Jump to content

Legal Round Up


Travis In Austin

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Texas Attorney General settles case today against PC Scan out of Florida.  This is a company that would say it would scan your computer on line to see if there were any errors.  Apparently, no matter how great or error free your system was, it would find errors and give you a number to call.  From there they would try and sell you additional and unneeded tech support services that were very expensive. 

 

I am attaching a copy of the Judgement in PDF.  Apparently the Federal Trade Commission has also settled with them today.  If you know of anyone who may have been scammed by this outfit you may want to let them know.  Typically the FTC and the  AG's of the state will have all of the email addresses of  folks who the offending company had communications with and contacts them, but there are some that slip through the cracks because there are so many of them.

 

Travis

 

02_AFJ_071316.pdf

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the net that was thrown over the perpetrator that I suggested? I't quick, neat, non life threatening, and when he arrives at the police station he is given a shot to knock him out then incarcerated.

JJK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

What happened to the net that was thrown over the perpetrator that I suggested? I't quick, neat, non life threatening, and when he arrives at the police station he is given a shot to knock him out then incarcerated.

JJK

 

It has been tried, but without much success.  With a Department such as this they would be much better off getting Tasers first, and then looking at this way, way down the road.

 

If you search Super Talon Net Gun you will see a review on it and photos. 

 

The effective range of a net gun is about 20 feet, but that is inside  the  21' associated with the 21' rule.  It would require a special situation, time, etc.  In this situation the decedent was in the process of about to attack the neighbor.  The officer drew his attention to him and he started approaching the officer.  There simply wasn't time to get a net gun out of a trunk and deploy it.

 

A Taser might have avoided this, but you have to have lethal cover by one officer (because you had a subject with a weapon in his hand) and then another officer attempting to deploy the Taser. 

 

I should load on the 911 call of the lady calling in frantically that someone had smashed the windows and was breaking into their house.  When the police arrived he was gone and homeowners were outside.  They got description and direction of travel and went looking, and then double backed and on way back saw the suspect heading back to the house with the Yo Ho in his hands held up (at first glance it was thought to be a shovel).  You see in one of the videos the homeowner run in a panic and get behind the police car.

 

As the suspect is approaching the police officer he is told by my client "drop your weapon or I will shoot you" to which the subject responds "that's ok."  The suspect was released from a mental hospital a few days before the incident, and apparently when the hospital called family to see if someone could come and pick him up and no one would because of prior problems they had with him. 

 

From the time the officer gets out  of  his car to shots fired is less than a minute. 

 

A net gun, which I don't know of any department using, may or may not have worked. 

 

If there is time you could launch a drone that could drop a net, and we may have that technology some day, but I think it is a fair ways off.

 

Travis

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
4 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Judge rules pacemaker data can be used against defendant

 

This surprises me.  If it goes to the SCOTUS I bet it gets overturned on the basis of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

 

The Motion to Suppress was based on the warrantless search and seizure of the Defendant's person, pacemaker and medical information.  I'm surprised this was not upheld.

 

The brief comment I read by the judge he indicated there was no violation of the right to privacy.  That seems to be the wrong argument, to me, the 5th Amendment protection seems the winning one.  I would argue the pacemaker is part of the person and therefore protected.  I'm guessing the prosecution (the government) took the position that a device is not a person, like a stop light camera, and the data from that device can be used as evidence against someone.

 

Still, I think the higher standard should be "get it right."  If the accused did indeed set fire to his own home then evidence that supports that conclusion should be admitted.

 

The bigger issue is how the heck did someone think of the angle to use a person's pacemaker data to support or disprove the accused person's actions?  That sounds not like something a DA would think of, but something an insurance company lawyer would think of to save the company from shelling out money.

 

Fascinating story, medical and legal issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2017 at 4:27 AM, wvu80 said:

This surprises me.  If it goes to the SCOTUS I bet it gets overturned on the basis of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

 

The Motion to Suppress was based on the warrantless search and seizure of the Defendant's person, pacemaker and medical information.  I'm surprised this was not upheld.

 

The brief comment I read by the judge he indicated there was no violation of the right to privacy.  That seems to be the wrong argument, to me, the 5th Amendment protection seems the winning one.  I would argue the pacemaker is part of the person and therefore protected.  I'm guessing the prosecution (the government) took the position that a device is not a person, like a stop light camera, and the data from that device can be used as evidence against someone.

 

Still, I think the higher standard should be "get it right."  If the accused did indeed set fire to his own home then evidence that supports that conclusion should be admitted.

 

The bigger issue is how the heck did someone think of the angle to use a person's pacemaker data to support or disprove the accused person's actions?  That sounds not like something a DA would think of, but something an insurance company lawyer would think of to save the company from shelling out money.

 

Fascinating story, medical and legal issues.

Your comments can be summarized as: (1) the evidence should be excluded due to the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, and (2) the evidence should be admitted, even though it should be excluded, because it is more important to "get it right" than it is to protect a person's Constitutional right.

 

Certainly, both of those can't be right.

 

I didn't spend much time doing a lot of reading, but it did occur to me that these facts seem comparable to forcing a suspect to give blood to be tested for alcohol content.  The S Ct held forced blood tests require a warrant.  https://verdict.justia.com/2013/05/15/the-u-s-supreme-court-rules-that-blood-tests-for-drunk-driving-suspects-require-a-search-warrant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2015 at 5:42 PM, dwilawyer said:

So what really happened on the 4th of July in 1776. Not much really, it was a date picked out of convenience. The shot heard round the world and fight for independence started the year prior, Thomas has drafted the DOI a couple of months earlier (with some revisions by Ben and Adams), and it wasn't signed until August.

Here is the answer.

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/fourth-of-july/

Whats wrong with you? Wink,,,wink,,,,, are you trying to confuse people with the facts!! LOL

IMG_1817.GIF

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2017 at 10:54 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

Your comments can be summarized as: (1) the evidence should be excluded due to the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, and (2) the evidence should be admitted, even though it should be excluded, because it is more important to "get it right" than it is to protect a person's Constitutional right.

 

Certainly, both of those can't be right.

 

I didn't spend much time doing a lot of reading, but it did occur to me that these facts seem comparable to forcing a suspect to give blood to be tested for alcohol content.  The S Ct held forced blood tests require a warrant. 

Yes, you summarized my sentiments correctly.  My first comment was making the argument on the legalities, my second was on my personal opinion that the law should "get it right."

 

The law should punish someone who knowingly commits a crime if there is evidence to support charging the guilty person.  I know our judicial system philosophically will let ten guilty people go free rather than put one innocent person in jail.  IMO If evidence exists that proves a crime was committed it should be admitted and used in a trial so the truth can be discovered.

 

If I were a judge I would give wide latitude for evidence to be admitted, on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

IMO If evidence exists that proves a crime was committed it should be admitted and used in a trial so the truth can be discovered.

Even if that evidence was obtained in violation of our Constitution?  That would certainly encourage police to ignore Constitutional rights in order to get the best evidence they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Even if that evidence was obtained in violation of our Constitution?  That would certainly encourage police to ignore Constitutional rights in order to get the best evidence they can.

Of course you are right, and I don't want Constitutional rights to be ignored or abused.  I'm sure you know better than I do that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, and I don't agree that the Supremes are always correct.  The Dred Scott Decision is the most blatant example of the Supreme Court getting it wrong.

 

What I am stating is my philosophy that when constitutional rights conflict, in general I am in favor of protecting the majority from the abuse of the minority, ie the concept of the greater good.

 

Are you familiar with the trolley problem?  (if it's too much thread drift, please feel free to ignore to keep on topic)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wvu80 said:

Are you familiar with the trolley problem?  (if it's too much thread drift, please feel free to ignore to keep on topic)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Yeah, these sorts of problems were discussed regularly in a law school elective I took called "Legal Philosophy" or something like that.  I had to click to read your link and see how it describes you as a utilitarian.  Most of us would tend to be as long as we aren't the ones facing the train.  It's when you're lying on the track that opinions begin to diverge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...