An interesting ruling out from the California Supreme Court finding that no warrant was necessary to search an individual’s cell phone following arrest. The ruling is at odds with similar rulings from other States. Check out the article here.
California Supreme Court rules No Warrant Necessary to search Cell phone
January 6, 2011 By Leave a Comment
Florida’s “No Refusal” DUI Checkpoints and Your Constitutional Rights
December 30, 2010 By 1 Comment
In a growing number of counties in Florida, drivers will be subjected to a new and rapidly growing DUI deterrent described as “No Refusal Checkpoints.”
No Refusal Checkpoints work like a normal DUI checkpoint. However, if you refuse to take a breathalyzer test at a No Refusal Checkpoint, there is a Judge on-site that will sign a warrant forcing you to submit to a blood test in order to determine your sobriety. The No Refusal Checkpoints are aimed at detouring the common practice by those accused of DUI to refuse to take the breathalyzer test in hopes that charge would be dismissed or otherwise reduced for lack of evidence (a strategy this Firm does not necessarily condone or endorse – we advise to avoid the whole issue by not drinking and driving!). See the 10 News Article here.
These measures are being applauded by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and groups like Mothers’ Against Drunk Driving who suggest that No Refusal Stops will be heavily advertised in advance and will ultimately save lives.
Critics question the constitutionality of the on-the-spot warrants. Specifically, how does the refusal to submit to breathalyzer, with no other evidence, provide the necessary probable cause to allow a judge issue a warrant for a blood sample? The protection from unreasonable search and seizure, including a compulsory blood sample is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Certainly, it is well established law that non-consensual extraction of blood is a violation an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
We can all agree that Drunk Driving is a serious and deadly crime that kills thousands of drivers every year. However, the continued degradation of constitutional rights is worrisome. (See my earlier posts on governmental consumer regulations and lawful GPS tracking by the government). The Fourth Amendment protects us from governmental intrusion into our personal lives. Once constitutional rights are diminished, it is nearly impossible to restore them to their original state.
As to the specific issue of No Refusal Checkpoints and the on-the-sport warrant, I am interested to see how Fourth Amendment Constitutional challenges to DUI charges play out in court. Perhaps one solution would be to institute more significant penalties for refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test than those currently imposed – a temporary suspension of driving privileges.
Tell us what you think. Are the checkpoints a violation of constitutional rights? If they are, is it still worth it?
To contact a lawyer at our firm by phone, please call (954) 591-8261 in South Florida or (863) 946-9160 in the Glades and Central Florida. You may also contact us by e-mail at info@truebloodlawgroup.com or by submitting your contact information here.
Banks to Take Second Look at Flawed Foreclosure Documents
October 11, 2010 By Leave a Comment
The recent disclosure of legal documents indicate that at least one Bank of America executive acknowledged that she signed thousands of foreclosure documents without reading reviewing the document first – up to 8,000 a month. As it turns out, the practice is very widespread among banks issuing thousands of foreclosure documents each month.
This revelation has forced BOA to issue a halt of foreclosure litigation in the 23 states that require a judge to approve a foreclosure, including Florida, while foreclosure documents are reviewed. Bank of America’s halt on foreclosures follows the same or similar decisions made by other banks, including PNC Financial Services, Ally Financial and JP Morgan Chase. (Read the Yahoo! Finance article here).
Several states have taken notice too. Attorney generals from up to 40 states have indicated that they will investigate potentially flawed foreclosure documents. (Read the Yahoo! Finance article here).
The potential widespread legal effects of foreclosures executed on fraudulent or inaccurate documentation could be devastating. Homeowners who discover their homes were foreclosed with improper documents may have causes of action against both the bank that sued them, but the subsequent owners of the property as well.
The Trueblood Law Group has a variety of payment plans available to distressed homeowners. All forms of payment are acceptable and payment plans can be arranged in most circumstances. Contact us today for a quote on estimated costs for our services. We represent clients throughout the State of Florida. Read more about our foreclosure defense practice here.
To contact a lawyer at our firm by phone, please call (954) 591-8261 or (863) 946-9160. You may also contact us by e-mail at info@truebloodlawgroup.com or by submitting your contact information here.
NYT: Florida’s High-Speed Answer to a Foreclosure Mess
September 19, 2010 By Leave a Comment
Must read article from the New York Times on Florida’s efforts to expedite the foreclosure litigation process. (Click here for the article.)
If you have any questions regarding the foreclosure process, please contact us here.
The Trueblood Law Group has a variety of payment plans available to distressed homeowners. All forms of payment are acceptable and payment plans can be arranged in most circumstances. Contact us today for a quote on estimated costs for our services. We represent clients throughout the State of Florida. Read more about our foreclosure defense practice here.
To contact a lawyer at our firm by phone, please call (954) 591-8261 or (863) 946-9160. You may also contact us by e-mail at info@truebloodlawgroup.com or by submitting your contact information here.
Eminem “Not Afraid” following Royalty Dispute victory; iTunes music downloads are only licenses, not owned
September 6, 2010 By Leave a Comment
While riding the critical acclaim of his latest album “Recovery,” Eminem and his producers have been busy in the courtroom as well as studio.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in ruled that songs downloaded from Apple’s iTunes music service are not “purchases” in a legal since, but rather a “license” based the terms and conditions imposed by iTunes and its content providers. (Click here for the full Ninth Circuit ruling). This distinction was critical in determining what percentage of revenue generated from downloads artists and records labels are entitled to receive. In most recording contacts, artists are entitled to a greater percentage of revenue generated from music that is licensed, than from music that is sold.
Thus, the ruling could significantly affect on the financial relationships between record labels and performers. However, the issue however is not yet final. Universal Music Group, the parent company Defendant in the action will seek a retrial. (Click here for the Wall Street Journal article on the decision). Universal also argues that this ruling does not create any industry-wide precedent; but rather only spoke to the music contracts in question.
The more important issue for consumers is what legal right do they have to the music they pay for on from iTunes. Certainly, iTunes imposes significant restrictions (ironically called “FairPlay”) on how consumers maintain and use the music they download; which is more reflective of a “license” to their iTunes purchases rather than actually owning the music.
If the decision becomes precedent, will consumers be as willing to purchase from iTunes knowing they do not actually own the music?
Court allows Feds to monitor your movements by GPS
August 29, 2010 By Leave a Comment
In an eye-opening ruling out of the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in California, the Court found that law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person’s car without seeking a warrant from a judge.
DEA agents in Oregon in 2007 secretly attached a GPS to a vehicle owned by a suspected drug dealer. When the suspect arrested and charged a critical piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the suspect’s vehicle was driven. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where DEA agents discovered marijuana being grown. (Read the full CNN article on the case here.)
While this decision directly effects those living in the 9th Circuit (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Hawaii and Arizona), the issue nationally is far from over. A recent ruling out of the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals on a similar case ruled exactly the opposite; that federal agents were required to obtain a warrant prior to placing a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle. Most observers believe that this issue is destined for a showdown in the Supreme Court.
Critics view the decision as another significant expansion of police power and a court approval of government invasion of privacy. The Court itself was sharply divided on the issue. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, wrote in his stinging dissent said the defendant’s driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called “creepy” and “underhanded.”
Proponents of the decision see the GPS trackers as a law enforcement tool that is no more intrusive than other means of surveillance, such as visually following a person, that do not require a court’s approval.
What are your thoughts? Are Courts allowing the government to invade our privacy?
Or are the use of GPS tracking devices the evolution of law enforcement technology and not an invasion of privacy?
Let us know your thoughts!
Foreclosure Filings in Palm Beach spike; Increase in Broward
August 15, 2010 By Leave a Comment
The latest data on foreclosure filings in Palm Beach County and Broward County have been released. In July 2010, Palm Beach County foreclosure cases in progress saw a staggering 77% increase from June 2010; and an increase of 24% from one year ago.
Broward County saw a less dramatic filing increase in July 2010, but still sustained a 5% increase in total cases in progress from June 2010. However, perhaps the silver lining in the latest data was the 24% decrease in Broward county cases in progress from July 2009.
Here the full Sun Sentinel blog post here.
or distressed homeowners, the assistance of an experienced foreclosure defense attorney is critical to preserving their rights, communicating with the bank and working out the best possible outcome from a difficult situation.
The Trueblood Law Group has a variety of payment plans available to distressed homeowners. All forms of payment are acceptable and payment plans can be arranged in most circumstances. Contact us today for a quote on estimated costs for our services. We represent clients throughout the State of Florida. Read more about our foreclosure defense practice here.
To contact a lawyer at our firm by phone, please call (954) 591-8261 or (863) 946-9160. You may also contact us by e-mail at info@truebloodlawgroup.com or by submitting your contact information here.
Before you sign that Non-Compete Agreement…: Common Non-Compete Restrictions and the Florida Statutes
July 25, 2010 By Leave a Comment
Businesses go to great lengths to retain their best talent and preserve their investment in human resources. Typically, a Non-Compete Agreement will cover not only certain employment restrictions an employee agrees to undertake following leaving the job, but the employee’s ability otherwise solicit the Employer’s customers after leaving; called a non-solicitation agreement or provision.
In general, the Florida Statute Chapter 542 provides that “[e]very contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.” § 542.18, Fla. Stat. (2009). While that is a noble thought, the Florida Statutes then carve out certain criteria in which employers may legally restrict their employees once they leave their job.
In general, post-employment Non-Compete restrictions usually have to basic variables: Geographic restrictions on “competing” with the Employer within a certain area; and the amount of time of how long these restrictions are enforceable.
Geographic Scope: Employers typically include terms in Non-Compete agreements that preclude a former employee for certain period from “competing” with the Employer in a defined geographic area. These geographic restrictions can be as broad as certain city, state or territories or as specific as a given mile radius from the geographic area that is to be protected. Beyond understanding what geographic restrictions are to be imposed, it is critical to understand what the definition of “compete” is before signing an agreement. Compete may be defined very broadly and preclude former employees from obtaining employment in a certain field or industry during the term of the agreement.
Term of Agreement: The second variable of Non-Compete restrictions is how long the restrictions are going to be in place. Chapter §542.33 of the Florida Statutes provides Courts guidance with which restraints should be held to be valid. For instance, Non-Compete agreements that seek to protect an Employer’s trade secrets will be presumed to be valid if less than five years; and invalid if in excess of 10 years. See, §542.335(1)(e), Fla. Stat.
However, perhaps the most damaging guidance provided by the Florida Statutes for employees is that a Court cannot consider the individual impact or hardship in deciding whether or not to enforce a restrictive covenant. See, §542.335(1)(g)(1), Fla. Stat.
Before entering into a Non-Compete agreement with your current or prospective employer, consult the advice of a qualified attorney to explain the nature and extent of the restrictions you are being asked to undertake.
If or your company is involved in a Non-Compete Agreement issue and you need legal representation, our attorneys are ready to listen. We represent clients throughout the State of Florida. We have offices in Fort Lauderdale and Moore Haven, Florida. To contact a lawyer at our firm, call (954) 591-8261 or (863) 946-9160. You may also contact us by e-mail at info@truebloodlawgroup.com or by submitting your contact information here.