APUS Richard G. Trefry Archives | Home: Legal Studies

Heather FayeLynn Boehm
Program: Legal Studies: Capstone-Thesis: Master of Arts (MA)
Awarded: February 2018
Capstone Instructor: Professor Darren A. Waters
Abstract: The once traditional nuclear family structure has evolved in light of society’s technological and medical advancements, leading to the formation of various non-traditional families. The process of defining family structures has become a struggle as the desire to belong to these familial units combined advancements in gamete donation or extraction, posthumously conceived children, and posthumous adoptions, has created limitless possibilities in the familiar structure. These new familial structures have created new-fangled means of establishing parent-child relationships and this conundrum leads us to contemplate what rights children born of these unions are entitled.
The founding fathers could not have conceptualized the advancements in science or changes of family structures, or created laws governing the rights afforded to them though their parent-child relationship. Hence, much of the determination of “whose child I am,” falls to interpretations of laws that were not specifically developed to address these issues. In seeking to answer, “Whose child am I,” this paper establishes that the doctrine of judicial precedent, fails to account for the creation of non-traditional families by means of posthumously conceived children or posthumous adoptions. It further asserts that changes in current laws are the only way to establish these familial units and determine what rights children born of these unions would be entitled.

Christopher A. Davaz
Program: Legal Studies: Capstone-Thesis: Master of Arts (MA)
Awarded: November 2017
Capstone Instructor: Professor Alison Becker
Abstract: Denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (also colloquially called North Korea, hereinafter DPRK) is a major concern for most of the world’s governments and the intensity of the situation has been steadily increasing throughout recent years. The goal of total denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula will most probably be achieved by means of an instrument of international law (e.g. treaty, agreement, condition for armistice). The effectiveness of that instrument will largely depend on how the parties thereto approach the negotiations, the specific language that is contained therein, and the methods of execution and verification. A similar attempt at achieving denuclearization was codified in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). By examining the JCPOA, a list of lessons learned can be formulated. The author conducted empirical and scholastic research to gather a list of lessons that can be learned from the JCPOA (at each stage of its lifecycle) and applied to the DPRK in hope that crafters and executors of the proposed agreement will ensure that the strengths of the JCPOA can be carried over, any omissions can be included, and any weaknesses mitigated.

Lisa M. Turner Dummitt
Program: Legal Studies: Capstone-Creative Project: Master of Arts (MA)
Awarded: November 2017
Capstone Instructor: Professor Alison Becker
Abstract: This study investigates the legal relationship between the Florida and Nevada landlord-tenant statutes, specifically with a focus on when and how the legislative provisions might interpret air conditioning as an essential service and a condition of habitability of a rental property. The Nevada landlord-tenant statute is a significant point of comparison with Florida’s counterpart, due to the similarity of summer temperature gradients between the states, yet only the Nevada statute unambiguously cites air conditioning as a conditional consideration in defining essential services and habitability. The study reviews the relevant provisions of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, court opinions from Florida case law that have a bearing on the logic of the Florida approach to the topic, and selected secondary sources. It aims to draw a balanced conclusion regarding whether the State of Florida should amend its statute or rely on contractual relationships and local ordinances to address the issue. The research ends with arguments for and against the status quo, followed by recommendations for policy.

Debra A. Hall
Program: Legal Studies: Capstone-Thesis: Master of Arts (MA)
Awarded: May 2017
Capstone Instructor: Professor James Barney
Abstract: Congress created the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) to unify sex offender registration and notification. Nichols v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1113 (2016) revealed flaws with interpretation of SORNA and jurisdictional issues with the law. The examination looks at issues between federal and state with SORNA and along with an example of Nichols. The research considers and reveals the importance of the continuance of sex offender registration and notification with law enforcement. The investigation is a comparison of federal and state statutes involving sex offender registration and notification in relation to Nichols v. United States and other case law. The study revealed federal and state courts have determined an Act of Congress differently with SORNA regulation. The examination showed Congress should reassess the law and funding for SORNA to initiate further state compliance. The future of compliance and cooperation will be imperative between federal and state as U.S. registered sex offenders have traveled abroad unaware prompting the creation of International Megan’s Law (IML) involving notification with the international community. Congress is urged to strengthen SORNA protecting citizens from sexual predators and sex crimes against children.

Sara E. Weimar
Program: Legal Studies: Capstone- Creative Project: Master of Arts (MA)
Awarded: May 2017
Capstone Instructor: Professor James Barney
Abstract:In the case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court once again discussed and ruled on abortion rights. The Court claimed to have re-affirmed the basic principles of the landmark abortion rights decision of Roe v. Wade, but then only applied the undue burden standard as outlined in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, rather than use the opportunity to protect abortion as a fundamental right. Since states cannot officially outlaw abortion within their borders, many state legislatures have specifically attempted to regulate abortion clinics out of existence by passing onerous and unnecessary health regulations concerning the practice of abortion. In this current political climate, abortion rights need to be protected by the strict scrutiny standard as befitting a fundamental right, otherwise many women will effectively lose their right to seek a termination when they are unable to obtain an abortion in their state.

Joel Wickwire
Program: Legal Studies: Capstone-Creative Project: Master of Arts (MA)
Awarded: November 2017
Capstone Instructor: Professor Karen A. Morrissette
Abstract: The functionality of the international legal system is frustrated due to the overly complex relationships between international courts and between law enforcement agencies due to the pluralistic nature of international law. In reviewing the applicability of contemporary arguments for improving legal principles like due diligence and jurisdiction on existing international legislation and case law, this research aims at better informing practitioners of international law and politics because it is in these spheres that all nations must interact. A brief history of the problem of legal pluralism is provided followed by the development of the legal principles propositioned as being key to improving the international legal system. The analysis portion of this research project focuses on where these principles are present in various international courts and how these practices need to be emphasized. How these principles are mechanized through the operations of such agencies as International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is also discussed. This paper reveals that while the international legal system is fragmented, it is poised to embrace a higher standard of legal processes that are embedded in the principles of due diligence and jurisdictional reasonableness.

Vincent DiMaggio
Program: Legal Studies: Capstone-Thesis: Master of Arts (MA)
Awarded: November 2016
Capstone Instructor: Dr. Karen Morrissette
Abstract: Since the ratification of the United States Constitution and its first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, a myriad of opinions and interpretive theories have developed as to how to interpret and apply the meaning of their provisions. Originalism, Pragmatism, and Natural Law Theory are the predominant contemporary constitutional interpretive methods. Each of these contemporary theories was defined and cases using these interpretive approaches were analyzed for consistency with each theory’s principal foundations. This research discovered functional problems with each theory’s methodology for interpreting constitutional provisions and arriving at consistent judicial results. The conclusion reached was that the shortcomings of the three contemporary interpretive theories to constitutional interpretation would continue to deliver jurisprudential decisions that are significantly inconsistent with each theory’s underlying core principles, and that a new interpretative theory based on a legal transformational approach would be superior at minimizing the inconsistencies inherent in the traditional interpretive approaches.

Jeffrey A. Vent
Program: Legal Studies: Capstone-Thesis: Master of Arts (MA)
Awarded: August 2016
Capstone Instructor: Dr. Christine E. Ekman
Abstract: This paper examines the historical underpinnings, present challenges, and the critical importance of the border search exception to the warrant requirement imposed by the Fourth Amendment. The paper begins with a look at the history of the border search exception and traces it to modern day statutory law. The border search exception as it applies to electronic media is then examined to include current case law. Present challenges, or arguments against suspicionless electronic media searches, are presented and refuted. Further, arguments for maintaining a lack of individualized suspicion to conduct these searches are also explored. Finally, a brief examination of the border search laws of the United Kingdom and Canada is conducted. Ultimately, the point of the paper is to argue that despite an increase in technology, the border search exception should not be modified to create an exception for electronic media devices by requiring particularized suspicion.

Travis A. Brown
Program: Legal Studies: Capstone-Thesis: Master of Arts (MA)
Awarded: August 2015
Capstone Instructor: Dr. Alison Becker
Abstract: This research describes the relationship between laws of the United States and the advancement of app technology, more specifically in contracts with minors. Two questions are explored: (1) whether minors need a bright-line rule for app contracts, and (2) whether the intangible assets exchanged within a mobile app contract can be recovered. Existing research in areas such as intangible assets, financial contracts and contracting with children have been integrated so that mobile app practices might improve and that damages suffered by children might be better defined.