Diane D's List: Law

• Every ProDoc subscription comes standard with:

   
   
  • Licenses for three computers or three concurrent users,
   
  • Free training,

• Every ProDoc subscription comes standard with:

   
   
  • Licenses for three computers or three concurrent users,
   
  • Free training,

• Every ProDoc subscription comes standard with:

   
   
  • Licenses for three computers or three concurrent users,
   
  • Free training

• Every ProDoc subscription comes standard with:

   
   
  • Licenses for three computers or three concurrent users,
   
  • Free training,

• Every ProDoc subscription comes standard with:

   
   
  • Licenses for three computers or three concurrent users,
   
  • Free training

• Every ProDoc subscription comes standard with:

   
   
  • Licenses for three computers or three concurrent users,
   
  • Free training,
• subscription
• subscription

• Q. Is there an additional cost for a network version of ProDoc?

   

  A. No. By default, ProDoc ships and installs "network ready". So, whether you use a single computer or you install it in a network environment, there is no additional fee.
• Your subscription includes   3 licenses that may be used on a computer network and/or stand-alone   computers for a single law firm at a single site.
• If the Software is installed   on a network, then one license will be used for each individual   using ProDoc software at the same time on your network. If the Software   is installed on stand-alone computers, one license will be used   for each computer on which the Software is installed.

• Q. How do you update the forms?

   

  A. Our WebUpdate feature enables   us to automatically update, over the Internet, your software and   the forms volumes. We also ship update CDs to those who do not have   Internet access.

• Q. I share an office with another attorney – can we split  the ProDoc subscription fee?

  A. Our license is for a single firm at a single location.  If you are both in the same firm, you may share the three licenses that  come with your subscription. If you are not a single firm, however, you  may not share a single license.
• Media: CD Rom drive
• install and run ProDoc and the volumes
• you install a ProDoc update, from a CD
• While most updates are provided via our automated WebUpdate procedure, we occasionally send out CD updates as well.

15 more annotations...

• Chapter 724 of the Texas Transportation Code will allow warrantless, mandatory blood draws in felony DWI and DWI-related offenses, effective September 1. Because the new law will virtually remove the need for blood search warrants in felony cases, let’s take a thorough look at the changes.
• Before September 1, 2009
• The old law’s limitations were a strong factor in pushing for blood search warrants, which provided officers and prosecutors a way to let a magistrate—rather than the suspect—decide whether to procure this evidence.
• As of September 1, 2009,  Chapter 724 of the Texas Transportation Code requires an officer to draw blood without a warrant if:
   •    the subject, arrested for an offense under Penal Code Chapter 49, refuses to provide a breath sample and a person other than the suspect “has suffered bodily injury and has been transported to a hospital or other medical facility for medical treatment”;
   •    the suspect is arrested for DWI with a child passenger under Penal Code §49.045;
• When making a DWI arrest, the officer must request a breath or blood sample. If he has a reasonable belief that any of the above additional circumstances exist, then a blood sample must be drawn.
• Beeman v. State
• Schmerber v. California
• The affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause. Well, no two ways about it: Officers must articulate their probable cause that the defendant committed DWI in the affidavit. First, make sure officers write affidavits alleging only DWI, not higher-level offenses for which they may have arrested the defendant. The warrant should allege only the minimal offense necessary to obtain the warrant. The elements—called the four corners—are simple but essential: 1) operated, 2) a motor vehicle, 3) in a public place, and 4) while intoxicated. Second, “probable cause” is less than “beyond a reasonable doubt”—don’t increase the standard unnecessarily. Third, the defendant’s refusal to provide a breath sample is evidence (and therefore probable cause) of the defendant’s intoxication.18 Last, if the affidavits are light on detail, they will continue to be that way if you do not train officers to do them right. Use bad affidavits as a training opportunity.
• n refusal cases, the defense often attacks police investigators and the State’s case by arguing that a blood search warrant could and should have been obtained. This argument is voiced as strongly and assuredly as the same attorneys voiced their constitutional “concerns” about the same investigative technique in the media moments before. And while ironic and seemingly unfair, the argument can be pretty effective. Prosecutors trying cases where blood warrants were not secured should address this argument well before their own rebuttal argument. The only effective counter must be set up on voir dire, in opening, and most importantly, during direct examination of the officer. Having the officer explain which local or individual circumstances made obtaining the search warrant impossible, or at least difficult, takes much of the sting out of this defense argument. If the real reason is lazy judges, officers, or hospitals, admitting such testimony could smart a bit, but in the long run, that pain might be a good thing.
• Secondly, through the rebuttal close, redirect the jury to the real source of the lack of chemical evidence, which is the defendant’s refusal—a refusal to provide evidence after this defendant was carefully and fully warned that this very jury can and should consider evidence against him. In this instance, though it greatly pains me to admit it, the defense may have a point. DWI is an offense well worth the effort of enforcing, prosecuting, and obtaining the best evidence to prove; the more than a thousand Texans a year who die in alcohol-related crashes26 would probably agree.
• 
   1) empirical scientific evidence is beneficial to determine both guilt and innocence
• Blood evidence uncovers the truth of the DWI charge legally and quickly by helping convict the guilty and release the innocent

10 more annotations...

• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.)
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.)
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.)
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.)
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.)
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.)
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.)
• recent legislation making it easier to obtain mandatory blood samples and blood search warrants. (See W. Clay Abbott’s article on the subject on page 8.)
• All of the FSTs adopted by NHTSA require that the subject be tested on a flat and solid surface.
• officers involved in BWI cases prefer that the NHTSA FST battery not be performed until the subject has been on dry land for at least 15 minutes
• When onshore, the completion of the standardized battery of FSTs and the subject’s refusal to provide a breath test4 further bolstered the detention decision and seeking a search warrant
• Each subject was given the opportunity to perform the FSTs, the implied consent document was read, and the refusal was obtained
• it is strongly suggested that prosecutors and officers obtain a refusal before mentioning or seeking a search warrant

15 more annotations...

• Intelius is an information commerce company. It is the premier in the information commerce industry with innovating technologies to deliver information to the consumers online. Intelius offers predictive intelligence to help consumers and businesses making important everyday decisions. The Intelius website is in the top 100 commerce sites on the internet. It offers products and services from basic people search to HR background checks.

• a collection agent must stop calling a debtor by telephone and proceed only via mail if the debtor sends a cease and desist letter to the agency
• Collection agencies sometimes contact individuals other than the debtor and this is allowed only with important limitations. Under the FDCPA, a collector is permitted to call a neighbor or relative for help in locating the person who owes a debt as long as there is no communication about the debt. Collectors must state their name and must give the name of their employer if the person specifically asks. A collector may contact each person once, unless it is believed that the person gave the collector incorrect or incomplete information at the time, but now has complete or updated information
• Collectors may contact a debtor at the workplace unless the collector has been informed the employer prohibits such calls.^[6] When informed of this, the collector must cease all calls to ther debtors workplace immediately.
• In the United States under the FDCPA, anyone has the right for any reason to request, in writing, validation of the debt or to demand the collector cease communication.
• within the last seven years
• if a dispute regarding the validity of the debt is filed, an agency is prohibited from placing the debt on the debtors credit report, until the dispute is resolved and the debt is indeed verified as accurate

4 more annotations...

• s CEO Steve Frederickson
• Steven D. Fredrickson‎
   3208 Stapleford Chase
   Virginia Beach, VA 23452
   (801) 902-2429
• From Federal Trade Commission Website – FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

1 more annotation...