New $1,000 Civil Penalty for Violating Quarantine (+ 90 Days in Jail, Criminally)
Mates,
This is new. On top of the $500 fine and up to 90 days in jail for violation of the Gov's Shelter-in-Place order, the Michigan Dept of Health and Human Services has this for us tonight:
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Robert Gordon issued an emergency order Thursday setting a $1,000 civil fine to go into immediate effect for violating any of three of Whitmer’s recent executive orders in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic. The fine can be applied for each violation or day the violation continues.
Link to the article: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/04/02/coronavirus-covid-19-stay-at-home-violators-face-civil-fine/5119105002/
It is not clear who or how this would be enforced. As a civil penalty it would require a lessened burden of proof, merely a preponderance (slightest majority) of evidence as opposed to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. The AG has stated that it is not sufficient reason for the cops to pull someone over to inquire solely about where they are going, but if you go get stopped you might want to have a solid reason to be out and about.
Stay safe everybody,
XM
Why should we believe the factual reporting indicator? It could be fake.
In quickly skimming the first, since the study focused more on rightwing fake news, it is not surprising that it concluded that more republicans shared it than democrats. Since older Americans are more republican, it is also not surprising that more of them shared news from the sites identified. Would believe the study more if it didn’t seem to start with this inherent bias.
As for the second, the opinion piece about the study seemed much different than the study itself. The study contained factoids that could be used to assert that either side was more disconnected from reality. You’l notice that the gap between the number of people in party a who holds extreme views and those that actually do is greater for republicans than demicrats.
If you read the actual report, one of the main points it makes is that their is a greater center that agrees on things than people in either party believe. From the report itself:
“Democrats and Republicans overestimate the proportion of their opponents
who hold extreme14 views by a factor of almost 2. While on average, they believe that 55 percent of their opponents' hold extreme views, in reality only about
30 percent are.15
The number of Republicans who hold extreme views (34 percent) is only about two thirds what Democrats believe (53 percent). The number of Democrats who hold extreme views (29 percent) is only about half what Republicans believe (56 percent).
Independents’ Perception Gap of both Republicans and Democrats is smaller than the Perception Gap of affiliates of either party, but still sizable. For example, Independents estimate that 53 percent of Republicans hold mainstream views (when in fact, as mentioned above, 66 percent do), yielding a Perception Gap of 13 percentage points
for Republicans. They estimate that 51 percent of Democrats hold mainstream views (while as mentioned above, 71 do), yielding a Perception Gap of 20 percentage points for Democrats’ views. The average Perception Gap of Independents across both parties is 16.
Overall, then, both Democrats and Republicans have a much higher Perception Gap than Independents, but the study clearly finds that Americans of all persuasions overestimate the extent to which other Americans hold extreme views.
One proviso should be added. While it may be tempting to compare the absolute differences between the parties and to draw conclusions about the relative accuracy or inaccuracy of each party’s views about the other, the value of this approach is limited by the fact that each party responded to different question sets. Of course the Perception Gap measures the difference between the perceptions of partisans and their opponents' actual beliefs. Nevertheless, the choice of questions will influence differences in the Perception Gap between Democrats and Republicans. Caution should therefore be exercised in interpreting these results as an objective measure of differences in each party's perceptions of the other.”
I've been trying to find some statistics that show the efficacy of 'stay at home' directives. Anyone have anything comparing the states (few as they may be) without such a directive to states with? I would hope we could show either how important this is, or how futile. I'm thinking there would be way too many variables involved to definitively show, but it may shed some light on these decisions and help to convince people to obey (if it proved beneficial).
Edit: suddenly my points are working...is that related to Covid 19?
someone has created the social distancing scoreboard using cell phone data
https://www.unacast.com/covid19
Wyoming is doing worst. Michigan is one of the best states.
Unacast is a REALLY BAD source, since their method is just tracking distance traveled. When your population lives 40 miles from groceries, that looks like they are "doing the worst" when in fact the rural nature of the state just requires far more travel for necessities.
Here's the best site I've found:
This heat map from Kinsa (manfucturer of Smart Thermometers) is pretty cool too, but the method has some serious flaws as well.
The two sources you’ve shown may get at health outcomes, they don’t directly translate to whether social distancing guidelines are being adhered to (but certainly you could make inferences).
your point about miles traveled being less useful in a more rural state is valid. Maybe they should do their grading better to take that into account (e.g. factor in density), but even with it’s limitations it seems to have some value. Their cite notes that they put this out quickly and used a simple metric and are investigating ways to improve.
"San Francisco and five other Bay Area counties in California have ordered all residents to shelter-in-place to curb the spread of coronavirus, in a drastic move similar to ones taken in Italy, Spain and China, but the first of its kind in the US."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/california-coronavirus-shelter-in-place-bay-area
Experts in the epidemiology of pandemics emphasize the absolute need for quick action to prevent the spread; because of the exponential character of new infections, the difference of just a few days can have dramatic impact on the rate of spread.
Another way of looking at the efficacy of stay at home directives: California has 39.5 million residents; Michigan has 9.9 million.
CA has 246 deaths, while MI—with one-fourth the population of CA—has 417.
Are there other factors contributing to the disparity in deaths per million population in CA and MI? Very probably, but the difference of five days between CA's stay in place and Michigan's certainly has a significant role.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/here-are-stay-home-orders-across-country-n1168736
So, states will jail you if you violate the order but at the same time release violent and dangerous criminals from jail because of the virus. Got it now.
Could be worse. In the Phillippines and N Korea they just shoot you.
Perhaps China too, and that's why their official 'rona death counts are so low? "Uhhhh, these 786,000 actually died from bullet wounds, not the virus."
You can’t flatten a curve that doesn’t exist! ?
That has occurred to me. Definitely a head-scratcher. Much of what we're seeing is being made up as we go along.
Those of you who are thinking this means cops are going to be randomly pulling drivers over to interrogate them on whether they're headed to a crowded party or the pharmacy need to get a grip.
If you cant see how this situation could easily get out of control or escalate in a few months you're being willfully blind.
This could just be the beginning of more laws to come.
"This could just be the beginning of more laws to come."
Please describe what laws you think are coming.
well how about this one, just in from delaware:
DOVER, Del. (CBS) — Police in Delaware have been given the authority to pull over out-of-state drivers during the coronavirus pandemic. Delaware State Police say Gov. John Carney’s state of emergency declaration “authorizes any Delaware law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle driving within the state simply because it is displaying out-of-state tags.”
thats a start. i'm sure there'll be others.
Bro that’s just like driving through Ohio with Michigan plates on a Tuesday. What else ya got?
Not enforceable and unconstitutional. I think I've mentioned but beyond the work I do in hospitals much of my job is in DC working with lawmakers on healthcare policy. I was peaking with a politician in my state (D) and they are not doing it because they know it's completely unconstitutional, it would get overturned if challenge, and there is concern over lawsuits if they tried to throw people in jail for this.
That said, the state I am in was considering it as a scare tactic. It does freak people out and 100% will keep some people in. But if you internally tell PD's to not enforce any but publically tell people they will get the iron fist of the law it absolutely will keep some people in. Maybe you get another 10-20% of the population to stay in.
Unless you are doing something else that would normally be illegal, not one of these penalties will be enforced anywhere on an individual.
Exactly this FlexUM. Kinda of a bush league tactic, actually, and it's causing a ton of confusion and frustration between local policy agencies and citizens, but if it's effective OH WELL.
I get that this is an extraordinary situation. I get the critical need to “flatten the curve”. I absolutely agree we should be locked down right now and am doing my part to save lives.
All that said, I just cannot agree with or really even understand the attitude that “anything the govt does is justified as long we we see the number of Covid cases and deaths go down”.
Congratulations, you have common sense and youre not a coward.
Do not stay silent about this. People need to hear more comments like this.
And you will be one of the first individuals filing a law suit when this is all over, when you or a loved one gets sick, stating that the Fed and State didn't act swiftly, decisively, or harshly enough with those people who were carriers and decided not to socially distance.
Again... the problem is entitlement, not anything to do with the law or US Constitution. You do NOT have the right to put other people at risk, nor do you have the right to kill anyone (manslaughter). Attorneys can bicker all they want, same with politicians, it's spin city...
There's a reason the Fed and Medical professionals have told YOU, over and over that you need to act like you have the virus, and everyone around you has the virus, even if you don't. It's because these drastic measures are necessary to save lives.
Why the world would you even want to harm or put other people at risk? Why is this even a debate on any forum? Is it because you miss your social beer drinking group? Do you miss your Starbucks Coffee? Do you miss going to the gym, or going to entertainment venues? Well guess what... we all do, yet we're all choosing to help our fellow human beings by sacrificing so they can live.
I believe there is a fair amount if debate, particularly for state orders. Not really sure there is enough case law to assert that a court would find it unconstitutional.
If the rules stay in place after the numbers start falling, we will likely.get a chance to see what the court says. Enough of the work I am involved in gets litigated that I have had the opportunity to hear plenty of lawyers and scholars opine about what the courts will do. Their are generally plenty of people on both sides, so with most cases a large number of those experts are wrong.
It's just for show.
If you get stopped, just say you're on the way to the grocery store or pharmacy.
This is a great idea. NY state needs it. I’d love to call the cops on my asshole neighbor who lets their kids run around my yard, even though I asked them not to because my wife is immunodeficient.
*applause* and my heart goes out to you... hang in there!
"The virus was first confirmed in the country on Jan. 20 when a 35-year-old Chinese woman who flew from Wuhan, China to Incheon international airport, which serves Seoul, was isolated upon entry into the country. In the four weeks following the incident, South Korea managed to avoid a major outbreak with only 30 people contracting the virus, despite many interactions between those later confirmed as being sick and hundreds more people being identified as contacts of the sick patients.
This changed with the emergence of “Patient 31.”
https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-SOUTHKOREA-CLUSTERS/0100B5G33SB/index.html
Anyone questioning why it's so important for EVERYONE to follow the guidelines, read the linked article above. They document exactly how one single stubborn person was responsible for infecting a country.
*WE HAVE A WINNER*
Thank you sir for being one of the few brave people on here that's willing to state the obvious to those that believe their civil rights are being violated.
Medical professionals around the globe thank you as well!
Every time a cop has to write a ticket, or pull over a car they put themselves at risk of getting the disease and bringing it to the station, or their family, or the next person they interact with. I don't believe the police want to take extra risks right now so I imagine they won't be pulling people over unless they have to and breaking up small groups will be done from a distance. But when they need to write tickets, they will. For example, I was told that two days ago a youth baseball team in Brighton was still practicing baseball. That to me is the type of thing they are trying to squash.
It was unclear to me if the fine is for businesses or individuals? Both?
From the Gov press release:
"Law enforcement agencies across the state are authorized to investigate potential violations of Executive Orders 2020-11, 2020-20 and 2020-21 and coordinating as necessary with their local health departments to enforce this Emergency Order within their jurisdiction. Law enforcement is specifically authorized to bar access to businesses and operations that fail to comply with the procedures and restrictions outlined in the Executive Orders. "
The Freep article XM posted starts off with this sentence:
"The price for violating Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order just went up."
"stay-at-home order" directly links to this article:
This article states the following:
"Under the stay home order issued by Whitmer Monday morning, individual Michiganders who are abiding by the social distancing edicts and staying 6 feet apart when they do their outdoor exercise or dog walking won't have anything to worry about from law enforcement.
Neither will people who are using the state's roads and highways to drive to grocery stores, pharmacies or gas stations, which will remain open during the order, which will last until April 13.
Restaurants will still be able to do carryout orders and delivery people can still drop off packages to homebound Michiganders."
The imposition of penalties is simply to keep a lid on the willful, obvious, and flagrant violators of the orders. It's functionally no different than giving law enforcement the ability to issue tickets to those breaking the speed limits and other traffic laws on streets and highways. Anybody who thinks that compliance with traffic laws would be the same if LEOs were not able to impose penalties is living in a fantasy world.
Whitmer's orders do not constitute an actual quarantine, given the exceptions explicitly mentioned above.
As for the constitutionality of stay-at-home orders:
"Ultimately, however, the Constitution allows public health officials to impose mandatory quarantines, isolation, or other measures needed to stop an epidemic.
In a 1905 case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court held that a Massachusetts town could require all inhabitants to be vaccinated during a smallpox epidemic. The court explained that the “liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.”
During a disease outbreak, the urgent need to protect public health prevails, the high court ruled, stating: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”
That principle remains good law. During the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak, federal courts rejected constitutional claims brought by Americans quarantined after returning from affected countries.
“The State is entitled to some latitude,” U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty of New Jersey wrote, “in its prophylactic efforts to contain what is, at present, an incurable and often fatal disease.”
Another judge noted that a temporary quarantine, “limited in duration to the incubation period of a virus responsible for an epidemic that killed over 11,000 individuals, was not objectively unreasonable.”
Is this from some uber-liberal news media outlet eager to put jackbooted thugs on your doorstep? Nope.
Limited is the key in those decisions - a major issue is that these orders aren't really limited (though, that would be the whole point of litigation - whether or not its limited, etc).
"a major issue is that these orders aren't really limited"
In what world do orders of limited duration with explicit carve-outs for reasonable activities by individuals constitute "aren't really limited?"
One thing that might get challenged is if the orders are for a month, but keep getting renewed. Each order is limited, but is the pattern?
Also, since the Constitution guarantees the right to liberty and free assembly (and grants the federal government authority over interstate commerce e.g. crossing state lines), one could conceivably challenge state government orders on the basis that the federal government has the authority, but the states don't. (That may be settled law given the 10th Amendment, but I don't think it's been applied in this context.)
Shelter at home orders of some sort are necessary. However, I'm starting to get concerned about how far they're going. Last I checked, Michigan has a legislature, one of the highest paid in the country, and I would feel much better if these orders were voted on as actual laws in the normal course of business in our republic. Until then, governor Whitmer and the rest of the Governors are acting as essentially benevolent dictators.
On another note, anyone who doesn't think these additional fines won't disproportionately affect black people in Michigan don't know anything about how things happen in the real world.
"I would feel much better if these orders were voted on as actual laws in the normal course of business in our republic. Until then, governor Whitmer and the rest of the Governors are acting as essentially benevolent dictators."
Were you similarly outraged when governor Rick Snyder used executive orders to appoint the emergency managers for Flint who proceeded to switch its water from Detroit to the polluted Flint River?
That's the way we do things as both the Federal and State level anymore ...... Executive Orders are common, the Legislators checking the power of the Executive is less common.
Certainly not the way it was meant to be, but it's how it is in 2020.
That's because politics will be the front runner, meanwhile the people will suffer. No complaints here...
So what's the point of having a legislative branch then? Do we eliminate them completely any time there is a crisis?
From what I've read, emergency orders can last for 28 days before the legislature must vote on them. Reference this FB page - the author is a guy I grew up with, and he is not given to lies (he is Republican, FWIW). He may even be reading MGoBlog, as he is a big Wolverine fan and spent many years photographing football from the field.
You can always say you’re getting food so it would take an exceptionally dumb person to get snagged up with this.
Just came on to read the shitty takes from the same 3 or 4 people. [read a book]
Ever notice how Dem lead states are implementing Big Government policies, Socialism and very close to martial law policies, taking advantage of this health crisis? How they are taking away our civil liberties? How they are trampling over our rights to free speech and 2nd amendment? Its happening in NY, NJ, WA, OH, IL, CA and MI. This is liberal politics at its finest folks. Soon, there will be checkpoints set up at major roads which we will need to pass through with out papers.
I wasn't aware that Mike DeWine was a democrat. Apparently that R next to his name must stand for really liberal.
Since you are going to cherry pick which rights are important, there are plenty of examples of constitutional rights being trampled by Republicans taking advantage of the situation. Here in Texas we have specific carve outs for religious services and gun sellers. What is prohibited is getting an abortion, even one that is done using a pill, which should not require a doctor to wear any PPE (the basis for the prohibition). Sure sounds like big government to me.
You're not entirely wrong.
Gavin Newsom actually said yesterday that Coronavirus provides an opportunity to usher in new progressive policies in California and throughout the country.
Some folks do subscribe to the idea of "never let a crisis go to waste" ..........
You mean how Trump conveniently reduced emission standards 2 days ago from 5% curtailment to 1.5%?
I fail to see how that's relevant to Coronavirus.
You fools are hilarious.
Have you seen the bullshit Pelosi et al.,put in the $2.2T bill!?!?!?!?!?!?
What does any of the following have to do with COVID-19 ***response***? Some of which I don't mind but isn't related to COVID-19... they leveraged the crisis to push their whatever the heck they wanted through:
- Legislates taxpayer-funded union overtime time.
- Requires a labor union representative on every airline's board of directors.
- Pension bailouts.
- Permanently raises the minimum wage to $15 for any business that receives federal aid for COVID-19.
- Cancels all debt owed by United States Postal Service to the Treasury.
- Requires all airlines that receive assistance to offset carbon emissions for domestic flights by 2025.
- Creates a $1B program where DOT buys fuel inefficient planes from airlines in exchange for agreeing to buy new ones.
- New tax credits for solar and wind energy (I'm okay with this personally but it SHOULD NOT be in the bill -- not the time or place).
- Student loan forgiveness.
- $10K blanket loan forgiveness.
- Mandates how states must run elections, including the nationalization of ballot harvesting, requiring early voting, same day registration, and no-excuse vote by mail.
- Requires DHS to automatically extend visas and work authorizations expiring within the next year, including those with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Temporary Protected Status, for an amount of time equal to their prior visa, authorization or status.
- Limits CBPs ability to shutdown processing centers if there is a health crisis on the border and requires CBP to assure the timely adjudication of asylums applications.
- Sanctuary city funding.
- Permanent changes to who can serve on corporate boards of directors for companies that receive assistance for payroll and operating costs.
- Legislate corporate disclosures for their supply chain management.
- Legislates board diversity disclosure for all publicly traded companies.
- Rewrites policy with no reference to COVID-19 rule-making pertaining to immigation work requirements and eligibility.
- Additional expansion of Obamacare; puts the American taxpayer on the hook for endless and unchecked health insurance spending and would remove all incentives for insurers to reduce the cost of health insurance.
Am I defending Trump? Hell no. But your consistent Trump = bad, Dems = good takes are just as foolish as well.
Wait if you don’t see how vast majority of those things are BENEFICIAL DURING A CRISIS or how companies requiring bailouts SHOULD BE HELD TO A STANDARD BY THE FEDERAL GOVT AKA US, THE PEOPLE, then I don’t know what the hell to tell you.
Outside of the solar credits, dubious $15 dollar minimum wage and diversity quota(which I’m assuming only applies to bailout companies, so I don’t really see an issue with it but I get why it’s frivolous) every one of those things are helpful currently whether by relieving distressed agencies or streamlining nonsense in the DACA/CBP case or are mandates put forth by the government for companies that want bailouts.
Why the fuck shouldn’t the government advance the interests of people who will get screwed the most by these bailed out companies?
I don’t get people like you at all. Bitching about pennies on the dollar.