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.'"
Capitalism at it's best.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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
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.
Not only does money talk, it also listens.
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
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.
DUI? Anyone mail him a clue stick then beat him with it?
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...
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I was thinking of this one.
Templeton's outdates the lawyer one by 16 years. *sigh*
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.
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.
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?
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"?
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?
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.
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?
"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
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.
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 --
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.