Slashdot Mirror


Lawyers Using Databases To Grab Clients

bc90021 writes "It seems that lawyers are using jail-house email lists to send potential clients letters offering their services. One couple, on finding their son who'd been missing for two days, '...was astonished that deputies failed to call them when their son was arrested -- though contact and medical information was in the young man's wallet -- yet managed to inform people who wanted his business.'"

319 comments

  1. Ah... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Capitalism at it's best.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Ah... by stilwebm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Capitalism at it's best.

      It's called a captive market.

    2. Re:Ah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this news? Just because it's via email as opposed to a list they watch daily is nothing new.

  2. What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by jolyonr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Particularly nauseating fact from this case was the company who proudly boasted "we are experts in drug cases" on the envelope.

    Still, you shouldn't expect any more from these pond life.

    Jolyon

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    1. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Particularly nauseating fact from this case was the company who proudly boasted "we are experts in drug cases" on the envelope.

      I don't get it. Why was that particularly nauseating?

    2. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      are they pond life because they are lawyers, or because they cover drug cases?

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    3. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by Kurt+Russell · · Score: 1
      Particularly nauseating fact from this case was the company who proudly boasted "we are experts in drug cases" on the envelope.

      I don't get it. Why was that particularly nauseating?

      Hmmm? sometimes the mail doesn't get put in the right box.. like next door you know.

    4. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I really wish people would get over this business about "scummy lawyers". Last year I ran over a little kid. If it hadn't been for my lawyer and the story we made up, I'd probably be in jail right now!

    5. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 1

      It's not just lawyers who are limbo-dancing. Today I received an envelope marked "Please Do Not Bend - X Rays Enclosed" on the front, and "Marketing Material Enclosed" in small letters on the back. And this was from a health insurance company.

    6. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      poor kid! you were encased in steel, and he only had his flesh encasement of... flesh!

    7. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what he gets for playing on the sidewalk!

    8. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      move to florida. in FL all junk mail has to say 'Advertisement' in red letters on the front.

    9. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Do you have a cite for this? I live in Florida and I have never seen the word "Advertisement" on any piece of junk mail I've received, in any colour.

      Indeed, most of them are more easily identified by the words "Urgent" or "Important information enclosed" (or the legal notice that only the addressee may open the envelope with severe penalties for non-compliance... usually on something addressed to "The Occupier" and containing a car sale flier.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      maybe its a county thing. all my junk mail is from west palm beach and lake worth. i cant cite any law, but i know they all have it, and i cant imagine why they would unless it was a legal requirement.

    11. Re:What do you expect from scummy lawyers? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      [tinfoilhat]

      That's just the CIA/Aliens. The new guy forgot to put the disappearing ink in the scanner, so you are just seeing normal routing information involved in scanning your mail.

      Those ink cartriges only last for a week or two at the rate you get mail. So it should not be too much longer, when it runs out you will not see that information any more... it will have faded by the time it gets to you.

      [/tinfoilhat]

      Seriously, you should check into that belief there is a law... I "fought" junk mail pretty aggresively for a long time and never ran across anything like that. Some places do ADV (Korea?) on email, but that's different.

  3. Follow that Ambulance! by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Reminisent of North (another Elijah Wood film) where Jon Lovitz plays North's lawyer, Arthur Belt. Their first meeting was North (Wood) standing on a street corner and seeing a speeding ambulance go past, tailed by a car. The car stops and backs up, and Belt (Lovitz) introduces himself as his lawyer.

    Great quote from the film: "North, this is America. Everybody needs a lawyer."

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Follow that Ambulance! by yintercept · · Score: 4, Funny
      From Article: Lawyers who drum up business with direct mail argue that it gives people facing such charges as driving-while-intoxicated a much better way to get legal help than rifling through the yellow pages.

      For the lawyers hawking services, you have the best chance of clinching the deal if you can get to the client before they sober up.

    2. Re:Follow that Ambulance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term "Ambulance chaser" originated from mining accidents where the Company lawyers would chase the injured to the hospital where they would get them to sign their compensation away.

      The term is commonly misundersttod and misapplied.

    3. Re:Follow that Ambulance! by XJoshX · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of Roger Ebert's review of the movie, which is one of the funnier reviews I've ever read. You can find it here.

      To summerize he, "Hated hated hated hated hated this movie."

  4. I for one think this could be great... by ItMustBeEsoteric · · Score: 4, Funny

    Using spam to punish criminals. Priceless!

    1. Re:I for one think this could be great... by spoonyfork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Using spam to punish criminals. Priceless!

      I don't know about other countries but here in the USA getting arrested doesn't make you a criminal. Being convicted of a crime, however, does. Priceless? Indeed. You can't buy that kind of freedom. You have to fight for it.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    2. Re:I for one think this could be great... by vrTeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is more like a spyware/adware thing. Or, as the site-formally-known-as-gator calls it "Online Behavioral Marketing." I think the next step will be a browser hijacker for IE with Robert Vaughn and Ron Konowski--"show them you mean business."

      --
      -- Mein Systemadminstrator hat einen großen schwarzen Moustache.
    3. Re:I for one think this could be great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I would much prefer to see criminals punishing spammers.

    4. Re:I for one think this could be great... by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about other countries but here in the USA getting arrested doesn't make you a criminal.

      In principle, sure. In practice, recent events have demonstrated that, even in the USA, people can be arrested and held without charge or trial -- even if they are citizens. Until the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights are consistently respected, without being transgressed under the guise of 'security', then I don't think its fair to say that the US is more 'free' than, say, your average European country.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    5. Re:I for one think this could be great... by orasio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know what you call Guantanamo, but I thought it was part of the US territory.
      There is where you go when they want to jail you for nothing.

    6. Re:I for one think this could be great... by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      Guantanamo is not US territory, it is leased from Cuba. The current cuban gov't would dearly love to "end" the lease. But they can't win the war it would take.

    7. Re:I for one think this could be great... by orasio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know its part of Cuba, but it is just one of the resources the US authorities have to deprive people of the freedom and rights they value so much and think they have.

    8. Re:I for one think this could be great... by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      My limited knowledge of this subject (taken from some TV show...so it must be right) is that the lease is perpetual and the only way for it to be broken is through the mutal consent of both parties.
      At one point, the base had some sort of strategic value, but now the stragetic value has dimisished. They are probably holding onto it out of spite.
      Apparently, a while back (in the 60's maybe?) Cuba cut off all supplies and the Americans had to ship everything in.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    9. Re:I for one think this could be great... by GSloop · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The point being, that Gitmo is completely under US control.

      I don't care if it's a rowboat in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. If it's controlled by the US gvmt, it's US territory.

      Anything that tries to make fine distinctions is just a sleezebag way to get around the intent of US law. That this should be our own Gvmt, rather than some sleezebag pedophile disturbes be more than just a little.

      "We have the greatest justice system in the world. Oh, but by the way, we're not going to allow the 'bad-guys' to have any access to it. I mean really, trials are just for the 'not-guilty' folk."

      Hard to believe this is the same republic that was so angered by the very similar acts of King George that we'd risk our own lives to commit 'terrorist' acts and overthrow the opressive government starting in 1776. Have we fallen so far so quickly?

      Alas.

      Greg

    10. Re:I for one think this could be great... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      "quick" is a relative term. 228 years goes by faster than the Universe can see it, but consider this: even if someone was 5 years old in 1776 and didn't have a child until they were 60, and that child lived to be 120, they didn't even live long enough to see most of the civil rights movement. I don't know about you, but my PARENTS barely remember any part of the civil rights movement, let alone what I know of it. Consider then that that inhumanly long-lived family lost it's last semi-personal connection to 1776 at a time when many of our parents weren't even old enough to remember the somewhat less monumental (world history wise, not necessarily American history wise) events of the late 50s and 60s.

      Not too many people have much of a connection, even an indirect one, if ANY, to what happened in 1776. Given the continued erosion of our educational system, I don't find it the least bit surprising that many people my age have no visual concept of what happened in 1776, or, that many of them probably can't even tell you why that year is significant. Not surprised in the least. Kind of puts some perspective on all these idiots who are willing to erode and ignore the constitution just to FEEL safer (security through obscurity - this administration has got it down to a T and a lot of boneheads in this country march happily along to the beat of their drum anyway).

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    11. Re:I for one think this could be great... by kellman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In principle, sure. In practice, recent events have demonstrated that, even in the USA, people can be arrested and held without charge or trial

      Except that none of the people in Guantanamo were captured in the US. They were arrested because they were part of organizations that perpetrate killing and destruction, yet have no governmental umbrella that can be negotiated/reasoned with and therefore Geneva POW status does not apply to them. They are slowly being sorted and distributed either back to their country or origin/capture after no longer being deemed a direct threat, or charged with crimes in their home country. The fact is though, they are being treated quite well.

      -- even if they are citizens.

      Not true either. John Walker Lindh never went to Guantanamo.

      Until the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights are consistently respected, without being transgressed under the guise of 'security',

      People continually talk of rights being "transgressed under the guise of 'security'", but I actually see very few examples ever of what they mean. Otherwise, it just sounds like rhetoric. I know you believe the issues we are talking about are an example, but what are some others?

      then I don't think its fair to say that the US is more 'free' than, say, your average European country

      I would tend to agree that most western European countries are very 'free' except the previous poster did not specify Europe. I would not say that all of Europe is free (largely Eastern Europe is not in many ways) however, and that leaves a large portion of the globe with few of the same rights as Americans and Western Europeans.

      --
      I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...
    12. Re:I for one think this could be great... by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are slowly being sorted and distributed either back to their country or origin/capture after no longer being deemed a direct threat.

      Unfortunately, that was not the case with Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian descent. After being arrested (but not charged) while changing planes at JFK, US officials deported him to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for over a year. It is not unreasonable to hold the US government complicit in this torture.

      Not true either. John Walker Lindh never went to Guantanamo.

      I was actually thinking of Jose Padilla, who was held without trial or charge in a military brig for over a year, after being arrested at Chicago O'Hare. What happened to his due process?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    13. Re:I for one think this could be great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your being a bit harsh on Europe there

    14. Re:I for one think this could be great... by WoOS · · Score: 1
      > > -- even if they are citizens.
      > Not true either. John Walker Lindh never went to Guantanamo.

      Excuse me but where exactly in

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ...
      does it say something about human rights only holding for citizens?
    15. Re:I for one think this could be great... by HaggiZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, try telling that to Australian born David Hicks and his family. After been captured in northern Afghanistan, he had to wait 2 years before receiving legal representation at Guantanamo.
      More info here

      To the best of my knowledge, there has been absolutely no progress here and he is still being detained.
      Don't attempt to claim that an Australian doesn't have a "governmental umbrella" that can be negotiated with, this is just a single example of many that the US is a law unto itself and is routinely allowed to detain people of any nation for extended lengths of time without trial. I suspect that the US media doesn't report many of them. I know I certainly don't see much mention of the major cases we hear on local new broadcasts vs re-broadcasts of major US news stations

    16. Re:I for one think this could be great... by JosKarith · · Score: 0

      "You can't buy that kind of freedom. You have to fight for it."
      Your forefathers fought for your "freedoms". Some of your forefathers died for those "freedoms".
      I wonder - if they had known how things were going to turn out - would they have bothered?

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    17. Re:I for one think this could be great... by kellman · · Score: 1

      Maher Arar is an intersting case. While a citizen of Canada, he had dual citizenship in Syria as well. The *Canadians* provided the information that he was connected to terrorist organizations in Canada. Once he was deported, they said "well, gee, we didn't think that was going to happen!". What did they think was going to happen? Well why didn't they arrest him in Canada then?

      As for his alleged torture, I am reticent to believe him becase of Syria's extreme dislike for the US. It makes no sense that they would torture him just because he had alleged ties to terrorist organizations. Instead, I would think they would have treated him royally. If the torture was true, they only reason they did was to make the US look bad by 'martyring' him.

      As for Jose Padilla, his due process is working. He has a lawyer now, and the Supreme Court is going to hear his case to move him to civilian authority which I am quite confident will happen. While slow, the system of checks and balances is working to keep justice on the right track.

      Remember, these institutions are composed of humans, and while some may have good intentions, sometimes they're ultimately at odds with the founding principles, rules, and checks. The US system may be slow at times, but I'd much rather have a few mistakes that get corrected than totalitarian control and rapid resolutions and I think that by-and-large the system works well.

      --
      I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...
    18. Re:I for one think this could be great... by kellman · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but where does it say in that line that those rights continue to exist for those who break the law, let alone declare unconventional warfare against the US?

      LOL!

      Besides, jail in the US is still better conditions than many middle eastern countries anyway.

      --
      I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...
    19. Re:I for one think this could be great... by kellman · · Score: 1

      The paradox for him is, he may be an Australian citizen, but he was capture fighting for the Taliban/Al Queda. DUH! Everyone fighting for the Taliban, Al Queda, etc. is a citizen of *some* country!

      The main thing is, if he's an American, he gets our civil justice system, otherwise he's in a different category altogether. While they will still receive justice, that system is not designed for war criminals or non-nationalized combatants. I would expect the same treatment for an American fighting Australians who was subsequently captured by Australia.

      What if an American was the one who perpetrated the bombing in Bali that killed some many Australians? If he was charged in an Australian military tribunal, etc. would you be complaining?

      --
      I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...
    20. Re:I for one think this could be great... by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Your forefathers fought for your "freedoms". Some of your forefathers died for those "freedoms".
      I wonder - if they had known how things were going to turn out - would they have bothered?

      I am a direct decendent of those who have fought in multiple wars to protect our country and our freedoms. Some died, some lived. Without sounding melodramic, as a member of their bloodline and their child rearing, I am confident in answering for them. The answer is a definite yes.

      Foreign and domestic threats to freedom exist today. Currently, I see my duty to politically and financially support those that I think will protect my freedoms. Acts of civil disobedience are not out of the question. Regardless of which front the threat comes from, if called to duty I would fight to protect my freedoms as well.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    21. Re:I for one think this could be great... by WoOS · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but where does it say in that line that those rights continue to exist for those who break the law, let alone declare unconventional warfare against the US?

      Exactly here:
      that all men [...] are endowed [...] with certain unalienable Rights

      You can stop laughing now. Besides, who decided they broke the law? Is it now in the power of the government to decide who has 'earned' a due process and who not?
  5. Information availability by zalas · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I wonder why they give out the emails of people that have been arrested. I can see some reason for giving out names, but e-mails? Is there actually a public benefit for this, other than letting the public spam those e-mail addresses or helping lawyers find clients?

    1. Re:Information availability by UconnGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you RTA, you would have understood that they are not giving email addresses out. The list is an email list sent to the lawyers by the sheriff. The lawyers then send junk mail via SNAIL mail.

    2. Re:Information availability by tommasz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Arrests are usually a matter of public record (what's going on down in Guantanamo Bay is an exception) so there's at least some expectation that personal information will be made available. I do agree there is a difference between making it available and actually "pushing" it to lawyers and therefore the public benefit, if any, is highly questionable.

  6. And thus ends... by hookedup · · Score: 1

    The saying ambulance chaser...

    C'mon folks...at least make the leeches work for their money..

  7. I can see it now... by chrisopherpace · · Score: 4, Funny

    Get out of jail today!
    Want to make your member^H^H^H^H^H^Hjailtime longer^H^H^H^H^H^Hshorter? Just give Smith at Law a call, we will do the rest! Guaranteed results! You only have to take^H^H^H^Hmake one pill^H^H^H^Hcall!

    1. Re:I can see it now... by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 1

      Smith at Law

      Wait, you didn't correct this one? Shouldn't it be: "Smith at Penis Enlarging Pills and Law"?

    2. Re:I can see it now... by aldoman · · Score: 1

      WTF is up with the "Want to make your member^H^H^H^H^H^Hjailtime longer^H^H^H^H^H^Hshorter? Just give Smith at Law a call, we will do the rest!"? Whats the se ^H menna mean!

    3. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When you type a backspace in a terminal that doesn't have the backspace operation defined to, well, backspace, it will sometimes insert a control-character representation of the backspace, in this case, control-h, or just ^H

    4. Re:I can see it now... by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      Old joke. ^H is the backspace key on old terminals, and so it indicates that someone is editing the sentence.

      Some old "talk" programs were so slow that you could watch the other user make spelling errors and then make fun of him, with your own spelling errors, of course.

  8. How much would it suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    To go to jail for spamming, and then get spammed by a lawyer?

  9. ambulance chasers by chimpo13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They've been doing that for a while, at least in California. Someone goes through the records and collects addresses. My neighbor got a DUI, and he started getting lots of snail mail offers from lawyers.

    I wonder if lawyers contacted OJ after his arrest...

    1. Re:ambulance chasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DUI? Anyone mail him a clue stick then beat him with it?

    2. Re:ambulance chasers by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Kind of dissapointing if you ask me, I would have e-mailed them - faster and saves money :) -A

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    3. Re:ambulance chasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if lawyers contacted OJ after his arrest...
      No, but I am sure he got some ads in his mailbox for dehydration machines. If the glove dries up and shrinks you must lose!

    4. Re:ambulance chasers by Politburo · · Score: 1

      In New Jersey, it's even worse. Just a minor traffic ticket will get you a flood of mail from lawyers and lawyer referral services. And somehow, my parents still didn't realize what happened (the insurance bill hasn't arrived yet).

  10. what have we come to? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It turned out that their son had been arrested on the mistaken suspicion that his erratic behavior at a casino was drug-induced.

    Hmm. I would have liked to have known what the outcome of that was. I have a friend who is in a similar situation and he gets questioned all the time by people concerned for his well-being. But arrested on suspicion of using drugs? Just because he was acting erratic? Does that strike anyone else as strange?

    I'd sue the pants off the casino and the arresting agency over that if I was him or his guardian. WTF is this? Arrest first and ask questions later? What have we come to?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:what have we come to? by musikit · · Score: 1

      it was obvious that his erratic behavior was caused by the 10 kilos of cocaine that he had while setting up the WMD to destroy the entire casino population. i for one am glad they arrested him when they did!

    2. Re:what have we come to? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Feel lucky, if I were the casino guards, I'd have taken the motherfucker into the back room and did a 'Blood test' on him.

      And then the casino owner would write a big check to the individual whose rights were so blatantly violated. And the guards in question would be charged and convicted of false arrest and imprisonment. You don't check your civil rights at the door when you go into a casino.

      Ah, but why am I feeding the trolls anyway? Time to go back to work...

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:what have we come to? by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, yeah. This one's got false arrest written all over it, particularly if the young man was wearing a medicalert bracelet or carry medical id tags.

      First thing the parents have got to do is...find a lawyer...hmmm...

    4. Re:what have we come to? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      it was obvious that his erratic behavior was caused by the 10 kilos of cocaine that he had while setting up the WMD to destroy the entire casino population. i for one am glad they arrested him when they did!

      So I guess if I take your post and this one I can forget any chance of a real debate or discussion on quite the serious issue. Too bad too because it looks like all the other people who have replied to the article missed this piece.

      Perhaps the more interesting /. readers will come on in a few hours when they get out of work and add a few thoughts to this.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:what have we come to? by musikit · · Score: 1

      "o I guess if I take your post and this one I can forget any chance of a real debate or discussion on quite the serious issue."

      nah it isn't that. it's more of the fact that the police can do anything that they feel is neccessary to protect them and you. so if they feel your erratic behavior was endangering any other people them or you, they will arrest you.

    6. Re:what have we come to? by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Oh, yeah. This one's got false arrest written all over it, particularly if the young man was wearing a medicalert bracelet or carry medical id tags.

      Hey a serious reply to my comment. I was about to lose faith :)

      First thing the parents have got to do is...find a lawyer...hmmm...

      It's been my experience that if a lawyer has to advertise their services you probably don't want to do business with them. The best lawyer I ever dealt with didn't advertise at all -- I found out about him by talking to a friend who had the misfortune of going up against him in an unrelated case (his lawyer got his ass handed to him). I suppose that's probably true of a lot of professions though.

      I'm not usually sue happy but I think I'd go after the whole lot of them for this. It would have been one thing to call the cops out of concern and he wound up at the mental health clinic -- but to actually arrest him because you thought he was using drugs? Makes me wonder if he was subjected to any tests to see if he was using drugs. Yeah, I'd say he has quite the case.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:what have we come to? by pqdave · · Score: 1

      Without knowing more, it's possible that the erratic behsvior actually did justify arrest. Mental illness isn't a get out of jail free card. The biggest issue isn't whether the arrest was justified, it's contacting random lawyers before contacting the family.

    8. Re:what have we come to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To a casino, "erratic beahvior" = winning.

    9. Re:what have we come to? by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Without knowing more, it's possible that the erratic behsvior actually did justify arrest. Mental illness isn't a get out of jail free card. The biggest issue isn't whether the arrest was justified, it's contacting random lawyers before contacting the family.

      No it's not, but it seems like in this case it would have made more sense to call the paramedics rather then toss his ass in jail after he was processed and fingerprinted. What happens after the cops slap the cuffs on somebody who is "behaving erratically"? Chances are they went though his wallet (probably before he was even in the squad car) and found the medical information card.

      And yet he was still arrested and tossed in jail. You can bet his name appeared on the police blotter (probably with the tagline "under suspicion of using drugs" or something else equally damning). The FBI now has copies of his fingerprints (your state will typically give them back to you after charges are dismissed/you are acquitted -- but they forward them to the FBI and the FBI never gets rid of them). His rights were completely violated for no justifiable purpose.

      He has every right to be pissed off. And the arrest is the issue, not the failing to contact the family. As another post pointed out if he is >=18 years of age they are under no obligation to contact the family. You have to ask for your phone call. They aren't obligated to do it for you. Since he was in a casino I would assume he is at least 18 -- probably 21.

      I have a problem with an "arrest first, ask questions later" mentality. I hope they find a good lawyer and clean house.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:what have we come to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was acting eratically, which they thought might be evil drugs. It's just the same old story, if you're not normal you're dangerous.

    11. Re:what have we come to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing the 'son' is over the age of 18.
      I don't think the police are required to contact parents in most cases if they child is that old.

    12. Re:what have we come to? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      nah it isn't that. it's more of the fact that the police can do anything that they feel is neccessary to protect them and you. so if they feel your erratic behavior was endangering any other people them or you, they will arrest you.

      I don't think you can call it a "for his own protection" arrest when the article says: "It turned out that their son had been arrested on the mistaken suspicion that his erratic behavior at a casino was drug-induced."

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:what have we come to? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think sometimes it can be brought up under "disorderly conduct" statutes alone. I don't know what the legal guideline is. Also, if a business asks a person to leave, and they refuse to, then I think they can be arrested and charged with trespassing.

      Declarations: IANAL

    14. Re:what have we come to? by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      I think sometimes it can be brought up under "disorderly conduct" statutes alone. I don't know what the legal guideline is. Also, if a business asks a person to leave, and they refuse to, then I think they can be arrested and charged with trespassing.

      Depends on why they asked you to leave. If they ask a breast-feeding mother to leave she has the legal right (in all 50 states the last time I checked) to tell them to "Go to hell" and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    15. Re:what have we come to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys really should look up what 'false arrest' means. Technically it means that a police officer would mistakenly arrest you while serving an arrest warrant that is intended for someone else. If I am Joe Bob and I am arrested because the police have a warrant for Jim Bob and they think I am him that would be false arrest. Security guards by definition cannot commit false arrest. You do surrender many of your civil rights when you enter a private establishment like a casino. In Ohio I will very soon have the right to carry a concealed weapon. I will not be allowed to carry one in private establishments that have posted that they do not want me to carry one there (ie many supermarkets) ergo I surrender that particular right when I enter the private establishment. You have the right to access information on a hand held computer whenever you want. Try to use one when you are sitting at a blackjack table and see if you still have that right.

    16. Re:what have we come to? by SnappleMaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sue the bastards! Someone did something to you? Sue them! Make them pay! Who cares what happened, just sue them into the ground.

      WTF are you talking about? How do you know his "erratic" behavior wasn't something a little more serious than celebrity impersonations? Maybe he urinated on a slot machine, or accosted an old lady or somethig.

      Sue first and ask questions later? How American...

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    17. Re:what have we come to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is this? Arrest first and ask questions later? What have we come to?

      ...if your logic is correct, three people just got busted because of you.

    18. Re:what have we come to? by rark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, in california, fairly recently, a judge issued a warrent to search a house suspected of housing a marijauna growing operation. The reason for suspicion and supposed 'probable cause'? An electric bill that was high for the area. When the cops raided the place, they found a mom with three young kids, lots of laundry (she was doing several loads a day. I haven't been able to confirm, but from other things said I think she may have been using cloth diapers on 2 or all three of the kids) and an electric dryer.

      I mean, it's one thing to sit outside of hydroponics stores and then watch those people to see if they have unexplained income (though I personally think that's a waste of law enforcement's time as well), it's a completely different thing to search every house that uses more electricity than the neighbors.

      The concept of probable cause has been severely eroded by the war on drugs. The war on terror is now doing it's part too. Maybe the lesson to be learned from this is that domestic wars are a bad idea?

      It's something I worry about too. I have an autistic spectrum disorder and tourettes. Through high school (esspecially when the tourettes started and then got worse) even my own damn parents believed I was on drugs. They used to search my room with a video camera in hopes of finding proof of this so that they could get me into rehab. They tried just about everything, but they couldn't prove I was taking drugs because I truly and actually wasn't. I didn't even drink or smoke cigarettes until after I left home.

      I was in my twenties when I was diagnosed, finally, and it was a relief. Now I can tell people who are giving me that look that I have these disorders, and that they are neurological dysfunctions. But sometimes I go non-verbal and sometimes I have movement problems that make me freeze or make me move in 'funny' ways, and if I think my body or brain have it in for me in that way at any given point, I won't go out in public at that time. My professionals think that this is an anxiety issue, but I think that this is a perfectly reasonable choice, given that the worst case senerios are either spending some time in jail or being sent off to a mental hospital. In the former, do you know how most people in jail (staff and inmates both) will treat someone they consider 'crazy' or a 'retard' (unless that person is beserker crazy, but I'm not)? In the latter, the risk of having that said of professionals accidently misdiagnose me (it's happened to me prior) and force brain damaging drugs on me (also happened to me prior) is too great. It's a terrifying possibility, and given my prior experiences, I think the odds are higher than the pros think. Unfortunately, the APA and NAMI aren't helping the situation.

      I don't know that a suit would help -- in this security conscious (ha! freakin' paranoid...security conscious implies a level of logic that is largely lacking in current policies, from local right up to federal) country, arrest first and ask questions later is becoming the standard to ensure 'public safety'. A judge and/or jury (dependant on venue) might well see it that way, unfortunately.

    19. Re:what have we come to? by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Hey, in california, fairly recently, a judge issued a warrent to search a house suspected of housing a marijauna growing operation. The reason for suspicion and supposed 'probable cause'? An electric bill that was high for the area. When the cops raided the place, they found a mom with three young kids, lots of laundry (she was doing several loads a day. I haven't been able to confirm, but from other things said I think she may have been using cloth diapers on 2 or all three of the kids) and an electric dryer.

      How did law enforcement find out about the huge electric bill? Is my electric bill a matter of public record now? I always thought it was a private matter between me and the power company. If I was her I'd sue the electric company for illegally disclosing my information.

      The concept of probable cause has been severely eroded by the war on drugs.

      And the war on drunk driving. I had a rather extensive discussion about this quite some time ago. How many of our civil rights do we lose to these "wars"?

      I don't know that a suit would help -- in this security conscious (ha! freakin' paranoid...security conscious implies a level of logic that is largely lacking in current policies, from local right up to federal) country, arrest first and ask questions later is becoming the standard to ensure 'public safety'. A judge and/or jury (dependant on venue) might well see it that way, unfortunately.

      I don't know that it would help. I do know that if I was this poor individual or the housewife in your above example that I would be pretty pissed off. There's no way in hell I would let that just stand. Privacy and civil rights do not go out the window to suit the war on drugs, or the war on drunk drivers, or the war on terror.

      BTW: Welcome to my friends list :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:what have we come to? by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sue the bastards! Someone did something to you? Sue them! Make them pay! Who cares what happened, just sue them into the ground.

      WTF are you talking about? How do you know his "erratic" behavior wasn't something a little more serious than celebrity impersonations? Maybe he urinated on a slot machine, or accosted an old lady or somethig.

      Sue first and ask questions later? How American...


      Um, sue the cops for holding the guy for two days instead of using the info he had on him to get him back to his family, actually.

      Sure, take him into custody if he seems to be a threat. But as soon as you've got him *out* of that situation, you then get the story... before you plaster his contact info all over your daily email to the hungry lawyer population.

      The problem is that they decided to "book first and ask questions later." Sometimes a lawsuit is the *only* way to ask the right questions (i.e. you can't get the answers without a subpoena).

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    21. Re:what have we come to? by Ironica · · Score: 1

      I mean, it's one thing to sit outside of hydroponics stores and then watch those people to see if they have unexplained income (though I personally think that's a waste of law enforcement's time as well), it's a completely different thing to search every house that uses more electricity than the neighbors.

      Wow... I guess we were lucky a few year's back, then.

      A roommate who grew up in Hawaii (where, apparently, people live and die by the air conditioner) decided that, since the daily high temperature had topped 80 degrees, it was time to close all the doors and windows and run the aircon 24/7. This caused our electric bill to spike massively. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power automatically flags such sudden changes for further investigation, so that they don't send a shocking bill as a result of a broken meter or something. Unfortunately, our case got lost somewhere between being flagged and being investigated, so it was four months that we got no bills at all... and then someone finally came to our door to explain the situation with some embarrassment.

      At the time, I found their policy to be quite enlightened. Now, I wonder if the LAPD has since usurped this process. :-/

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    22. Re:what have we come to? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      How did law enforcement find out about the huge electric bill? Is my electric bill a matter of public record now? I always thought it was a private matter between me and the power company. If I was her I'd sue the electric company for illegally disclosing my information.

      Regulation by Public Utilities Commissions of various states put power companies under the thumb of government. They have to share the info. As it happens, unless otherwise specified by contract, either party in a financial transaction is free to tell third parties about the specifics of said transaction without the permission of the other party. She doesn't "own" her meter reading, so she can't sue.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    23. Re:what have we come to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question of how the police obtained the electric bill information is a good one for one main reason: the news reports explaining that piece are changing by the day.

      The first day, it was said that the house was one of 5 chosen at random from that street and it had a much higher bill than the others. A couple of days later, this had changed to "we got a tip they were growing pot, so we subpoenaed the power bill". Talk about a turn-around.

      You can find this yourself by search Google News for "Carlsbad electric bill", as this took place in Carlsbad, CA.

    24. Re:what have we come to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your best defensive (both medically and legally) is to have a medic-alert bracelet/necklace and a medical card in your wallet that outlays your condition, the medication (and dosage) you may be on and the name(s)/contact information of your doctor(s).

      I'm wondering if the kid in the parent story just had the wallet card, which is better than nothing, but not always noticed as quickly as a medic-alert bracelet. Particularly in the hospital situations when you are not lucid, medical personnel are trained to check for medic-alert bracelets to see if you have any life-threatening allergies to medications.

      It's not foolproof, but it's better than nothing. And if something goes wrong, you have better grounds for claiming malpractice (in the medical case) because they should look for medic-alert bracelets.

  11. ah america by NeoTheOne · · Score: 0, Funny

    you have to love the legal system here in the US...on the other hand it does make it easier to obtain a lawyer. www.lawyertree.com, when lawyers compete you win!

  12. Shouldn't be surprising... by moviepig.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only does money talk, it also listens.

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
  13. Privacy Issue by millahtime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if this violates any privacy laws. The police just giving out a person information. If they give out what they were arrested for than that could be another issue. Don't you have to sign a waiver before they can give out that kind of info???

    1. Re:Privacy Issue by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative
      I wonder if this violates any privacy laws. The police just giving out a person information. If they give out what they were arrested for than that could be another issue. Don't you have to sign a waiver before they can give out that kind of info???

      No, that's the wonderful thing about being arrested. Even though you haven't been convicted of any crime you can bet your ass that every local newspaper will carry it in the blotter.

      When the charges are subsequently dropped or dismissed chances are they won't pick up on it unless you call them and tell them. Even then they will carry it in the smallest possible font nowhere near the normal police blotter.

      Is it just me or should this type of information be private until you are actually convicted of something?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Privacy Issue by millahtime · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Is it just me or should this type of information be private until you are actually convicted of something?"

      It makes you wonder why medical records, bank records, military records and so many others are private but arrest records are open to the public.

    3. Re:Privacy Issue by jmauro · · Score: 3, Informative

      Medical records, bank records, and military records are not covered by the Sixth Amendment. That is the reason for the difference, since the Sixth requires public trail for the accused. I'd rather have arrest records public so no one accidently disappears after being arrested.

    4. Re:Privacy Issue by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Is it just me or should this type of information be private until you are actually convicted of something?

      No.

      Er, rather, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

      While I don't think authorities should be using that information for commercial purposes, arrests records should absolutely be 100% public.

      With private records, you run the risk of embarrassment when the neighbors read your name in the local police blotter.

      Without private records, you end up...Well, we don't know where you end up. You're gone. And while we suspect the police had some involvement, nobody can find you to waive your right to keep your arrest secret.

      Nice to known members of the Bush administration are reading /. to mod such posts up. Send me a postcard from Guantanamo.

    5. Re:Privacy Issue by transient · · Score: 1
      The blotter exists not to say that Jeff got wasted last night, but to tell the public what their police force is doing. That information should definitely be public. But I think they could avoid printing names "to protect the innocent."

      We had a situation here where a woman got arrested for some little thing, and of course her name and address ended up on the blotter. Turns out someone was stalking her, and having her name and address in the paper was not good, guilty or otherwise.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    6. Re:Privacy Issue by tanguyr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of it has to do with the perceptions of the public.

      "That you wre arrested is a fact, but absolutely nothing to do with whether you were actually guilty of any crime."
      - the police

      "I don't want you going anywhere near that criminal"
      - the neighbors

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    7. Re:Privacy Issue by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
      It makes you wonder why medical records, bank records, military records and so many others are private but arrest records are open to the public.

      No, it doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm glad arrest records are open to the public. The alternative is people (usually people not too popular with the government) start to just 'disappear'.

    8. Re:Privacy Issue by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      "That you wre arrested is a fact, but absolutely nothing to do with whether you were actually guilty of any crime." - the police

      Nice in theory but it rarely works out that way in fact. Ask any person who is cleared of a crime yet still harassed by hick small town cops years after the fact who tell anyone who will listen that "He was guilty we just couldn't prove it."

      Not to do a disservice to good cops (there are actually some of them out there) but some people (with small penis complex's) have no business being in law enforcement. But then I suppose this is an offtopic rant so I'll stop right here.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Privacy Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about just saying that a particular person is in the hands of the police and only giving out more info to family or next of kin on request? Then only make charges available once a conviction has occured. Yes the press could jump on it but they wouldn't have much of a story.

    10. Re:Privacy Issue by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Troll
      Without private records, you end up...Well, we don't know where you end up. You're gone. And while we suspect the police had some involvement, nobody can find you to waive your right to keep your arrest secret.

      You think the blotter exists as a safety mechanism? WTF are you smoking? Nothing in any law requires the police to release your name to the blotter. In fact, when a friend of mine was arrested and "encouraged" to cooperate against his alleged co-conspirators they kept his name off the blotter (for the obvious reasons). Nothing was required to do this other then the cops saying "We aren't going to put him on the blotter".

      If you seriously think a police blotter is going to keep you from "disappearing" if the Government decides to make you "go away" you have more faith in it then I do. I think it exists as a shame mechanism to harass people who haven't been convicted of any crime (yet).

      Nice to known members of the Bush administration are reading /. to mod such posts up. Send me a postcard from Guantanamo.

      WTF does that have to do with anything other then to score a cheap karma-whoring shot aimed at Dubya?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Privacy Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is it just me or should this type of information be private until you are actually convicted of something?


      Sure, and they should also ban any coverage of the court proceedings, too. That way nobody will be embarassed, especially when the government starts disappearing people on The List.


      Honestly, I don't know how your post got moderated as "Informative" - it's patently uninformative and demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of why our justice system is open.


      Anyway, to answer your question, I sincerely hope that it is "just you", but I suspect that you're not the only one - there are plenty of well-meaning, stupid people just like you out there.

    12. Re:Privacy Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. The police don't write the blotter, the newspaper gets the publicly available information from the police department. The information is required to be publicly available. You clearly need a little remedial civics. Best of luck to you.

    13. Re:Privacy Issue by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Is it just me or should this type of information be private until you are actually convicted of something?

      There are compelling reasons for publishing that information - it's a good way to get witnesses to volunteer information. Imagine that you read that J. Random Thug was arrested for burglary. He is a neighbor of yours, and you've seen him unloading TVs, stereos, and other expensive goods from the back of his van. Now, although you might've assumed that JRT had just been on another shopping spree (he's had a lot of them since the neighborhood crack dealer started hanging out at his house), you realize that you have some information that the police might find interesting.

      Sure, that's contrived. However, I'm we've all seen things that looked perfectly innocent that turned out not to be, and it was only after we found out the truth that it seemed so obvious.

      Alternatively, if someone on my street were arrested for possessing child pornography, I darn well want to know about it. S?he may eventually be found innocent, but in the mean time, I don't want my kids playing near their house.

      When the charges are subsequently dropped or dismissed chances are they won't pick up on it unless you call them and tell them. Even then they will carry it in the smallest possible font nowhere near the normal police blotter.

      Our newspaper carries a comprehensive listing of all court cases, including those dismissed, acquittals, and convictions (and associated penalties). If J. Random Thug from my example above turns out to be innocent, they'll print that alongside the list of arrests and convictions. I guess things are different where you are.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    14. Re:Privacy Issue by skifreak87 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I definitely think so especially in an age where many people associate arrest w/ wrongdoing regardless of the outcome of a trial. A false rape accusation can ruin someone's reputation/livelihood even if the case gets dropped due to lack of evidence. The way I see it is that unless people stop assuming some level of guilt upon being arrested, this problem wont go away. Furthermore, people have to realize that being found guilty or not guilty by a jury of 12 peers doesn't necessarily say that this person did or did not commit a crime. Notice the wording used when someone is convicted, it does not say X commited this crime but that s/he was found guilty/convicted.

      This is a social issue but sadly because of the way the world views things perhaps arrest records shouldn't be made so public. Making them private is ridiculous though even though it would solve this problem it would cause others (such as intentional wrongful arrests not being published).

    15. Re:Privacy Issue by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Troll
      You're an idiot. The police don't write the blotter, the newspaper gets the publicly available information from the police department. The information is required to be publicly available. You clearly need a little remedial civics. Best of luck to you.

      Really? So if they arrest a drug dealer hoping to get him to roll on his supplier they must publish the fact that he was arrested?

      Cop: "Wear this wire for us and get him to confess to being your supplier. If you do this the DA will go easy on you."
      Suspect: "But won't he know that I've been compromised when he sees my name in the police blotter?"
      Cop: "Naw, he won't bother reading the paper, we're 100% sure of it."
      Suspect: "Are you sure? I don't want my life to be in danger."
      Cop: "Don't worry about it! What's the worst that could happen?"

      I know it's a lot to ask of an AC but use your fucking brain. The cops provide a list of arrested people for public consumption. There is no law (in my state anyway -- IANAL) saying they must provide this information. If there was such a law and it was designed to protect us from people disappearing then why does the Federal Government scoop people up as "Material Witnesses" all the time without so much as a peep?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:Privacy Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wonder if this violates any privacy laws

      Privacy laws!?! What privacy laws? You think this is Europe or something?

    17. Re:Privacy Issue by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or should this type of information be private until you are actually convicted of something?

      I need not echo the other comments, but I believe that the 5th/6th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that you have the right to be arrested in a public manner (preventing state tyranny by having public arrest, trials, et cetera.)

      However, I can't find anything that says that you have the right to request that your arrest be a private matter (say, within the law enforcement system.) On the other hand, court proceedings *have to be public* so the arrest record would become public anyway once you get into court, so what's the point?

    18. Re:Privacy Issue by transient · · Score: 1
      There is a law in almost all states (and I'd be very surprised to find out that yours doesn't have one) which requires police departments to supply information about police activity, including arrests, as a matter of public record.

      I'm with the other guy. Calm the fuck down and take some remedial civics.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    19. Re:Privacy Issue by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight---you want it so that the government can arrest you and arrange things so that nobody knows it happened? And that your trial should be held in secret? Hoo, boy.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    20. Re:Privacy Issue by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      ...you realize that you have some information that the police might find interesting.

      How so? If he's been arrested then they probably have some useful evidence already. Searching the suspect's home for stolen goods is one of the first things they would do. If having testimony about susicious behavior would be useful, I would hope that canvassing neighbors for information would be standard procedure. Most people don't read the police blotter (In many places most people don't read a daily paper). Hoping that someone who saw something suspicious recognizes the behavior as suspicious and reads the police blotter and connects the blotter entry with the suspicious behavior and has genuinely useful information is wishful thinking. It would be rare enough that it's probably not worth considering.

      Alternatively, if someone on my street were arrested for possessing child pornography, I darn well want to know about it. S?he may eventually be found innocent, but in the mean time, I don't want my kids playing near their house.

      Sheeesh, it's always about the children, isn't it. Unfortunately it's not always about the children. A bogus charge might lead to being refused job offers. A charge can last as a social stigma long after someone is cleared. Even when it's about the children it might destroy someone's career: a child abuse charge against a day care provider, no matter how unfounded, is likely going to severely damage their career. In the particular case you're citing, it's prudent caution that doesn't really hurt anyone. But the general case of making the information available can seriously hurt innocent people who have been charged with crimes.

    21. Re:Privacy Issue by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Hoping that someone who saw something suspicious recognizes the behavior as suspicious and reads the police blotter and connects the blotter entry with the suspicious behavior and has genuinely useful information is wishful thinking.

      How so? "America's Most Wanted" is basically a made-for-TV blotter sheet, but with a much stronger assertion of guilt, right? Yet people have seen suspects from that show in real life and called the police to report them - several hundred times, in fact. For that matter, all of those picture in the post office are basically detailed blotter sheets that list fugitives, aren't they?

      On the other hand, what if you read about someone that was arrested for a crime that occurred at a certain time, and you happened to see them far from the crime scene at that moment? Evidence works both ways, you know.

      The idea of voluntary public participation seems to be very deeply ingrained in our justice system.

      Sheeesh, it's always about the children, isn't it.

      Not at all, but sometimes it is. The arrest records in the newspaper are full of information of vital interest to a community. Would you like to know that the guy your daughter hangs around with just got arrested for providing alcohol to a minor? Or that your son's new friend got busted with coke?

      I am not one of those "think of the children!" people, but as a parent, I do have a newfound interest in the the things happening around me. This is a good information source, and I'm glad that we have it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    22. Re:Privacy Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope somebody calls the cops and says you're into child pornography. People like you need to have their life ruined before their brain engages.

      Another fun one is to put your name on the registered sex offender list, also very easy to do and very damaging.

    23. Re:Privacy Issue by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      "America's Most Wanted" is basically a made-for-TV blotter sheet, but with a much stronger assertion of guilt, right? Yet people have seen suspects from that show in real life and called the police to report them - several hundred times, in fact. For that matter, all of those picture in the post office are basically detailed blotter sheets that list fugitives, aren't they?

      America's Most Wanted is, most importantly, high profile. People pay attention in a way that they don't to local blotters. You've got millions of people paying attention to a relatively small number of suspects.

      As for the wanted posters, most people don't look at them.

      In both cases the situation is different because we're not talking about collecting evidence for a trial on someone already in police custody: we're talking about a fugitive, someone actively evading the police.

      On the other hand, what if you read about someone that was arrested for a crime that occurred at a certain time, and you happened to see them far from the crime scene at that moment? Evidence works both ways, you know.

      Still statistically unlikely. If you need a witness for an alibi your best bet is to try and seek them out. If you're relying on luck and strangers then you are doomed. To make the odds worse, a change of a stranger seeing your (unknown) name and connecting it to the incident is very small. The people most likely to see your name in the blotter and connect it with something are people who already know you and whom your lawyer better be tracking down.

      The idea of voluntary public participation seems to be very deeply ingrained in our justice system.

      Mind you, I'm not against the idea of such participation. Indeed, someone who had important evidence about a crime and came forward with it is a doing their civic and moral duty in my book. My argument is that it's just unlikely. I don't think that the very small potential benefit matches the larger potential harm.

      The arrest records in the newspaper are full of information of vital interest to a community.

      Interest, or even value, is not necessarily the right thing in the big picture. Arrest reports can and in some cases do destroy the lives of innocent people. You're asking to destroy the life of the occasional innocent person in exchange for a bit more information that might protect your child. I'm not willing to make that trade off, especially since the information gained is only of marginal use. The arrest reports won't tell you about your kid's friends who are dangerous and good at avoiding the law. The arrest reports won't help for for those friends your kids have that they don't tell you about. Yes, it can help, in some cases. I don't think it's nearly enough cases.

    24. Re:Privacy Issue by skifreak87 · · Score: 1

      My one issue with your comment.

      "Alternatively, if someone on my street were arrested for possessing child pornography, I darn well want to know about it. S?he may eventually be found innocent, but in the mean time, I don't want my kids playing near their house."

      You're assuming the person is guilty because they were arrested. This is how false accusations ruin people's lives especially related to sexual misconduct (rape accusations/kiddie porn/etc.).

      Granted you add the s/he may eventually be found innocent but you then state that until then you're assuming the person is guilty which goes contrary to our justice system.

    25. Re:Privacy Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, you've deemed the person guilty until prooven innoicent.

      If the person was found innocent, would you reverse your previous decision? Completely? Or would you always wonder?

      I suspect the mere fact that the accusation was made will make you treat him as if he was guility forever, no matter what the courts decide.

      What if the person was a school teacher? Are you saying he should be stepped down from his job because of an accusation?

      And even if found innocent, is he going to get his life back? Is he going to be employable as a teacher ever again?

      There have been high profile cases in NZ of preschool teacher's lives being ruined by such accusations.

    26. Re:Privacy Issue by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      You're assuming the person is guilty because they were arrested. This is how false accusations ruin people's lives especially related to sexual misconduct (rape accusations/kiddie porn/etc.).

      No. I'm calculating that there's a higher probability that they committed the particular crime than some other random person. That's all, and nothing more.

      Granted you add the s/he may eventually be found innocent but you then state that until then you're assuming the person is guilty which goes contrary to our justice system.

      I assume that they're neither guilty nor not guilty until a court decides. Until then, it's in my best interest not to put myself in a position where they could have an opportunity to commit a crime like the one they were accused of.

      FWIW, I've followed several high-profile local trials where the prosecution did a wonderful job of proving that the person was scummy, but a terrible job of proving that they were guilty. After those trials, I would be perfectly willing to consider those people innocent of the crimes of which they were accused. Just because I advocate caution doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to listen to the evidence.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    27. Re:Privacy Issue by muggsy · · Score: 1
      Without private records, you end up...Well, we don't know where you end up. You're gone. And while we suspect the police had some involvement, nobody can find you to waive your right to keep your arrest secret.



      Your post reminds me of a scary article I read in the Sun-Sentinel back in January about the Miami federal court having a 'secret docket' to keep cases hidden from public.



      Unfortunately the link to the article no longer works. It is disturbing to think that in America you can be arrested, disappear and be tried in secret.


      Did you ever think, when you were a kid, that we would become the Soviet Union and they would become us?

    28. Re:Privacy Issue by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      I'm with the other guy. Calm the fuck down and take some remedial civics.

      "Calm the fuck down"? Did I give you the impression that I was hyper or upset? It takes more then some AC on slashdot calling me an idiot to piss me off.

      Civics classes are all well and good but they don't replace real world experience. I know people who have been arrested and did not make the police blotter. One of them was intentionally left out in a scenario like the one I described here. The other two never seemed to make the blotter for whatever reason.

      Please explain that. If you are so sure there are laws on the books to this affect then please provide me with a link to them.

      I get modded troll for this? Pa-leeeze. Whoever you are they will get you in M2.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  14. Crime and Punishment by The_Mystic_For_Real · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will this be a new punitive measure? "I hereby sentence you to six months in prison and one hundred pieces of spam."

    --

    _____

    Thank you.

    1. Re:Crime and Punishment by dex22 · · Score: 1

      I'm off to commit a felony right now! 100 pieces of spam, that's half a day's worth! After that, my punishment would be complete and I'd finally get no more spam!

    2. Re:Crime and Punishment by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "I hereby sentence you to six months in prison and one hundred pieces of spam."

      Careful, that's better housing and a lot less spam than most IT professionals have. You'd have half of America's unemployed IT workers knocking down the prison gates!

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  15. Miranda for the new century by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    You have the right to remain silent.
    Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
    You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.
    If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
    You have the right to receive exciting new offers from spamvertise.com.
    If you choose to opt out of our mailing list, your user preferences will be reset some time in the future.

  16. The need for scummy lawyers? by yintercept · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those who are innocent will want lawyers who relentlessly pursue the truth. The rest need lawyers who know what people can get away with. In our oppositional based legal system, the demand for scummy lawyers will be equal or greater than honest lawyers.

    1. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      Those who are innocent will want lawyers who relentlessly pursue the truth. The rest need lawyers who know what people can get away with. In our oppositional based legal system, the demand for scummy lawyers will be equal or greater than honest lawyers.

      This is so true. There is nothing wrong with what these lawyers are doing, it is no more or less than anyone with a skill to sell would do if they wanted to eat well and have nice shoes.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    2. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by ePhil_One · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Personally, if I'm charged with a crime I don't care wether he's scummy or not, I just want hime to get me off. If he gets me off on a technicality, what do I care? I will get no satisfaction sitting in jail knowing I was innocent and my lawyer was kind and good hearted individual who spent too much time waiting for innocent people to search him out, and not enough time in court gaining experience.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    3. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've defended rape suspects. I couldn't say for certain one way or the other if they were innocent or not but even if they were guilty, I wouldn't have denfended them any less vigorously. It's not my job to judge them, that up to the judge and/or jury. The real world isn't as simple as many people like to believe. Would any of you want a lawyer that defends you half-assed because it appeared that you were guilty? The vast majority of the lawyers I know zealously represent their clients regardless of their personal beliefs. That's doing a honest job and keeping to oaths we took. More often than not, it's the clients who are scummy. Lawyers just get paid to deal with them or work for them.

    4. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      This is so true. There is nothing wrong with what these lawyers are doing, it is no more or less than anyone with a skill to sell would do if they wanted to eat well and have nice shoes.

      You're right. And really the issue isn't with the lawyers. Somebody who is actually looking for a lawyer might actual appreciate this "service." There are really at least five other issues:

      1. Law enforcement should be required to get the approval of someone they arrest prior to sharing this information.
      2. The amount of personal information that is shared with prospective legal representation needs to be regulated in some way -- someone needs to decide how much is too much.
      3. The quality of service provided by those receiving the arrest publications needs to be assessed and the assessment scores need to be available to prospective clients. (Turn about is fair play, right?)
      4. There needs to be some regulations to ensure that arrest information is kept private by those receiving the publication -- at least until the point where there is a conviction.
      5. No arrest information should EVER be broadcasted under any circumstances until a reasonable attempt has been made to notify legal guardians and/or responsible parties that their ward is in custody. If a responsible party is contacted, they should also have the ability to say "no" to broadcasting the arrest information.
      All of these issues are relatively simple to address, and there's no excuse for not doing so.
      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    5. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by TrentL · · Score: 2, Funny

      Personally, if I'm charged with a crime I don't care wether he's scummy or not, I just want him to get me off.

      No, what you want in that situation is a hooker. I know it's hard to tell the difference between hookers and lawyers, but hookers are usually cheaper.

    6. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by ultranova · · Score: 1
      All of these issues are relatively simple to address, and there's no excuse for not doing so.

      Sure there is. You can get more money/power/comfort by breaking the rules than by playing by them. In the current world order, that's enough justification for anything.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by Ironica · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with what these lawyers are doing, it is no more or less than anyone with a skill to sell would do if they wanted to eat well and have nice shoes.

      So, if you're arrested on suspicion of illicit drug use (but its found that there's another explanation for your odd behavior), you don't have a problem with receiving mail that has "Experts in Drug Charges" emblazoned on the envelope?

      I live in a 40-unit apartment building. Folks see my mail all the time when I'm pulling it out of my box. Sometimes one of my neighbors accidentally gets my mail or vice versa. Do I want them thinking I'm their new hookup? Or that they better keep their children away from me because I'm up to no good?

      Maybe there isn't anything wrong with advertising their services to their target market, but there's certainly something wrong with a lack of discretion in such matters.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    8. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Those who are innocent will want lawyers who relentlessly pursue the truth. The rest need lawyers who know what people can get away with. In our oppositional based legal system, the demand for scummy lawyers will be equal or greater than honest lawyers.

      In what way is this insightful?

      Surely the guilty every bit as much as the innocent deserve legal representation. In what way can a lawyer defending an innocent party be described as "honest" in comparison to a "scummy" lawyer (indeed perhaps the same lawyer) defending a guilty party.

      It is not the role of a defence lawyer to "relentlessly pursue the truth" any more than it is the role of a busdriver to do so. It is the judge and the jury who are charged with doing that. It is the lawyer's role to zealously defend the rights of his or her client.

      Is the busdriver who took the guilty accused to the court in the morning "scummy"? How would you calculate a busdriver's moral culpability? -- By some sort of averaging of the scumminess and honesty of the passengers on the bus?

      Let me spell this out, honest lawyers can and do defend guilty criminal accused, and scummy lawyers can and do defend innocent criminal accused. To ascribe moral culpablity to a lawyer based on the moral culpablilty of their client is absurd, not insightful.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    9. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess it is because the topic is about lawyers pushing the envelop to get clients (spamming people with legal problems). A person looking for a good lawyer will want someone who knows how to push the envelope. So being spammy is not necessarily a minus. The problem is that that this is not the way we want it to be.

    10. Re:The need for scummy lawyers? by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1
      A person looking for a good lawyer will want someone who knows how to push the envelope.

      Well, at least one who knows who to mail the envelope!

      /pun

      :D

  17. Capitalism overriding Social Responsibility by Egonis · · Score: 1

    This is a strong indication that the American (and other) Societies seem to take precedence of profit over Social Responsibility.

    IMHO: It should be the first step, to contact parents and relatives of the arrested/convicted, isn't this sort of important?

    1. Re:Capitalism overriding Social Responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely not. If I (an adult, as was the guy in the article) get arrested for doing something dumb (my fault or not), why should my parents hear about it? Let me choose who/how/when to tell.

    2. Re:Capitalism overriding Social Responsibility by jmarpet · · Score: 2, Informative

      IAA Cop, and work at a jail. When people call, we give them the name, charges, bonds, of whoever they ask about. Why? Well, if Joe Blow is arrested, Joe's mom might call to bond him out, Joe's girlfriend (no legal relationship) might call, a bondsmen (never met Joe before) might call. His buddy might call. His long lost dad might call. You get the idea. How do we know who you WANT us to tell, and who you don't? We want people to bond out. We don't have space to hold them all. The more of your people that have the info, the better shot you have of havinmg someone bond you out.

      Besides, once you're booked (first step upon entering jail), you have 24/7 access to a phone in holding. You can call and tell Mom, girlfriend, whomever. We have no legal responsibility to inform your parents/guardians, etc. Now, remember, we (my jail) doesn't deal with juveniles. Everybody who walks in is an adult, responsible for him/her self. en

      --
      Computer Geek Turned Cop, Oh, the irony.
    3. Re:Capitalism overriding Social Responsibility by doublem · · Score: 1

      This is a strong indication that the American (and other) Societies seem to take precedence of profit over Social Responsibility.

      You must not be from the United States.

      If you were, you'd know that the idea of Profit above all else is a given for most the country.

      It's not a revelation. Saying "American Society puts money above responsibility" is like saying "The sky is blue and tends to have clouds now and then" or "There are times when water, in one form or another, falls from the sky."

      It's a given. It's a depressing commentary on the civilization, but it's a given.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    4. Re:Capitalism overriding Social Responsibility by Egonis · · Score: 1

      Point well taken, I guess my non-american aspect is simply founded by the question of:

      Aren't public services (such as policing and justice) made to serve the public?

      I am not knocking your society, or it's ways, I am just a world citizen asking the question of which is more important? Which priority will actually improve your society as a whole?

      I'm all for being an entrepreneur, and making money, but as a die-hard Canadian, I tend to place people before profit.

    5. Re:Capitalism overriding Social Responsibility by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Aren't public services (such as policing and justice) made to serve the public?

      Ideally, yes.

      First, you have to understand that us Americans aren't much for "public services." We tend to view anything that can be described as a public service as something that makes it easier for people to be poor, and by implication, lazy.

      Next, once you get to public services that most people do feel are worthwhile (such as policing), there's still an idea that they serve the "Taxpayer." The Taxpayer is not someone who gets arrested. Those are Criminals. If you pay enough taxes (i.e. at least 12% of your income goes to income taxes, and you own property) the police are there to protect you from the rest of the world.

      In many parts of a city like Los Angeles, the residents generally understand that authority in any form is there to protect the rest of the world from them. Cops do not patrol South LA to keep the residents there safe. They do it to catch the "bad guys," who usually are bad because they went somewhere else and did something nefarious, not because they're raising a ruckus right there where people live.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    6. Re:Capitalism overriding Social Responsibility by Egonis · · Score: 1

      WOW...

      Thank you for the insight!

      I am a Community Worker here in Canada, and that is a world apart from our ways.

      Our Public Service is literally named, as it serves all, and penalizes all justifiably, regardless of income or social stature.

      I suppose the only case where rich/famous persons can wriggle out of legal situations, is easily paying fines, as compared to the middle-class counterparts.

      Another public service, for example, would be Ontario Works, which is basically the Welfare Program here, also, we have Public Funded Employment Insurance, not to mention government funded housing for the low income families -- basically, there is no reason to be homeless, and there is no reason to go hungry, unhealthy, etc.

      Interesting how our systems differ, truly.

  18. why not? by squarefish · · Score: 1

    I used legalmatch.com recently when I needed a lawyer to help expunge an old issue but it turned out I had another year to wait- I wouldn't have minded if a respectable lawyer had contacted me about it when they knew I was ready to get it cleared- most people never get their record cleared and it can be a royal pain in the ass to have even the smallest offense held against you when you least expect it.

    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
    1. Re:why not? by millahtime · · Score: 1

      "I wouldn't have minded if a respectable lawyer had contacted me"

      1 question to ask yourself:

      Are respectable lawyers sending out spam junkmail? I would guess no.

      Oh, there is one more....is there really a respectable lawyer???

    2. Re:why not? by squarefish · · Score: 1

      actually, the three lawyers that responded to me via legalmatch were very experience, respectable and the ones I didn't return contact to have not bothered me again. the thing is that most don't know they can have something removed from their record or when that time comes, that's it's available to them then. personally, I'm ready to have a clean record and it's going to take a lawyer (no matter what I think of them) to get it done.

      --
      Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
  19. Not a bad idea ... by Yeep4711 · · Score: 1

    I have already seen lawyers giving advice on newgroups for free. They had the contact information in the signature and based on the quality of the answer given you already had an idea what to expect. Maybe the same is possible with email?! Of course personal data should not be disclosed without an agreement!

  20. South Florida has been doing this for years by BradySama · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually used to run a small business that collected traffic ticket (and DUI) information from the counties and provided it to ticket law offices in a format they could use (i.e. mailing lists). This information was hosted on various gov't run BBSs; but, it is now available on the internet. And this was back in 1999! And the jail (who had been arrested the day before) data was available, but my clients were only interested in traffic citations and DUIs... My point? This has been going on for years, and the timing of the article suprised me. I think those people were especially upset since the police didn't call them (although they had gone through his wallet to determine and post his demographic info); however, the article seems to indicate that he was 18 or over, making you wonder if anything 'wrong' occurred in this situation. Annoying? Yes. Public information? Hey, it is. Interesting debate, though.

    1. Re:South Florida has been doing this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm guessing the fact that he was over 18 is exactly why they did not contact his parents. Imagine if he was 25 and they called his parents? Doesn't that seem strange? It should have been his responsibility to tell them. If someone's under 18 they call the parents because the parents are responsible for them, but once you're an adult I think it's right to give you the choice whether/how to tell them or not.

    2. Re:South Florida has been doing this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Imagine if he was 25 and they called his parents? Doesn't that seem strange? It should have been his responsibility to tell them.

      Well, that depends, doesn't it. If he's on medication, acting erratically (diabetic ketoacidosis for example), and his parents are his next of kin, then who should they call?

  21. He was in a casino by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So I'm going to guess he is over 21. I'm going to have to ask any future arresting officers to please NOT call my parents. The fam doesn't need to know everytime I get a drunk and disorderly.

    The thing about needing medication sucks, but its well within the realm of possibility that his health issue both doesn't present as an actual health issue and renders him unable or unwilling to notify the officers. If thats the case, nothing to see. IF the officers knew something was wrong and still failed to act, well then fsck them.

    I carry contact and medical information too, but thats only for use if I am unconscious or otherwise unable to speak for myself. Don't call my mommy just because I get picked up. If the officers dug through the medical records of everyone they picked up, wouldn't we by crying invasion of privacy then too?

    1. Re:He was in a casino by forand · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you RTFA? Guess not. He needs daily medication for his MENTAL ILLNESS. While I don't want my family informed if I am arrested by defacto, if you have a mental illness that requires daily medication and have medical information on you at the time of your arrest someone should be notified so you can continue to be properly medicated. It is also possible for someone with a mental illness to be over 21 and NOT their own guardian due to said mental illness. While I don't know what went on hear exactly, in this situation it would seem like the police had a responsiblity to keep him properly medicated and inform his doctors.

      Just my 2 cents.

    2. Re:He was in a casino by ericspinder · · Score: 1
      So I'm going to guess he is over 21. I'm going to have to ask any future arresting officers to please NOT call my parents. The fam doesn't need to know everytime I get a drunk and disorderly.
      Only if you haven't moved out of the house by then. (Just to be clear on this) Most likely the mail was sent to him, and was not addressed to "Parents of the offender" like some note from school. But if you do get arrested (and you still live at home), you might consider getting a temporary change of address from the Post Office to a P.O. box. (hope that helps!)
      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    3. Re:He was in a casino by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed, but did you RMFP? I said that IF the mental (ie, inside his head) presents itself physically, then fsck the cops. But there are plenty that don't and the article was unclear. All I am saying is skip the appeals to pity and fear-mongering when the article is about partially about privacy and when REALLY the man's privacy was actually being maintained. I'd like to think (well I would like to) the cops don't have a right to dig through the inner workings of my wallet just because I got picked up for a non-violent offense.

    4. Re:He was in a casino by stienman · · Score: 1

      The fam doesn't need to know everytime I get a drunk and disorderly.

      I agree. They should only call about 1 out of 20 arrests, a few times a month, at the most.

      -Adam

    5. Re:He was in a casino by faedle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, and you apparently missed the part of the article that said the whole reason why he was picked up by the County Mounty was because he was behaving erratically.

      Personally, this frightens me. As someone who is diabetic, I sure as hell would WANT my loved ones to be contacted if I was sitting in jail without insulin or my other meds. If I'm in diabetic ketoacidosis, I may be unable to think clearly and not communicate properly, and I certainly would look and act fall-down "drunk". I certainly would be in need of medical attention, and the sooner the better.

      Two lessons need to be learned here. First, the Sheriff probably needs to send some of their officers to school and teach them that not everybody who acts drunk belongs in a detox cell -- there are serious, life-threatening medical conditions that can cause a person to act oddly. This having taken place at an Indian casino in "hick" Riverside County dosen't shock me at all.

      Secondly, and this is a lesson everybody who has a medical condition that can result in this sort of thing needs to know: THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A MEDICALERT BRACELET OR NECKLACE. Carrying a card in your wallet with your information on it IS NO HELP, because law enforcement and/or paramedics will often not look in a wallet.. hell, in some places, they are specifically instructed NOT TO because if money is missing the agency may be held liable. But, even a back-country sheriff is going to know enough about that little silver bracelet to at least call the number on it. I highly suspect that if this kid had a MedicAlert necklace or bracelet, he would have been transported to the hospital in the back of an ambulance, not to jail in the back of a squad car.

      For me, just having the necklace that said "Diabetic" on the back has already resulted in my life being saved once. And the paramedics who found me didn't even have to call a phone number: they knew the second they found me and my MedicAlert necklace exactly what needed to be done. That's not "rooting around in your medical file".. that's telling emergency personell what they need to know to save your life.

    6. Re:He was in a casino by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Didn't miss it at all. But "behaving erratically" sounds like intentionally vague press-speak to me. I just choose not to assume the worst.

      As for the rest fo your post, damn right. But naturally the article doesn't mention the presence of any of that, so again, I choose not to assume the worse.

    7. Re:He was in a casino by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

      Its just that they natually know about the D&D when its them calling the cops on me at home for Christmas.

    8. Re:He was in a casino by cdrudge · · Score: 1
      He was in a casino [s]o I'm going to guess he is over 21
      Isn't the legal gambling age 18 and the drinking age 21? The Bellagio states on their website you have to be 18 to enter the casino, but lists exceptions for under 18 people. Other casinos probably have similiar rules. If he looked like he might have been 18 but was under 18, the casino might not have questioned him unless he started to gamble.
    9. Re:He was in a casino by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

      Good tips. Personally I don't live with the fam but a few times a week they still get junk mail intended for me. I just don't complain to CNN over it.

    10. Re:He was in a casino by forand · · Score: 1

      Acutally I think they do, probable cause. If you are arrested for drug charges they can search you and test you based on probable cause alone. I agree the article was unclear as to what actually happend and what the specific mental illness is but if they send out an email with my contact information to law offices before notifying someone's doctors who "requires daily medication" then the police are: invading my privacy, possibly proffiting from my personal data(why else inform lawyers), and ignoring their responsiblity to look after their prisioners.

      Sorry for all the spelling mistakes.

    11. Re:He was in a casino by Texas+Rose+on+Lava+L · · Score: 1

      It varies by state, and it varies by the type of gambling you're doing. In the US, casino gambling is usually 18 or 21 depending on the state you're in (Nevada is 21 btw) but lotteries and horse racing are almost always 18.

      This site has more details on minimum gambling ages in different US states.

      Also remember this is only the US. The minimum drinking age of 21 is extremely rare (Europe is 18 or 16 depending on the country, Canada is 18 or 19 depending on the province, Mexico is 18, Asia has various drinking ages almost always less than 21... Even Singapore (which bans importation of chewing gum) has a drinking age of 18). Gambling laws outside the US are also generally much less strict, with minimum ages of 18 (or less) and allowing gambling in many more places than in the US (in most parts of the US, you have to drive to an Indian reservation to gamble in a casino).

    12. Re:He was in a casino by Amerist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As an ex-paramedic it actually came in extremely handy when someone was wearing a medic alert bracelet. Several times it lead to a more rapid diagnoisis of the scene based on the bracelet's warning and the obvious symptomology.

      In all, we weren't permitted to frisk a person and get their wallet unless we could prove a probably reason for doing so. A card in the pocket or the wallet would have proven no help to us. Once and a while the police would tell us about one (when they'd been on the scene first and arrested someone who seized) but more often than not we didn't know about it.

      Usually simply odd behavior wouldn't end us up called. Most of the time complains of discomfort or pain the police would take a person to the hospital. Major trama or seizure were usually necessary for us to show up, one of those "untransportable" cases.

      I myself wear a Medic Alert bracelet now that I'm ill.

    13. Re:He was in a casino by OMEGA+Power · · Score: 1
      The fam doesn't need to know everytime I get a drunk and disorderly.

      How about saving everyone some time and only contacting them on nights when I'm not drunk and disorderly?("Hello, is your son all right? It's almost 2 am and he hasn't been arrested yet)
  22. Just In Case It Wasn't Clear... by ewhac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I want it on the record so that there's no misunderstanding on the part of future generations, or the current generation who's building the future:

    I don't want to end up living in a Neal Stephenson novel. No, not even if I get to be Hiro Protagonist.

    Reading this writeup reminded me of the scene in Snow Crash where we discover the police have outsourced incarceration, and take YT to The Clink. All that is left is dollars. The human equation is lost, and anyone holding a sense of morals or ethics is seen as an anachronism. I don't know about anyone else, but... Yuck.

    Great books, but I wouldn't want to live there.

    Schwab

    1. Re:Just In Case It Wasn't Clear... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Reading this writeup reminded me of the scene in Snow Crash where we discover the police have outsourced incarceration[...]

      That would never happen. We'd surely never have corporations that specialize in design, building and management of prisons, jails and detention facilities and providing inmate residential and prisoner transportation services in partnership with government. Oh, wait...

      Great books, but I wouldn't want to live there.

      You already do.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  23. this could make RSS the ultimate crime fighter! by kraksmoka · · Score: 1

    just publish all arrests by RSS to a few sites. everyone will love it! (not)

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  24. I don't see a problem by Fubar411 · · Score: 1

    First, I RTFA and IANAL. Criminal arrests are a matter of public record. If someone wants to make a buck on that, I have no problem with it. In the article it said that 1 of 10 arrested ended up using the service, which shows the detainees needed a lawyer. For the parents that didn't know their mentally challenged son was arrested, they should be angry with the police for not informing them. But they should be boarderline thankful that the lawyers did. If they hadn't been notified, and the son were to be locked up, signing away rights without representation, they'd be raising holy hell.

  25. Well, Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See the topic.

  26. This Lady Don't know lawyers by marmot1101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of my many side jobs is procuring information for attorney's solicitation. Let me tell you, call it scummy or what not, but lawyers will go to any means possible to get their solicitation letters out. This is their livelyhood for 90% of them. It is not very surprising that the lawyers would have the information faster than the parents. And for those of you who might refer to this practice as scummy, remember that in the event that you might find yourself needing an attorney. Competitive soliciation drives the prices down, and in areas with a lot of attorney's soliciting, expect to find prices half of what you would find in more friendly, less competitive areas. Any advertisement can be called scummy until it benefits you personally.

    1. Re:This Lady Don't know lawyers by JaffaKREE · · Score: 1

      A few weeks ago, I was rear-ended while I was stopped at a red light. I have gotten so much friggin' spam snail mail/phone calls in the last couple weeks, it's honestly ridiculous. They all LOOK like they were written by the same guy... "Sorry to hear about your accident, do you need our services ?", but I must have one from every law office within 100 miles. Not to mention the chiropractors and "Auto accident assistance" people who seem a little too disappointed when I tell them I wasn't hurt. How do ALL these people know I was rear-ended ? Do I look like a mountain of dollar bills to them ?

    2. Re:This Lady Don't know lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes...

      Because if you were a little greedy, then they could have sued the other party for what could be thousands or millions of dollars.

    3. Re:This Lady Don't know lawyers by marmot1101 · · Score: 1

      They know that you were rear ended from our nation's lovely records keeping capabilities. If you know where to look, you can know with just a tiny bit of effort everything that has gone on in your local area. I do mean everything. If the person who hit you got a ticket, it is recorded at the local court clerk. Whether the person did or not, the accident is logged in the police files, the secretary of state, and possibly the local newspaper.

  27. Just proves Shakespeare was right all along... by ajutla · · Score: 0

    "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

  28. First Spam by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 2, Informative

    IIRC... the first spam was from a law firm...

    1. Re:First Spam by chrisopherpace · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually, This was the first spam.

    2. Re:First Spam by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was thinking of this one.

      Templeton's outdates the lawyer one by 16 years. *sigh*

  29. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL

  30. Oh well. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Funny
    One couple, on finding their son who'd been missing for two days, '...was astonished that deputies failed to call them when their son was arrested -- though contact and medical information was in the young man's wallet -- yet managed to inform people who wanted his business.'"

    I'd bet he politely asked to place a phone call, but the officer responded, "What good is a phone call if you're unable to speak?" The rest, as they say, is history.

  31. Who Needs to Chase Ambulances by Kurt+Wall · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...when you can chase paddy wagons instead? This redefines the term "captive clientele."

  32. Capitalism by Cranx · · Score: 1

    This is, after all, what capitalism claims to be good at: driving innovation. Use the rule of law to guide that innovation to more civic purposes. Be glad the innovation is there at all.

  33. Bottom Line by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is not near enough information in this article to make any kind of judgment on what happened.

    Last week my brother arrested "Satan" (that's who he said he was)- I guess they might have let him keep harassing people while they tried to diagnose what his problem was but instead they took him in. It was meth so I guess you would be o.k. with it.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Bottom Line by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Last week my brother arrested "Satan" (that's who he said he was)- I guess they might have let him keep harassing people while they tried to diagnose what his problem was but instead they took him in. It was meth so I guess you would be o.k. with it.

      Did "Satan" have a medical ID card in his wallet?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I have no problem whatsoever with meth. Contrary to popular belief it doesn't make you want to drink the blood of Christian babies, nor is it made from the remains of the WTC by Osama Bin Ladens evil goons. An sober arsehole will be an arsehole on meth, a nice guy on meth will most likely by a nice guy.

      Remember kids, alcohol causes violence, stupidity and is highly addictive. Drink as much as you can, it's good for the ecconomy.

    3. Re:Bottom Line by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would it matter? You should do some ride alongs with local police for a few nights.

      Not to mention- this guy is supposed to be on medication daily- and was off it. I am glad they picked him up for his own safety and that of others. This way he doesn't have to use the temp insanity defense if he 'accidentaly' kills somebody while he's off his meds. You see, in that state, he is not responsible for his own actions. So who is? When the folks were called he was in a mental care place- not jail. Sounds like he was treated well.

      Beat cops don't have the time or training to do a lot more than look at the current situation and quickly decide if they are going to remove someone. In a casino I bet it is an easy/quick decision. Then when he is no longer a threat to himself or anyone else, you have time to decide what to do. I didn't see anything in the article about him being charged.

      But as I said, there just isn't enough information here to make any kind of decision on the rightness/wrongness of what was done. Me- I'm sympathetic to cops and so I tend to assume they did o.k. unless something shows otherwise. It seems (maybe not- I'm just saying) that you are otherwise inclined.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    4. Re:Bottom Line by stoolpigeon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Meth turns people into liars and thieves.

      Meth causes people's heart to stop and then they die

      Meth destroys lives bit by bit

      Last time I got into a thread where I didn't embrace legalization of drugs and how wonderful/harmless they are it turned into a big freaking flame fest. But I've seen what meth can do to family and friends and I will never be persuaded that it is harmless.

      Oh - and you might enjoy what my brother the cop told me the other day - "If it were not for alcohol I would be out of a job".

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    5. Re:Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      acid and weed on the other hand just make people think too much. that's why they're illegal.

    6. Re:Bottom Line by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Would it matter? You should do some ride alongs with local police for a few nights.

      Yes it would. I'll acknowledge that cops are also human beings. That means they have this thing called "common sense" that they can apply to their situations. Common sense says that if a guy has a medical ID card saying he needs this or that mediation and has a mental illness he is not on drugs.

      Not to mention- this guy is supposed to be on medication daily- and was off it

      How do you know he was off it? What line in the article said he was off his meds? It only said he was "acting erratically". For all you know he acts like that on or off his meds. The friend that I referred to in my original post isn't on medication at all. His condition causes him to appear intoxicated and/or sick to the casual observer. Does that mean that the cops can assume he is being drunk and disorderly and toss him in jail at a whim?

      When the folks were called he was in a mental care place- not jail

      And as I said here if the cop in question had used the aforementioned human trait called "common sense" after he had cuffed the guy and gone through his wallet looking for ID (standard procedure in my state) he would have found the medical card. Again using "common sense" he could have called the paramedics and/or mental health people right there and spared the kid the humiliation of being tossed in jail and having his name in the police blotter. Or he could have taken him down the station where this could have happened. But this isn't what happened -- from everything I've seen the kid was actually arrested and processed. How else would the lawyers have gotten his information? Are you seriously suggesting that this level of public humiliation is justified simply because he was acting "erratically"?

      Beat cops don't have the time or training to do a lot more than look at the current situation and quickly decide if they are going to remove someone. In a casino I bet it is an easy/quick decision. Then when he is no longer a threat to himself or anyone else, you have time to decide what to do. I didn't see anything in the article about him being charged.

      You don't need to be charged to be humiliated. His name likely appeared in the newspaper with the tag line "arrested for suspicion of using illegal drugs". Does that mean nothing?

      Me- I'm sympathetic to cops and so I tend to assume they did o.k. unless something shows otherwise. It seems (maybe not- I'm just saying) that you are otherwise inclined.

      I'm not sympathetic to the cop that looks at somebody acting in a way he can't understand and instantly assumes he is on drugs and slaps the cuffs on him. This kid and his family were utterly humiliated in front of their community. With a little bit of training (and I'll say it again: common sense) this could have been avoided. The cop in question gets zero sympathy from me and if I was his parents (or him assuming he is legally able to make these decisions) I'd be filing complaints with internal affairs and securing myself the services of a reputable attorney. But that's just me.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Bottom Line by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Not to mention- this guy is supposed to be on medication daily- and was off it. I am glad they picked him up for his own safety and that of others. This way he doesn't have to use the temp insanity defense if he 'accidentaly' kills somebody while he's off his meds. You see, in that state, he is not responsible for his own actions.

      So he decides out of free will to stop taking the darn pills, and if he were to go haywire he'd not be responsible? Which state would that be?
      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    8. Re:Bottom Line by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Last time I got into a thread where I didn't embrace legalization of drugs and how wonderful/harmless they are it turned into a big freaking flame fest. But I've seen what meth can do to family and friends and I will never be persuaded that it is harmless.

      I don't embrace the legalization of hard-core drugs either (and meth is definitely something I would qualify as hard-core) but why feed the AC trolls?

      Oh - and you might enjoy what my brother the cop told me the other day - "If it were not for alcohol I would be out of a job".

      Hehe, don't get me started on that subject again. I've participated in quite a few flame fests myself over that pet peeve.

      BTW, so you don't think I'm trolling or just completely anti-cop, I do tend to respect most cops. Most of them are on the force for the right reasons and I think they genuinely try to do some good. I'm sure your brother is probably one of these. It's the gun-toting small-penis-complex arrogant ones that give the rest of them a bad name. I have unfortunately had my share of experiences with the bad ones so it becomes a heated subject for me.

      Thanks for the interesting debate thou :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Bottom Line by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      I am assuming some things like you are. I don't know he was off his meds- I'm assuming it because the fact that the parents were concerned and the reason given seem to strongly imply that they are the ones who watch over him taking his medication. I could be wrong.

      I strongly doubt that he just seemed ill or drunk. The range of behavior I have seen exhibited in casinos without intervention leads me to believe his behavior was more out of line than something mild. Once again though- as is my main point- we, you and I, don't know. We can't really say if the response of the police was appropriate or not.

      Hand cuffs are not to humiliate. They are to protect. They protect the suspect, the officers and others. They are a good thing. Once someone is in cuffs- the situation becomes much safer for everybody involved.

      If he is an adult who should be allowed to go anywhere and do anything he wants then it is no big deal that his mom and dad were not immediately notified of his being arrested. If on the other hand this is such a travesty- and he really does need there constant supervision and care- then it is not such a big deal that he was picked up- that is better than just turning the other way and letting him go. Since his parents were not there looking out for him, the police did it.

      If the cop is already there- why call fire for transport if he is in no imminent danger?

      A lot of criminals, homeless people, etc. are mentally ill. Mentally ill people use drugs and commit crimes too. And I would be right there with you if you find that the mental health system in the U.S. is deplorable. I don't believe the police should be handling these people- but they are forced to as there is no other mechanism in place to do so. It is a travesty in my opinion.

      Internal affairs and law suits? I could be wrong but I just don't think you realize the scope of things that your average cop deals with every day. The cop may have saved this guys life for all we know. It all depends on what presuppositions you bring to this since there are so few facts.

      And this is just a pet peeve - but common sense isn't.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    10. Re:Bottom Line by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Colorado for one. This has happened multiple times. This was the first case I could find on google.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    11. Re:Bottom Line by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      I never thought you were trolling- and I have enjoyed the discussion.

      I respond to AC stuff sometimes if I have the time. Some people who post AC have good stuff to say and I don't usually assume someone is trolling me unless they get way out of hand.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    12. Re:Bottom Line by Creedo · · Score: 1

      No,acid and weed make people think they are thinking too much. If you've ever been sober in a room full of people toking it up, you would know this without a shadow of a doubt.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    13. Re:Bottom Line by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Hand cuffs are not to humiliate. They are to protect. They protect the suspect, the officers and others. They are a good thing. Once someone is in cuffs- the situation becomes much safer for everybody involved.

      I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't say the cuffs humiliated him. I said the likely police blotter entry relating his arrest to using illegal drugs humiliated him. The letters (and phone calls probably?) from the lawyers humiliated him.

      My whole point (if you read between the lines of my ramble) is that once he was in cuffs they would have gone through his wallet (standard procedure in my state -- dunno about yours) to verify his ID. At this point they should have found the medical ID card and common sense should have taken over. That's all I'm saying. I never said or implied that cuffs were a humiliation.

      I don't know he was off his meds- I'm assuming it because the fact that the parents were concerned and the reason given seem to strongly imply that they are the ones who watch over him taking his medication. I could be wrong.

      Your right that we have to assume some things. I assumed that he wasn't off his meds until he was arrested and couldn't contact his folks (for whatever reason -- he didn't know he had the right to the phone call is the likely one imho) for 48 hours. But we just don't know for sure.

      If the cop is already there- why call fire for transport if he is in no imminent danger?

      Because he probably should have been taken straight to a hospital without the intervening stay in jail and booking process? That's my whole point -- was taking him to jail really required? He was obviously booked -- otherwise I doubt the lawyers would have had all of his information. I never said anything about cuffs or what not. The Hospital was obviously the right place for him -- why did they take him to jail first? What if the delay before he got medical attention had harmed him?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re:Bottom Line by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The first time, yes, and there's almost never a second time for a mentally ill and dangerous person. The standard for determination of "guilty but insane" or "not guilty by reason of insanity" is that the person was unable to realize that his or her act was wrong at the time the act was committed. Such individuals, however, tend to wind up in mental institutions for long periods of time: think Theodore Koszinski.

      This is based on two major factors, one legal and the other medical.

      First, the right to refust treatment is deeply welded with the right to seek it. Treatment can only be required when a person would be a treat to himself or others if he withdrew from treatment. Medical confinement is even harder to require, as it should be. That's particularly true in the case of psychological disorders. Remember that even though _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest_ was fiction, the kinds of abuses upon which it was based weren't.

      Second, it's important to know that anti-psychotic and anti-manic drugs are not panaceas. People taking high doses of these drugs are more functional than they would be without them, but do not necessarily feel better, and often feel worse. In the absence of a threat to others, medical treatment is provided for the benefit of the individual being treated, not for the benefit of society. That's why we let cancer patients die when they say they don't want treatment any more, and that's why we let mentally ill people go off their meds.

    15. Re:Bottom Line by karnal · · Score: 1

      And after you got the contact buzz..., you'd really start to think that they were thinking too much.

      --
      Karnal
    16. Re:Bottom Line by Creedo · · Score: 1

      I just took my beer and went elsewhere. It was as good an excuse as any to leave.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    17. Re:Bottom Line by Maudib · · Score: 1

      Then there is just the inherent problem that I have with anyone who chooses to be a cop these days. I view them sort of like lawyers, yes we need them, but I question the integrity of anyone that wants to be one.

      The notion of wanting to in a profession that is responsible for detering/punishing consentual crimes is disgusting. The lust for power and authority that is so common amongst police officers really makes me think that most of these people should be the last granted any sort of power.

    18. Re:Bottom Line by GSloop · · Score: 1

      Moreover...

      Forbid that you actually talk to the person in a polite and reasonable way. Ask what's up. Ask if he has a psychological problem. Ask about friends and family.

      Ten minutes of this might have saved two or three hours of wasted paperwork, and lots of added expense.

      I'm sure I don't understand all the trials and tribulations of being a cop. But I do my best to do my job right, regardless of how irritating the client is. If you don't want to do it right, find another job, IMHO.

      In general, it seems a whole lot of cops have power complexes and attitude problems. They're often more interesting in throwing that around than solving problems.

      Anyway...

      Cheers,
      Greg

    19. Re:Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alcohol does all the things you accuse meth of. I'm not really advocating either of them. Meth does tend to get a rediculous bad rep though, almost as bad as acid (which I do advocate). All drugs are harmfull to some degree, they are meant to alter your bodies normal functioning after all, meth is about on the same level as alcohol in my opinion. If meth were legal it's social effects would be much less. What is needed is proper drug education, without the fear mongering.

      The main issue I took with the post I was replying to was the implication that the fact this guy "Satan" had meth made him extremely evil. If he'd been drunk and causing trouble would his post have ended "It was alcohol?"

    20. Re:Bottom Line by Ironica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Beat cops don't have the time or training to do a lot more than look at the current situation and quickly decide if they are going to remove someone. In a casino I bet it is an easy/quick decision. Then when he is no longer a threat to himself or anyone else, you have time to decide what to do.

      Right.

      The beat cop's job is to remove the danger. If the guy seems dangerous (to himself or to others) you get him out of there and take him to the station.

      The very next step is to find out what happened. This is when they *should have* found his medical ID and contact info, and then called his parents. This is not, apparently, what they did. As far as we can tell, he was booked (at which point his arrest becomes public record), then maybe given tests for a drug, and sometime in the next 48 hours it was determined that the right place for him was a mental hospital, not a cell. After that, his parents were finally contacted.

      You can't necessarily fault street cops for not knowing how to handle every possible situation perfectly. You *can* fault procedures and the cops responsible for implementing them if they lead to a guy sitting in a holding cell for two days when the info they needed to straighten out the issue was available. You can definitely fault policies that lead to arrest information being made public before the guy's wallet gets a look-see.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    21. Re:Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I got into a thread where I didn't embrace legalization of drugs and how wonderful/harmless they are it turned into a big freaking flame fest. But I've seen what meth can do to family and friends and I will never be persuaded that it is harmless.

      Well, then it's a good thing for you that it *is* illegal, and therefore we're all safe from it, right?

      Wake up to the reality that banning dangerous but entertaining drugs doesn't make them any safer. It usually means that people who need help with them will be highly motivated to hide their use instead, and that selling them will be far more profitable.

      Anyone who has been severely hurt by illegal drug abuse *should* well know that making drugs illegal doesn't actually keep us safe. It's time to come up with a new solution.

    22. Re:Bottom Line by Trailwalker · · Score: 1
      A lot of criminals, homeless people, etc. are mentally ill.


      Mental illness in not unknown among the ranks of policemen.

      And they seldom seek help.
    23. Re:Bottom Line by lorcha · · Score: 1
      But as I said, there just isn't enough information here to make any kind of decision on the rightness/wrongness of what was done.
      Only thing I saw was that the police did not notify his legal guardian (parents), who were worried sick about him and could have easily solved the whole situation. The point is that parents only found out when they started getting letters from defense attorneys. If the cops are telling all the lawyers in town that the dude was arrested, the least they could have done is notify the legal guardians.
      --
      "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  34. Titanic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the Titanic was loaded with lawyers, it wouldn't have been a disaster.

    1. Re:Titanic by SamiousHaze · · Score: 1

      Yes it would, 711 survived!

    2. Re:Titanic by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "If the Titanic was loaded with lawyers, it wouldn't have been a disaster."

      Unless they were EFF lawyers

  35. Best way to find a lawyer (OT) by fizbin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Contact your local bar association. Ask for their lawyer referral service.

    This gets you lawyers that are reasonably reputable, and often the referral service will have a deal worked out so that the initial consultation isn't going to empty your bank account.

    1. Re:Best way to find a lawyer (OT) by El · · Score: 1

      Ask for their lawyer referral service.
      In Oregon, it's $30 for an initial half-hour consultation (which usually last longer, but they still only charge you $30). But they're usually going to send you to the lawyers that aren't currently busy, either because they are new to the profession, or not very good at what they do.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    2. Re:Best way to find a lawyer (OT) by ckathens · · Score: 1
      If you really want to find the best lawyer, check out Martindale-Hubble and search for an AV-rated lawyer in your area. These are rated as top of their profession.

      Of course if you're jsut trying to get out of a DUI, any old lawyer will do. But if you want an attorney for a civil case or a great criminal lawyer, it really is the best place to go.

      Also a great place for law students to find firms who might need externs or summer associates. We all use this service.

  36. mod parent up! by musikit · · Score: 1

    the super parent wants a serious discussion about this topic however i think that that person has failed to realize that in this Goerge W. Bush Utopia that some of us live in called the U.S. of A. that anyone not falling into line as "normal" is no longer left alone but harassed beyond belief until they either give up and become "normal" or die.

    as others have pointed out a medical ID tag might have changed this occurence. if he was wearing an ID tag the officer (if smart) would have noticed and called a paramedic instead of arresting without questioning.

  37. This is not so new by nuggetboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My roommate was arrested in November of last year. There were 10 solicitations in the mailbox 2 days later, 15 the next, and between 7 and 20 everyday for a week thereafter. (South Florida, if it makes a difference).

    1. Re:This is not so new by TheJavaGuy · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for my first.

      --
      Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
  38. what else do you expect from lawyers by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Informative

    after all, spam WAS started by a couple of them...

    according to this wired article anyway:
    www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,19098, 00.html

  39. Capitlism without limits by Wun+Hung+Lo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just think it's interesting that every single form of excess in the US is frowned upon, except making obscene amounts of money. If you like sex too much, you're a sexaholic; if you take too many recreational substances, you're a drug abuser; if you eat too much you're a glutton; if you're very vocal about your beliefs or religion, you're a fanatic. However, if you make more money than any 1,000 people could spend in 10 lifetimes, you're an entrepreneur (sp?). Now, before I get flamed, I'm not saying that capitalism is bad, but when you take ANYTHING to an extreme, it's usually not a good thing. The main reason that Communism failed is that they took Marx's ideas to their logical extreme without any thought of human nature or simple compassion. Anyone remember "Lost Horizon"? When the head monk is telling Ronald Coleman's character that they do everything in moderation and therefore are more than moderately happy? Just something to think about...

    1. Re:Capitlism without limits by transient · · Score: 1

      Religion is actually valued quite highly in the United States. We're also an obese nation, and rarely are insulting comments made about people's weight except behind their backs. Junkies and sluts? We've got plenty of names for them and have no problem denouncing sex and drugs at every turn. But I wouldn't say the US, as a whole, is against gluttony or religious fanaticism (as long as it's the "right" religion).

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    2. Re:Capitlism without limits by Ironica · · Score: 1

      But I wouldn't say the US, as a whole, is against gluttony or religious fanaticism (as long as it's the "right" religion).

      Then why do we have terms like zealot, fanatic, cultist, and the ever-applicable [insert belief] freak... or fatso, fatass, blubberbutt, etc., all of which have definite negative connotations?

      Yet aside from "greedy," I'm hard-pressed to think of an insulting term for someone who makes "too much" money. Most insults that have to do with money are not about how much you make, but how willing you are to spend it... miser, tightwad, etc. And, as the movie Wall Street taught us, "greed is good."

      It is very a very interesting feature of American culture that making money is tantamount to our state religion. The right to profit is sacred. Heck, even look at our drug laws... it's a bigger crime to sell crack than powder cocaine, and guess which is more profitable? ;-)

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  40. Re:article text (incase it gets slashdotted) by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you where not a AC, I'd call you a Karma Slut. Not just "whore", but SLUT. I mean look, CNN does not require a subscription or login, and has never (will never) be "Slashdotted". So what is your point?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  41. Re:article text (incase it gets slashdotted) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Towel off your head when you speak to your master!

  42. The Dreaded Letters by esdjco · · Score: 0

    I know when I got arrested the first thing I saw when I got home was about 20 letters from different city lawyers offering to get me off the hook for X sum of $. Really fast turn round these guys got. Step 1. Check arrest logs. Step 2. Find arrestieeees address. Step 3. Spam house of arrestieees with junkmail. Step 4. Collect CAASSSSSH!

  43. I don't mind... by spoonyfork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ... if only I get a cut of the action. They are selling MY information which is deamed to have value so why am I not legally entitled to my cut of the profits?

    If I sell a t-shirt with Michael Jordan's name on it I could get sued. Isn't this the same thing? If so, then why can't I get paid when my name is sold? If it isn't the same thing, how is it different and why don't I have a choice in the matter?

    --
    Speak truth to power.
    1. Re:I don't mind... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      "They are selling MY information which is deamed to have value so why am I not legally entitled to my cut of the profits?"

      I think there's a law in the US that prevents perpetrators from benefiting in any way from the crime(s) they commit...

    2. Re:I don't mind... by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      I think there's a law in the US that prevents perpetrators from benefiting in any way from the crime(s) they commit...

      Yup. However just being arrested doesn't preclude guilt, much less a conviction of a crime.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    3. Re:I don't mind... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well, if we look at recent events (outsourcing torture to Syria, to name just one example), we could be tempted to conclude that there is an ongoing shift from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent"...

      So, crime pays, but only mostly for lawyers?

    4. Re:I don't mind... by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      So, crime pays, but only mostly for lawyers?

      Well, it pays for police, drug law enforcement, prisons, and lawyers. But you're right, mostly for lawyers. :)

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    5. Re:I don't mind... by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1

      I guess for the same reason that you don't get paid to have your phone number put in the phone book (in fact usually, you pay more not to have it put it....) Having said that, I have no reason why not......

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    6. Re:I don't mind... by Jerf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... if only I get a cut of the action. They are selling MY information which is deamed to have value so why am I not legally entitled to my cut of the profits?

      This, incidentally, is the single best non-tin hat reason to support privacy reform, something that everybody ought to agree with. Your private information has value, as demonstrated by the fact that it is routinely sold, for more money then you probably realize. Why is it OK for people to effectively steal this value from you without compensating you fairly, and indeed, charging you in the form of the time you have to spend dealing with people who then use this data?

      It's only going to get worse.

      (In fact, you can boil all privacy arguments down to this point, but it's better for many people to state it nakedly as a monetary issue, even though IMHO the non-monetary concerns are more interesting and important in the long run.)

    7. Re:I don't mind... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'd like to have a few people tortured in Syria. How do I get started on this?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  44. No problems with this. It's the way it works. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People seem to think lawyers are like doctors or priests, but this is not the case. Lawyers are proficient at understanding, arguing, and otherwise working with "The Law". They are not priests. There is no real modern reason that lawyers should not use the same marketing tools every other business uses. Lawyers have a service and a product, not some Holy mission from God.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  45. See kids, this is why... by DustinB · · Score: 1

    ..you should ALWAYS take your ritalin.

  46. Was he really arrested? by El · · Score: 5, Informative

    In California, statute 5150 enables them to put anybody into a mental facilty against their will for 72 hours for observation. This is NOT the same as an arrest. Arrested people go to jail. Committed people go to mental institutions. This kid was in a mental institution. Unfortunately, I beleive the legal requirements for locking somebody up for mental illness are much less stringent then for being criminals -- pretty much just the cop's judgement. They don't have a case for "false arrest" unless he was actually charged with a crime.

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Was he really arrested? by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This kid was in a mental institution.

      The article doesn't mention him being in a mental institution, and it's certainly a violation of federal law to release to lawyers' marketing firms the names and addresses of people you transport to a hospital for medical treatment.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Was he really arrested? by El · · Score: 1

      Gee, what would give me the impression that he was in a mental institution? Perhaps this quote from reading the actual article: "Two days later, the Danielsons got a call from a mental health facility 90 miles away in Riverside County, California." Not from a jail, from a "mental health facility". Again, unless he was charged with a crime (the article doesn't say) there was no arrest.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    3. Re:Was he really arrested? by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      Ok, apparently I didn't actually read the first sentence of the article. However, the article does say, several times, that he was "arrested."

      In any case, an arrest does not imply that the suspect has been charged with a crime. In the United States, an arrest occurs when a police officer takes a person into custody, not when a person is charged with a crime.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    4. Re:Was he really arrested? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They don't have a case for "false arrest" unless he was actually charged with a crime.

      A person is arrested when they are held. Citizens arrest is available in one form or another in most states. You are "arrested" at the point where the citizen restrains you, not when the cops finally arrive and formally arrest you. If you screw up the detention when someone steals something from your store, you can easily lose a false arrest lawsuit.

      And a person that is being given a traffic ticket (no longer a "crime" in many states so that they don't have to give you your Constitutional protections) is under arrest while receiving the ticket, though it is considered a "special" arrest because the person arrested has a reasonable belief that they will be released immediately, so again, they don't have full protection of law.

      The US Constitution (void where prohibited by law)

  47. Re:article text (incase it gets slashdotted) by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative
    If you where not a AC, I'd call you a Karma Slut. Not just "whore", but SLUT. I mean look, CNN does not require a subscription or login, and has never (will never) be "Slashdotted". So what is your point?

    It was slashdotted on 9/11 as I recall. But I do see your point. He was modded down to -1 at one point. I wonder who the heck modded him back up? What a waste of disk space.

    I call troll on the grandparent.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  48. Which is better? by Shoten · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know that if I were ever arrested, I'd rather have a lot of potential defense attorneys notified than my mom. For one thing, I'd need a lawyer, and for two, my mom is a frickin' moron. :)

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  49. business as usual in texas by painehope · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm a resident of Harris County (Houston ), and they've been doing this for at least 7 years ( which is how long I've been getting arrested as an adult ;) I'm 24. ).

    Every damn time I get out of jail I end up w/ my mail box stuffed for at least a week w/ lawyers' ads. Even if I sat out my time and thus the case is closed.

    And as far as calling his parents, unless his medical paperwork mentioned contact w/ a legal guardian, an adult's relatives are never contacted. Shit, you're lucky if you get your phone call until you make it to the main detention center ( which is a big help if you can make bail ).

    --
    PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
  50. Can we outsource lawyers ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would love to get a team of Indian or Chinese lawyers defending me for the price of a domestic. If only they would allow remote video and audio in the courtroom : (

  51. I like direct marketing by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    I like knowing that it costs them real money to try to contact me. I like that at least the post office is making money so my stamp prices won't have to increase so much. I like the satisfaction of watching the letters burn that you just don't get from deleting an email. Much more satisfying.

  52. Could be illegal to do this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Could be illegal to do this....In a number of state, i.e. South Carolina and New York, it is illegal to use any public records (such as arrest records, property titles, mortgage records, etc.) for the purpose of solicitation.

    Someone should check the states where these sharks are swimming to see if those states have such restrictions.... then the will need their own lawyers.

    1. Re:Could be illegal to do this. by ALpaca2500 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      SpeedingTicket.net pays the state 10 to 30 cents for each record that it downloads (the state collects about $1.7 million annually this way), then charges lawyers 50 cents to over $1 to relay the data or perform value-added services, such as printing and mailing letters to prospective clients.

      it sounds like the state in question (california was it?) is selling this information

    2. Re:Could be illegal to do this. by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      it sounds like the state in question (california was it?) is selling this information

      States sell private (or semi-private) information all the time. MVR records anyone?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Could be illegal to do this. by Ironica · · Score: 1

      it sounds like the state in question (california was it?) is selling this information

      Actually, SpeedingTicket.net is based in North Carolina, and has recently expanded to Florida, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, South Carolina, Georgia, Michigan and Oklahoma. I can see how confusing it would be; that information was in the paragraphs preceeding and directly after the one you quoted.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    4. Re:Could be illegal to do this. by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      it would be great to somehow sue california under their own anti spam laws

    5. Re:Could be illegal to do this. by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1

      In Ohio, they sell your info when you renew your driver's license. You can "opt out" of the US Mail lists, but I don't think you can get off the telemarketing list.

  53. Not unthinkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When people are pulled over where I live in the US for traffic stops, they must provide, on penalty of resisting arrest, and the class B misdemanor:

    Name
    SS#
    What they are doing in the area, if they have business to be there.
    Name of place going to, and phone number of contact.
    Work company.
    Position at work.
    Why they are there.
    Who is your boss at work, name and phone.

    This info is then tossed in a database, and sold to anyone who wants.

    1. Re:Not unthinkable by monkeypuzzle · · Score: 1

      I'll bite. Where in the US is this??

  54. Speeding Ticket = junk mail? by JediLuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I got a speeding ticket, less than a week later i had letters from 3 lawyers offering to "take care of it" for me. I had already had one take care of it, but it's interesting what is available to them.

    --

    JediLuke
    -Do or Do Not, There is no Try
  55. a closer look by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

    The real news here is that a law enforcement agency failed to notify a family, and instead notified advertising. They should be punished for that.

    This is just what free market economics gives you. More and more advertising. More stupid ads. More mail and email spam. More nuisance phone calls. I don't think we need to allow advertising to mix with law enforcement.

    --
    -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    1. Re:a closer look by digrieze · · Score: 1

      It doesn't say in the story what this guys age was, but if he was of legal age then the HIPA laws passed last year basically say the Police can't call anyone that the subject in custody does not specifically authorize and/or request or they would be libel for breaking the act, especially if the person had a medical issue.

      Arrest records are by law public documents and must be made freely available, although the information in the public versions of those records is now limited by that same act. For instance, you could say that a person was arrested for DUI, you could not put a medical opinion on the record such as the person was an alcoholic under treatment.

      This is just one of the ways well intended legislation screws up common sense.

      --
      It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
  56. Did he get 1 phone call? by NIN1385 · · Score: 1
    If he didn't get a phone call to tell his parents or family then that is still bullshit, 21 or not. But if he used that phone call to call his crack head girlfriend that is only with him because of his money then he deserved it. This is what it is coming down to though, businesses knowing more about a person than the person's own family and friends. Is this really where we want to be, don't we invade and bomb countries for the same type of stuff?

    When does our government stop being hypocritical? When do laws actually have consequences against corporations? I'll tell you the answer to both of those questions: Not until politicians cannot take bribes or $10,000 dinners (lobbyists) as they call them, and when religion has nothing to do with government whatsoever. Until these two things are done, then we will continue to have a corrupt government where people look out for themselves more than the future of our country along with a government that contradicts itself every day.

    --

    If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
    1. Re:Did he get 1 phone call? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i (at 16) got arrested. i didnt get rights read, and no phone call. i was arrested for missing person (runaway) about 1200 miles from home. wasnt given food or water for 36 hours. cops were very mean.

    2. Re:Did he get 1 phone call? by Down8 · · Score: 1

      In California (where this story takes place), you are allowed 3 phone calls. One to your family, one to your lawyer, and one to your bondsman (that's the reasoning behind 3 calls, they don't have to be used that way).

      -bZj

      --
      .sig
    3. Re:Did he get 1 phone call? by digrieze · · Score: 1

      They should have fed you, but you didn't have the rights you probably thought you had. You weren't arrested for criminal violation of statute, state or federal. You were taken into protective custody as a runaway, and that's a completely different legal situation. It's called different things in different states, but basically you sit there until mama and papa show up. It's a shock to most, but you're not an adult at 16.

      --
      It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
  57. Get me a lawyer! Was:Follow that Ambulance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got a summons that claims that my company was involved in a car accident in Florida in August 2002.

    I don't live in Florida. My company has never done business in Florida. We have never had anyone do business in Florida on our behalf. But now I have to spend time and money fighting this $#@$#@ law suite in Florida created by some ambulance chaser in Florida.

    Can anyone recommend a good lawyer in Florida?

    If not, how about a really good lawyer joke. I could use one right about now.

  58. Lawyers = scummy? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 0, Troll
    This just in, lawyers are not the most ethical people in the world and WILL in fact do whatever it takes to get clients.

    Film at 11.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  59. Spam and Lawyers by cliveholloway · · Score: 4, Funny

    LoL - scum of the earth squared. If only we could somehow bring SCO into this equation I think we'd have the "most... evil... story... ever...".

    cLive ;-)

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  60. Greedy Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are the same kind of people that search the obituaries or children's playgrounds for lawsuits. Instead of inventing new solutions to fix the old problems, they are inventing new problems to justify their old solution.

    1. Re:Greedy Lawyers by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Instead of inventing new solutions to fix the old problems, they are inventing new problems to justify their old solution.

      But enough about RIAA already!

      (Sorry I couldn't resist)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  61. reminds me of high school... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police at our high school dance once gave the retarded kid a breathalyzer b/c they thought he was drunk. Poor guy probably still never had a drink in his life. At least they let him go once a teacher explained, and didn't subject him to further tests...

  62. MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is it just me or should this type of information be private until you are actually convicted of something?


    Are you nuts? You really want arrest information to be private? Open and public law enforcement and court records are the reason why we don't have secret courts, secret police and star chambers. Sheesh, use your noggin for something besides taking up valuable space!

  63. Why is this news? by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Law offices have been canvasing arrest reports to generate solicitation letters for decades. Used to be, they sent a secretary into the courthouse to transcribe the names/addresses and charges from the public record. When court records were computerized and modems became wide-spread, they used dial-up access to those records. Now, they have direct internet access through subscription services.

    I guess the "new" thing here is emailing the solicitation?

  64. Will spam filtering become good enough? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

    failed to call them ... inform people who wanted his business

    just me, or bandwith issues aside, will spam filters become good enough, that instead of IRC, builiten boards... just broadcast all public messages to every email address in the world. Let the spam filters decide who would be interested.

    filters figure out you want to know about your sons name, and criminal detention, in this state...

  65. I wonder... by nologin · · Score: 1

    Would lawyers that specialize in harassment cases use this kind of tactic.

  66. quote from the article... by StressGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "After a series of complaints, Riverside County's deputy counsel, William Kenison, recently asked the sheriff's department to stop e-mailing daily arrest records to lawyers -- unless they sign a statement promising not to use the lists to pitch prospective clients."

    ummm....what else are they going to use that data for?

    just asking

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  67. Wow, this sure is news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I liked it even better when I read all about it everywhere yesterday morning, when it was published.

    1. Re:Wow, this sure is news. by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because a day later it's no longer news and irrelevant. Right?

  68. Yeah, and you're why they're still around by danaris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I were charged with a crime, and I didn't do it, I'd want a lawyer who could help me prove to the court and the world that I didn't do it, and get me off that way. If there were really no evidence that I hadn't done it, and lots that I had (which, outside of TV trials, seems unlikely), only then would I look to get off on a technicality. My preferred technicality would be finding the SOB who really did it.

    If, on the other hand, I were guilty of whatever it was, I would want only to reduce my sentence. I'd probably plead guilty. The only time I'd do otherwise would be if I truly believe the law is unfair (for instance, if I were brought up on copyright infringement charges for having a few episodes of a show that doesn't yet exist on this continent on my computer).

    We need more people willing to face the consequences of their actions. If people did, not only would we have fewer scumbag lawyers, I think we'd have fewer people that would need their services in the first place.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by SnappleMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "We need more people willing to face the consequences of their actions."

      I agree but that is just so completely un-American. Americans in general are not good at taking personal responsibility. Nuisance lawsuits, people wasting court time (i.e. my tax dollars!) to avoid paying speeding tickets, etc. Why does every product I buy have a huge warning label on it telling me something so painfully obvious it hurts? Often because some idiot loser hurt themselves or allowed their child to be hurt and thanks to the horrific American civil system of justice was able to sue or force a settlement with the threat of a suit. It's pathetic and it makes me ill.

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    2. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by the_mad_poster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Soooo.... your theory is that we need more honest criminals?

      Or, that we just need less criminals, and more honest people?

      So, isn't it safe to break that entire thing down to: "if people were honest we wouldn't need lawyers and this wouldn't be an issue?"

      You typed an awful lot there without really saying a whole lot. You sure you're not a lawyer? :-p

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    3. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by danaris · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was thinking more of people who aren't "career" criminals (cue even more lawyer jokes), but those who do stuff just thinking, "They'll never catch me," or whatever. And felonious corporate bigwigs, who I admit could easily be classified as "career criminals." Anyway, people who are basically average, but do stupid stuff without thinking of the consequences, and the rich who steal from the not-so-rich.

      I agree, looking at it the way you put it does make it sound pretty dumb, huh?

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    4. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      We need more people willing to face the consequences of their actions.

      So what we need is a world where criminals stop by the police station and turn themselves in? Or are they free to wait till the police nab them, whereupon they are supposed to meekly surrender and plead guilty? No wait, its ok to plea bargain, so they should maintain their innocence until procescutors offer a good plea baragin package.

      News flash Dan, this is how 90% of cases go. Outside of a few fruitcakes, most folks cop pleas, sometimes even when they are innocent, to avoid the risks and costs that a jury trial brings. How sure are you those 7 to 12 people aren't just going to decide finding you guilty is the fastest way to get home to their kids? That you just look guilty. That somebody did this to their sister and now you're going to pay.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    5. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by wornst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Give me a break. You just say that because you've never been in the situation before. When you find yourself in an orange suit with hand cuffs and ankle manacles, I would pay to see you take that "high road."

      And as for only fighting back when you personally think the law is wrong . . . give me another break. Any law you are accused of and tried for breaking is objectively one that you do not want to plead guilty to.

      From the moment the police restrain you an attorney is a must. If they find your name from a database, great, representation that much quicker.

    6. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by sckeener · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Obviously you've never had to face anything like this before. Before considering how high and mighty you'd be, remember that prosecution conviction rates are in the 90% across the states. If you ever get accused, win any way you can.

      I've lost both of my parents to prison. My mother is guilty and my father is not. My father was actually a lawyer who believed in justice.

      We do not have justice. We have law. There is a big difference. Don't trust that they'll play fair. Don't trust your lawyer to do a good job. Don't trust the jury to see the holes in the story.

      Bash any hole you can in the prosecutions case.

      And remember, it's going to cost a ton of money.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    7. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by bani · · Score: 1

      "Americans in general are not good at taking personal responsibility.

      I have yet to see a single nationality which is. It's a human failing in general, not a single specific nation's.

    8. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      No, not dumb... just.... a bit of a prolix post if you don't mind that unncessary and gratuitous, but also ironic, use of an uncommon word.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    9. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by tsg · · Score: 1

      It's just so much easier here with so many lawyers, and a very expensive judicial system.

      --
      People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
    10. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by bani · · Score: 1

      IIRC it's NZ which has the highest lawyers per-capita in the entire world. but in terms of litigation germany has the highest per-capita, iirc it is mainly business lawsuits.

    11. Re:Yeah, and you're why they're still around by danaris · · Score: 1

      OK, I give up...what word are you talking about?

      And yeah, I tend to be wordy...comes of trying to get about 5 points across when I really should be paying attention to 1.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  69. two words by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    F*cking Parasites..
    All lawyers should be rounded up and exterminated from the face of planet earth.
    Lawyers have to reach UP to grab a meal of catfish shit.

  70. So the law school and MIS depts have combined! by HungWeiLo · · Score: 2, Funny

    SELECT vehicles FROM tbl_People WHERE ID='ambulance' AND country='US'

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  71. North? by JWhitlock · · Score: 1

    Wow, we've found the one guy who saw that movie.

  72. Re:What the world needs now, is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a nude woman. but i'm not surpirsed a slashdot reader doesnt know what a nude woman looks like (aww, i suck. i couldnt help it)

  73. my experience by SparkMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been arrested once (wrongly... I called the police for help with a drunk nut and they arrested me because some cops are LAZY ASSHOLES even though many are good, responsible people).

    I believe this was on a Friday. By Monday, I had a dozen lawyer's advertisements in my mailbox offering to help me.

    --

    -- laws are the opinions of politicians --

    1. Re:my experience by Down8 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I had a similar situation, and the amount of mail I got afterwards was staggering. I didn't bother counting the letters (since I was innocent, and didn't need a lawyer), but the stack was about 5 inches high.

      And I wasn't allowed to make a phone call b/c cellphones don't take collect calls, and I didn't know anybody local's number (was arrested out of town). And, yes, there are very few cops who are doing the job right.

      -bZj

      --
      .sig
  74. The gov't screws us endlessly...I want my turn... by FatSean · · Score: 0

    Improper treatment by law enforcement, selective enforcement, dirty cops and judges. The Prosecutors use every trick they can, technical or not, to get people convicted. I want a lawyer who does the same.

    --
    Blar.
  75. Best lawyer recruitment strategy ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a friend who was in the university of washington law program. He loved scummy lawyer jokes, and had come up with the best way to get buisness. He wanted to put a blown up copy of his buisness card on the inside roof of ambulences.

  76. Re:article text (incase it gets slashdotted) by satterth · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    It was slashdotted on 9/11 as I recall.
    I wouldn't even call that a Slashdotting. More like a World Dotting. Their connection was going down regardless if Slashdot was there to help.
    --
    Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
  77. How the hell did they get his email address? by Serious+Seth · · Score: 1

    I think its kind of wierd that they managed to get his email address. Did he keep it on a card in his wallet? Or did they interrogate him for hours?

    1. Re:How the hell did they get his email address? by SnappleMaster · · Score: 1

      Try RTFA. :)

      "After retrieving the young man, Julie Danielson checked the mail that had piled up during frantic days of worry. She was shocked to see at least 12 envelopes -- postmarked only hours after her son's arrest -- from defense attorneys offering their services."

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
  78. Astonished by Bruha · · Score: 1

    I think they really should be astonished that their son used his one phone call to call someone else and not them. Maybe they should be mad at their son for getting arrested in the first place. And not the officers.

    Now if he was a Minor then that's another matter entirely.

  79. Can't Have it Both Ways by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1, Troll
    You are being sarcastic. I'm sorry, but this is PUBLIC information. If *you* violate the law, your arrest records are a matter of public record. It's funny how you types hate it when PUBLIC records are held back by authorities, but GEEZ, when you don't like it, PUBLIC records should be restricted?

    Can't have it both ways, Mr Bleeding Heart.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Can't Have it Both Ways by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      If *you* violate the law, your arrest records are a matter of public record. It's funny how you types hate it when PUBLIC records are held back by authorities, but GEEZ, when you don't like it, PUBLIC records should be restricted?

      Nice of you to stereotype when you know almost NOTHING about me. After you get done putting ice on that knot that appeared on your forehead when your knee slammed into it, try considering the fact that someone who has just been arrested has NOT yet been convicted of a crime and therefore should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the case referred to by the article, the person who was arrested was never even charged with a crime; he was arrested because they suspected him of being on drugs. I personally have no problem with making the records of a convicted criminal public, but I draw the line at broadcasting sensitive information about someone who hasn't even been formally charged with a crime. Whether legal or not, my "ethics alarm" says it's just plain wrong.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    2. Re:Can't Have it Both Ways by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0, Troll
      Nice of you to stereotype when you know almost NOTHING about me ... person who was arrested was never even charged with a crime

      Yap, yap, yap. Arrest records are public records. Again, when it works for the "Government Must Be Open" crowd, public records are OK, but Geezzze, when you actually start to think about PRIVACY you don't like it? WORKS BOTH WAYS!

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    3. Re:Can't Have it Both Ways by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but this is PUBLIC information. If *you* violate the law, your arrest records are a matter of public record.

      Why did you phrase this as a conditional? Are you saying that If *you* did not violate the law, your arrest record would not be a matter of public record?

      The question here sure is whether arrest records should be a matter of public record, given that the fact of a violation of the law is an unknown at that stage.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Can't Have it Both Ways by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      The question here sure is whether arrest records should be a matter of public record, given that the fact of a violation of the law is an unknown at that stage.

      There's a few hundred people in Cuba with no-doubt strong opinions on the subject.

      FWIW: In my department, essentially all records are public record once approved by a supervisor, unless they're private personnel files, juvenile identifying information, work product, or their release would jeopardize an ongoing investigation (and we can get a judge to agree).

      Pretty much a requirement in an open society.

      In a free society,

    5. Re:Can't Have it Both Ways by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Pretty much a requirement in an open society.

      I didn't address that because I was responding to the idea that the guilt of the arrested person was the justification for publicity. Certainly it is an absolute requirement that someone who bears the arrested person's interests be informed of their whereabouts.

      There is a good argument that it is the public at large who should be that someone, both because the public has a right to know about the activites of their police forces, and also because of the vexed question of who else that someone should be, and more to the point, who (and on what basis) should choose that someone otherwise. On the other hand the reputation of an innocent accused ought also to be protected.

      Though it may not be recognised at law, there are in fact different levels of 'public' information. I mean it is one thing to inform an accused's family and nominated legal representative and to give out information upon reasonable inquiry, and it is quite another to publish a weekly list of names and addresses of all people arrested in the local paper (as is in some places done for all people convicted).

      Sending out an email circular to local practitioners seems to me to fall in between these extremes. I'm not entirely sure of whether I think it is a good thing or not. But given the conflicting demands of protecting liberty and protecting reputation this is at least a defensible practice.

      There's a few hundred people in Cuba with no-doubt strong opinions on the subject.

      The situation in which these people are being held would seem to suggest that mere public information of who is being held in custody, is not sufficient to guarantee the protection of an individual's rights as against the power of the state.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  80. "Journalism" at it's best by Miara · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow. That's the most content-free piece of "journalism" I've seen in a while.

    It plays the "parents don't know their kid was arrested" card.

    It plays the "public info was used in a way you didn't know was happening" card.

    It gives us no details about anything we could use to make a judgement about whether what happened was appropriate or not.

    Reconstructing:

    Cops are called to the scene of a (presumably, since otherwise they would have had to call his parents) legal adult acting "off".

    Does he have a medic alert bracelet? Is he cooperative? It isn't said, but I'll give the cops the benefit of the doubt and say probably not, cause most people don't. I don't, even though I'm on meds. They aren't important enough that I feel I need it. That's my judgement call. And usually, the cops on the scene aren't actually allowed to go through his pockets to find anything more than id, which is usually pretty obvious, so they arrest him and he gets booked.

    After he's booked for D&D (or whatever), someone goes through his wallet, finds medical info, and decides he really needs to be in a hospital, not jail. So off he's sent. Does he want his parents to be contacted? We don't know. Doesn't say. He's a legal adult, so there's no requirement to contact them. He's about to be shipped off to the nuthouse, but he's not technically incompetent for another 72 hours yet, so if he doesn't want them called, they won't be. That is still his right, isn't it?

    Lawyers do as lawyers do. They'd have a designated person sitting there calling as people were booked if the email system wasn't set up. And this at least gets that freak out of the cops face/space.

    Parents get pissy because they weren't contacted. News hound smells "scare" story and writes it up, rather badly.

    Slashdot finds it because of the "wow, this publicly available information was sent through email! " connection.

    How is this related to MRO again?

  81. Ok/Not ok by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1
    I think it is fine that somebody (a lawyer) who can help you out gets notified. I mean, what does the average person charged with a crime know about their options? Especially for state-run fundraisers like DUI charges and such.

    What is not acceptable is that the lawyers knew this kid was in trouble before the family did. Especially with a medical condition? That is just plain wrong.

  82. Whose Responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > was astonished that deputies failed to call
    > them when their son was arrested.

    It most definitely is *not* the deputies
    responsibility to inform anyone of someone's
    arrest. It isn't the jail's either. The jail
    is obligated to let the prisoner make his
    mandated call at some point but I got news
    for ya... the jail ain't running no concierge service.

  83. losing the point. by darkonc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What these people were upset about wasn't really the fact that they got the letters from the ambulance^w paddy-wagon chasers. If I was bogusly arrested and didn't have the phone numbers of a good lawyer or two, these letters might be, to a certain extent, a real relief.

    What upset them was the fact that the letters from the paddy-wagon chasers arrived before a phone call from the sheriff's department. This is a 'get your priorities straight' call, not `don't give lawyers the names of the arrested' call.

    In the context of the Patriot act, I'd be happy to know that at least someone with a vested interest in giving me at least some sort of support was likely to be informed of my arrest.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  84. Nothing wrong with this by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

    Lawyers need to eat, same as tapeworms.

  85. Scumbag Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While there are a few honest lawyers, in my experience with the law over the past 10 years, I would say that over 97% of lawyers only care about money.

    This should not be surprising to anyone, as the majority of lawyers make money by causing trouble for others (ie suing them). While there are legit activities for lawyers, the economy cannot sustain the current large number of lawyers that exist in the United States. Laywers need to make money, and they do so by suing people; therefore, the majority of lawyers actively seek out trouble (or often try to cause trouble).

    A good example is here in Southern California. There are many lawyers that use a technique known as Legal Extortion to sue small businesses for often very small/minor (often entirely made up or bogus) infractions such as not having proper handicap access in the restrooms or such. Many of these small business do not have the money or resources to defend themselves against a lawsuit, so they end up settling for thousands of dollars. It is a shame that the US Legal system tends to encourage this behavior, often rewarding the most aggressive lawyers who actively seek out lawsuits.

  86. Not new by angle_slam · · Score: 1

    If you file for divorce, you will get a lot of ads in the mail from divorce lawyers. If you buy a house, you get ads in the mail from mortgage brokers. If you buy a car, you get ads from the dealer you bought it at. Does this really deserve a /. story?

  87. Re:article text (incase it gets slashdotted) by Rakthar · · Score: 1

    Since when is a slut worse than a whore?

  88. Bureacracy by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

    Why didn't California just sell it directly to lawyers and double the money?

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  89. Could be worse :-) by MacDork · · Score: 1
    • A guy walks into a post office one day to see a very well-dressed, middle-aged, balding man standing at the counter methodically placing "Love" stamps on a huge stack of bright pink envelopes. Each envelope had hearts all over it. The man then took out a perfume bottle and sprayed scent all over the envelopes.

      His curiosity getting the better of him, the guy goes up to the balding man and asks him what he is doing. The man says "I'm sending out 1,000 Valentines cards signed, 'Guess who?'"

      "But why would you want to do that?"

      "I'm a divorce attorney," the man replied

    At least criminal defense attorneys aren't actively drumming up business yet ;-)

  90. Re:article text (incase it gets slashdotted) by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    If you where not a AC, I'd call you a Karma Slut. Not just "whore", but SLUT.

    The difference being is that a whore gets paid.

    --
    What?
  91. Re:article text (incase it gets slashdotted) by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 0

    Oh shave off your little-bitty moustache, and stop whining about the fact that the jews own everything. Next time, try learning to read before complaining that somebody took your job. Oh, and trust me, that White mask fashion went out in the '60s. SDSTFU

  92. Re:article text (incase it gets slashdotted) by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 0

    We are the Pimps Whores Association of America. If we find anybody doing it for free, we'll sue their asses, and we'll start with colleges. SAY NO TO SLUTS. It's unfair to the artists...er.. I mean whores..Peer-to-peer fucking is wrong. Purchase your sex from the original sellers. Stop violating copyrights.

  93. Re:article text (incase it gets slashdotted) by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    A slut just FUCKS AROUND on you with your best friend, with a WHORE you know where you stand.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck