attorneys that are gonna take on the case. So the government's not gonna come down on them that much. Um a big one is uh marijuana law. I mean, that's different from state to state, and it's even different within our state because it's still against the law federally, but it's uh legal statewise on end. So you have a big problem with marijuana distributors can't use banks. So it's a whole cash business. So that has a lot of an effect on what is actually illegal or not. So you have that tension from state to state, and you also have that tension between the federal and the state government. Um, like I said, on that currently there's a doctrine um New York is very protective of what you need a warrant to search. Other states, yeah, not so much.

SPEAKER_10 43:22

Another one is also taxes. So in New York, the state legislature um can actually just raise taxes. Um, in California, it has to be really voted the people.

Kate Bridal 43:32

Yeah, I know. Oh my god. Thank you for coming to all of our channels. We love it. All right, next step.

SPEAKER_03 43:41

Uh great talk. Thank you so much. Um quick question. So uh Ben is a private investigator and also some kind of superhero. Um in his world, uh, no pun intended. Those things seem pretty entangling. Um, what are his income tax uh uh like implications there because he has like business expenses for like uh fighting uh for like you know I don't know ink like web shear material or whatever but he also uses that stuff to like fight crime or do things that aren't really things that he's been hired for. So like how does he sort of separate those things? Like is it possible for him to not be in violation of the law even though the being a visual entity is blatantly legal. Do you think he's keeping receipts?

SPEAKER_01 44:32

This staff is a write-off now to prepare the yeah I can I can speak a little to it um as far as like taxes uh well one thing because web shooters is actually like how the somebody requires Spider-Man but it's organic and so there's no way that Ben Riley's gonna come up with some wonder you know adhesive that's gonna stick and wear out and everything. One thing going for Ben Riley is that actually in the 1930s um income taxes they were high but they also the threshold when you had to file a tax return was also very high. And there's no way Ben's gonna make anywhere near the amount of money you know like say like we got El Capone you know but um Ben's does not bring in that kind of cash. So he doesn't need to worry about it.

SPEAKER_05 45:14

I know this guy's your question I don't feel last year. So we often hear about how unrealistic legal drama and stuff on TV is what's something y'all have seen recently that either surprised you how realistic it was or that people might think was very unrealistic but wasn't college that's a good question.

Kate Bridal 45:39

It's not recent but for me the good wife is the most realistic. My cousin better calls all right my cousin Benny is very hungry.

SPEAKER_06 45:49

Yeah I stopped watching legal dramas because the whole Warren thing um so many people go free. The thing where like they knock on the doors they immediately kick it in because they didn't think anyone was there like it takes me good two minutes to get my lazy boy

Q And A On Miranda Retroactivity

SPEAKER_06 46:05

chair down to get to the door and somebody answers it. They're already kicking it in running around the back and executing that part of it. So I find most of like law and order stuff I just can't do.

Kate Bridal 46:19

My favorite law and order is criminal intent because Vincent D'Nofrio inevitably does all of this really wild stuff and the defense attorney will be like I don't think you should do that once and then the client would be like stop talking and then he does and Vincent D'Nofrio just goes nuts and you're like no I don't think about I don't think that's gonna fly for the best attorney. Alright thank you.

Vanessa Palacio 46:42

Thank you counselors good afternoon so first and foremost this is my first conference ever regarding legalese and five more but going a bit of topic or well trying to get into topic at least as far as we were aware as far as we were we were made aware Miranda versus Arizona was not a case until later in the modern day first thing could you elaborate and this is where anyone was just on there can be a little bit more elaboration on how the application of the Fifth Amendment applied to defendants back then, back in 1933 during the defendant's judicial process or at least their starting of the judicial process and now this is another question that goes on a little bit off topic what is each and everyone's opinion regarding no knock warrants and their constitutionality I mean look there just wasn't a whole lot of uniformity until Roman and unfortunately well look it looks like I make it to talk about retroactive so um related let let's talk about criminal defendants rights generally right uh we all know that when you when a person is charged with crime if they're facing jail time essentially you are you are given an attorney you cannot approve one right and that right comes from this case called Gideon versus Queen and that is the type of case that the Supreme Court has said this right is so important that it applies retroactively if this if you were in jail at that time and your case was already done all your appeals were exhausted it doesn't matter you can get a do over right for that type of constitutional right that that's how they have interpreted it I'm not saying whether I agree or not that that is the type of right that goes back and gets applied retroactively but unfortunately Miranda they just don't hold to the same level and that is the rare exception. So that's a partial answer to that.

SPEAKER_06 49:16

Yeah does anyone want to wait on the note up for inconstitutionality might be a sense yeah button this is what's what's like back to that reasonable standard when I was in law school I was an intern at the DA's office and me my fellow interns in the DA's office and at the public demanders office we took criminal procedure we all got C's and D's uh my friend who was a police officer that wanted to go to the FBI so he didn't get a law degree he got a D in class because their and what we saw every day coming in front of the courts were like yeah you see that every day it's just fine. The law professor was just like yeah he just failed his across the warrant you want nothing to do with it. So when you look at you know my education would say no not warrants never practical effect is well yeah because normally you're executed against somebody that's on a parole and really what parole is

Final Thanks And Wrap Up

SPEAKER_06 50:15

it's jail but you're out in out in society.

SPEAKER_04 50:19

So you only have the same rule rights you have and you're still in jail you just get to look at home and it's a uh it's a license to pretty much reintegrate back into society right now.

Kate Bridal 50:29

Yeah yeah yeah all right we got the wrap it up symbol so unfortunately thank you so thank you very much but we know that got into the last one but you can have it as after it's a quick one I have to adhere to the rules of the of the time but thank you all so much for coming everybody