Celebrating the New Year is one of the most exciting ways to send off the old year and ring in a new one, and 2013 is no exception! While consuming alcohol can help to make your new year celebration noteworthy, we at SFT Lawyers want to ensure that it is a safe one. Please feel free to use our Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Calculator before you get on the road.
No one wants to start off the new year in a jail cell because of driving under the influence (DUI). Be smart, be safe, and enjoy!
So what is all the buzz about concerning Indiana’s new “Second Chance Act”, and what does that mean for me?
Well the short answer is that since July 1, 2012, those old convictions for past mistakes won’t haunt you for the rest of your life. Potential employers shouldn’t be able to punish you after you have paid your debt to society through fulfilling your obligations such as criminal confinement, community service, substance or domestic violence classes, or the like. The new law allows two (2) new post-conviction relief remedies for past offenders who have stayed on the straight and narrow since being convicted: 1. You can have your D Felony reduced and entered as a Class A Misdemeanor, making you a non-felon and restoring your right to vote, right to serve on a jury, and your right to possess a firearm. 2. Also, you can have your D Felony or Misdemeanor charges sealed from potential employers attempting to run a background check prior to employment.
This gives you and opportunity to start with a clean slate for 2013, and obtain that job you always wanted but were afraid to apply for out of fear that they would discover your past indiscretions. It might also give you the opportunity to go hunting, serve on a jury, or vote.
SFT Lawyers is one of the first law firms in Indiana to jump on board and assist you in putting your criminal record behind you. Call for a FREE CONSULTATION today! (219) 841-5683.
Mortgage companies are comprised of persons like you and me performing for the company and for their family and friends. All employees certainly make mistakes. But if you call a mortgage company and speak with their customer service departments about overpayment of the real estate taxes from their escrow account (which may not be located within the United States), they may not ever have heard of such a problem. As trained they may even respond to you indignantly, shocked that you would have the audacity to accuse them of an error. Well, I have to share one such anecdote with our readers which tells a very compelling story about one particular mortgage company’s arrogance:
1. Fall 2010 – [unnamed] Mortgage Company timely receives notification to update changes in tax records in order that property tax payments can be made accurately on behalf of all mortgagors including Client, but ignores advice before property tax deadline.
2. Fall 2010 – [unnamed] Mortgage Company makes payment for property taxes from Client’s escrow account and applies payment to wrong property due to Mortgage Company’s failure to act on correspondence from treasurer’s office. Neighbor’s taxes are paid but Client’s property taxes are not paid.
3. Spring 2011 – #2 repeats, and another payment is incorrectly applied to wrong property. Client’s property taxes are not paid, but neighbors are from Client’s escrow account.
4. Spring 2011 – Incorrect payments made are charged to Client’s escrow account. Penalties and interest in excess of $4,300 are assessed against Client’s property due to nonpayment of property taxes, but are paid by mortgage company. Excess is charged to Client’s escrow account by Mortgage Company, tripling Client’s mortgage payment (which Client can’t afford to pay) due to error committed two (2) years running by mortgage company.
5. Fall 2012 – Client receives notice of increased mortgage payment. Client calls Mortgage Company customer service located in India. Mortgage Company representative arrogantly blames the County treasurer’s office, initiates foreclosure on Client’s property. Client has seven (7) small children.
6. December 2012 – SFT Lawyers enters as counsel for Client and files lawsuit for breach of contract, mental and emotional damages and medical bills on Client’s behalf against Mortgage Company and will not stop until Mortgage Company pays dearly for its mistake and withdraws any attempt to foreclose on its mortgage.
If something like this has happened to you, you need representation from real lawyers who understand the common mistakes that mortgage companies make. SFT Lawyers has a number of lawyers who are experienced in making mortgage companies pay for their mistakes. CALL TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION. (219) 841-5683.
Previously on SFTLaw Blog, we posted an article entitled, “Indiana’s ‘Second Chance Act’ Can Provide Relief From Past Mistakes” describing the process and standard for receiving relief from past indiscretions, including criminal record sealing and D Felony reduction.
SFT Lawyers is one of the few law firms in Indiana that began taking these cases the day the law became effective, July 1, 2012. At this point, we have handled over two dozen such cases. While we have had to personally attend hearings in some of these cases, I am finding that most judges are at least open to granting these petitions without even holding a formal hearing. In an overwhelming majority of my cases, so long as the client qualifies under the statute per legal analysis, and so long as the client presented me with the complete truth, I have been able to reduce and seal nearly all of the convictions that I have been hired to address. In fact, recently I have observed that mechanisms are in place to quickly get the records sealed–even within days of the order being issued by the court!
What is highly rewarding about these cases is that the clients who qualify have already successfully completed our criminal justice system, and by definition have not committed any additional offenses. This is what our system is principally designed to do–to rehabilitate offenders, and to discourage them from re-offending. I believe that giving past offenders a reward for their compliance is long overdue. I applaud the Indiana General Assembly for passing such a measure and I commend this attitude toward those who have paid their criminal debts. Simply being an offender shouldn’t stigmatize someone for life for a single momentary lapse of reason.
This does not stand to say that there aren’t those in the system that belong behind bars. I think the statute, itself, provides for that. It provides a screening mechanism to determine which criminal offenders are most likely to re-offend, or which offenders create a danger to the general public. Most all of those who are compliant and who do not pose such a threat are given a proper–and well deserved–second chance. I think the current law does an effective job of distinguishing these types of offenders.
That being said, the private reporting agencies that have profited for so long doing criminal record searches are stark raving mad over this new law. They have filed various lawsuits challenging the law’s constitutionality and validity, and they ardently want the law struck down or repealed by almost any means necessary. I personally hope that, instead, the folks in this line of work simply close up show and find something else to do. There are much more productive things to produce in our economy that to ensure that offenders are haunted by their past mistakes forever.
I have found this to be the most exciting area of my practice, and I encourage readers who may qualify to give us a call for a FREE CONSULTATION. SFT Lawyers can help you get that well-deserved second chance. (219) 841-5683.
We would like to extend a special thank you to all who have served on reserve or active duty in the United States Marine Corps, the United States Army, the United States Navy, the United States Air Force, the United States Coast Guard, or in the many state National Guards throughout our great Nation!
SFT Lawyers prides itself on serving those who have served in the United States Armed Forces. Not only do we employ many attorneys and staff who have given military service to their country, we seek out veterans and their families to help them with the many legal issues that they may find themselves in, even if they are without the means to afford an attorney.
Not only have we represented veterans in receiving veterans’ benefits, but we have assisted veterans in nearly every area of the law, including criminal law, family law, or starting a business, to name a few. We have a veteran friendly practice here, and we pride ourselves on serving those who have served.
If you or someone you know is a veteran and needs legal assistance, please CONTACT US or call (219) 841-5683 for a FREE CONSULTATION.
SFT Lawyers is looking to add the right person to our exceptional legal team!
This is an entry level position, and prior experience is not necessary. A positive attitude, strong organization skills, customer service skills and dependability are a must. Someone who is a quick learner and self-starter is a plus. Duties include typing, answering phones, client contact and correspondence, scheduling, coordinating calendars, and billing.
Interested applicants may contact us to cut/paste a resume or call (219) 841-5683 for any questions regarding the position.
Employers Asking for Facebook Login Info…?
You’ve finally landed that “big interview” for your dream job. You’ve worked hard and gone to school, pressed your suit, researched the company, polished your resume, and you’re on the way. Everything is going great, but during the interview, the interviewer tells you, that as a condition of employment, you must provide them with your Facebook login & password, and they’ll get back to you if they feel you’re the right candidate for the job. Could this open the door to Employment Discrimination and violations of privacy?
The Situation
Over the last year, there has been a disturbing increase in reports of employers asking potential job applicants and current employees for their Facebook and other social media site login credentials. The employers rationale for the request, is typically to take a look at the employee or job candidate’s pictures and profile updates, to ensure what the candidate/employee tells the employer is the same as what they portray to the rest of the world, to ensure the candidate is a good fit for the company (ie not a drunk), and to follow up on employees to verify whether or not the employee is saying anything inappropriate about the company. Armed with this information, an employer could make better hiring decisions and release any bad employees.
However, an employer with Facebook login credentials, would have access to specific information it would normally not be allowed to ask for from an employee or job candidate, such as: Race, Gender, Religion, National Origin, Age, Familial Status, Disability Status, Genetic Information, and other information a person would consider private such as political affiliation. An employer would be able to side-step laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), such as: The Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination & Employment Act, Equal Pay Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Veteran Status Laws, Genetic Nondiscrimination Act, and other laws shielding protected classes.
Imagine, after the interview, the employer explores your Facebook account and
discovers that you follow a specific religion that has historically clashed with
his/her own religion or that you’ve been divorced and have a mixed-race child or
that you suffer from a disability such as multiple sclerosis and perhaps he/she
discovers your sexual orientation or political affiliation, all of which he/she
wouldn’t be allowed to ask you for, and then decides not to hire you because of
one of these factors discovered on your private Facebook page. If this happened,
there would be no way of discovering that an act of employment discrimination
took place, because it’s unlikely the employer is going to write down what they
saw or admit to discriminating on that basis.
In addition to protected class information, an employer with access to a private Facebook page would have access to private/confidential communications such as emails and instant messages that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to obtain. The risk of an employer seeing this information not only violates personal privacy but could also lead to the employer developing a negative opinion of the job applicant or employee because he/she read erroneous information or viewed information in the wrong context.
Is It Legal?
The mere act of a current or potential employer asking for social media “Login Info” is not itself, illegal. However, asking for specific protected information is illegal, and having the private access to a social media account, merely allows the employer to obtain the protected information, without actually asking for it specifically.
Additionally, an employer who fires an employee for failing to provide Facebook login credentials could be liable for wrongful termination and find themselves at the bad end of a lawsuit and suffering from public embarrassment. However, it is not as clear if a potential employer would be liable for refusing to hire a person who refused to provide Facebook Login credentials.
Facebook has stated, “that you shouldn’t have to worry that your private information or communications will be revealed to someone you don’t know and didn’t intend to share with just because that user is looking for a job. That’s why we’ve made it a violation of Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to share or solicit a Facebook password.” Erin Egan, Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook, has suggested that Facebook, will sue employers who ask for the login credentials of employees and potential job applicants because it violates Facebook’s Statement of Rights & Responsibilities. Though it is not clear, if Facebook will have standing to bring such suits.
Legislators, in the State of Maryland have recently passed a law, which went into effect October 1st , that banned employers from asking employees and job applicants for login credentials to their social media accounts. Additionally, many other states are considering similar legislation; the issue has even managed to grab the attention of U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), who have asked the EEOC and the DOJ to investigate this unsavory practice, in addition to introducing a piece of legislation titled “The Password Protection Act of 2012“, which aims to update the law, by providing better protection.
No career field has been exempt from this type intrusion; recently, some law students have reported requests for their Facebook login credentials during their “Character & Fitness Interviews”, where they are required to receive a favorable opinion from their interviewer, as a requirement to take the bar exam. The pressure to provide the login credentials would be overwhelming to say the least.
author: Blake N. Dahl, Esq – SFT Lawyers, LLP © 2012
If you or someone you know believe you have been a victim of employment discrimination or wrongful termination, regarding your social media accounts, contact an attorney at SFT Lawyers, LLP, 251 Indiana Ave, Valparaiso, IN 46383 (219) 841-5683.
From the creation of our Democracy, it was one of the most fundamental and important concepts that the government cannot search your person or effects only in the most limited circumstances. Citizens have the right to refuse the government to search their persons, homes, vehicles, and property unless certain requirements are met. In Indiana, this standard is established by the Indiana Constitution, Article I, Section 11, and is called “reasonable suspicion“. The Federal Constitutional requirement created by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights (which is more commonly known) is called “probable cause“. Although some cases suggest that “reasonable suspicion” may be a slightly higher standard than the federal standard, they are often used and treated interchangeably.
The bottom line is–you have the right not to have yourself or your property searched. You can even reasonably resist where you reasonably believe that a search is illegal, that is, where law enforcement lacks sufficient reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. (This does not include the use of deadly force.)
One hot topic in this area of the law is a former common law exception to the probable cause requirement called, “search incident to arrest”. These searches, according to a case entitled New York v. Belton and Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), were permissible without probable cause where the suspect was arrested. The exception in this case was drawn to be so wide that there did not need to be any connection between the crime the suspect was arrested for and the probable cause for the search. In other words, when a person was arrested for any reason whatsoever, his vehicle could be searched for any and all contraband, and whatever was discovered could be used in court against the suspect/defendant. This rule was premised on “officer safety” and the nature of the mobility of automobiles, which was highly criticized by Justice Scalia in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
Arizona v. Gant involved a defendant who was arrested and charged with driving on a suspended driver’s license. Police arrested Gant in a friend’s yard after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away. Gant and all other suspects on the scene were then secured in police patrol cars. The officers then searched Gant’s vehicle and found a weapon and a bag of cocaine. Gant was charged with possession for the found effects.
In Gant, the United States Supreme Court ruled that 1) Belton does not permit a search incident to arrest after the arrestee has been secured, and 2) in order to conduct a lawful search incident to arrest, an officer must have a reasonable belief that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle. In the particular case, Gant was arrested for driving while suspended. So, the Court held that the search was illegal because it wasn’t related to the reason for his arrest.
If you feel that you have been the subject of an illegal search, the criminal defense attorneys at SFT Lawyers can help! CALL FOR A FREE CONSULTATION. (219) 841-5683.
In the 2011-2012 Session of the Indiana General Assembly, Public Law 69-2012 was passed allowing D felons to reduce their past mistakes and have them entered as Class A Misdemeanors. (See new I.C. s 35-50-2-7).
In order to reduce a Class D Felony conviction and have it entered as a Class A Misdemeanor:
1. The offense cannot be of a sexual or violent nature (as defined in I.C. 11-8-8-5);
2. The offense did not result in bodily injury to another person;
3. The offense did not involve perjury or official misconduct.
4. At least three (3) years must have passed since the sentence was completed (if any);
5. At least three (3) years must have passed since any other obligations were satisfied; and
6. The defendant has no pending criminal charges.
If you meet these criteria and would like to have your Class D Felony conviction reduced to a Class A Misdemeanor in Indiana, SFT Lawyers can help! CALL FOR FREE CONSULTATION! (219) 841-5683
It is a well established moral principle that debtors should be responsible to creditors for financial obligations. It even dates back to Mosaic times, and perhaps even before. That being said, however, Congress as well as state legislatures across the country have limited circumstances in which debtors are liable to creditors, and placed limitations on the ways in which creditors can collect debts. It’s the law.
Law protecting debtors has five (5) main sources:
- The Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA is far too complex and lengthy for this type of blog post, but I can break it down in summary fashion. The objective of the legislation is to put in place procedural mechanisms that prevent creditors from unnecessarily harassing debtors, and to require creditors to allow debtors to dispute debts prior to filing a lawsuit. According to the FDCPA, if a creditor does not send a letter at least 30 days prior to filing a lawsuit giving the debtor an opportunity to dispute the creditor’s claim, the creditor can be counter-sued in the underlying claim for an amount up to and including $1,000.00 for the reimbursement of attorney fees incurred to enforce the violation, and the action for collection can be dismissed entirely as a result. The FDCPA also provides that when a debtor files bankruptcy and provides notice to the creditor of the proceedings, the creditor MUST immediately refrain from any attempt to collect the debt. The same remedy applies here.
- State Exemption Laws and Trial Rules. In almost every state, debtors are entitled to certain “necessities of life” and certain assets are exempt from actions to collect on debts. In Indiana, this is even written into our state Constitution. Article 1, Section 22, of the Indiana Constitution states: “The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life, shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale, for the payment of any debt or liability hereafter contracted: and there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud.” To enforce this, the Indiana General Assembly enacted I.C. 24-4.5-5-105which limits the amount of one’s wages that are subject to garnishment. The Statute provides that a creditor may take the lesser of twenty five percent (25%) of a person’s “disposable income” or that amount that exceeds thirty (30) times the prescribed minimum wage. In addition, a person’s equity in his/her residential family dwelling is protected up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), tangible personal property up to eight thousand dollars ($8,000) and intangible personal property, e.g. checking accounts, up to three hundred dollars ($300).
- Federal Exemption Law for Federal Benefits. Under Federal law, benefits such as Social Security Disability and Veterans’ Benefits are exempt from garnishment or collection. These are exempt assets and cannot be touched by any creditor.
- Federal Bankruptcy Law. The “Automatic Stay” is a stay on any and all actions to collect a debt. A creditor must cease any and all such actions immediately upon receiving notice that the debtor has filed a bankruptcy petition with the federal bankruptcy court. (As mentioned above, the FDCPA enacted provisions enforcing the automatic stay.)
- State Common Law (judicial precedent). In Indiana, there are two (2) main cases on point. The first is Kirk v. Monroe County Tire, 585 N.E.2d 1366 (Ind. App. 1 Dist 1992). In Kirk, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that in order to conduct more than a single (1) proceeding supplemental (an equitable action in which a creditor seeks to determine the repayment of a judgment debt by questioning a debtor about non-exempt assets) 1) the subject of the subsequent action(s) must involve different property of the debtor; 2) a different issue is being presented; 3) different evidence is necessary to support the allegations in both proceedings; or 4) a different party is involved than in previous proceeding(s). In Branham v. Varble, 937, N.E.2d 340 (Ind. App. 2010) the Indiana Court of Appeals reasoned that a small claims judge abused his discretion in granting an increase in garnishment pursuant to a proceeding supplemental after an order for garnishment had already been entered. This was later reversed by the Indiana Supreme Court. Basically, however, these two cases stand for the proposition that creditors cannot use the proceedings supplemental process to harass debtors into making payments from exempt income or assets.
A major problem with the collections process that I have noticed in my experience is that, contrary to Indiana Constitution, Article I, Section 22, warrants are frequently issued for debtors’ arrests. Technically speaking, the warrants are for the debtors’ failure to appear in court as ordered, but for all intents and purposes, it is used as leverage by creditors to further harass debtors into paying their debts, regardless of non-exempt property. In my estimation, approximately ninety percent (90%) of debtors fail to appear for one part of the collection process or another. In fact, if all (or even a substantial cross section) of debtors did appear, it would bring the small claims system to a crashing halt. The system is designed for debtors not to appear, and the final result is to usurp the Indiana Constitution, and for creditors to ultimately get what they desire–‘their’ money.
The law here is well established and fairly clear. The courts should take the next steps to enforce the law, but unfortunately, that has not been my experience. In the end, the system is set up to heavily favor creditors. This may be because creditors make up an overwhelming majority (and therefore end up paying for courts to operate) of small claims cases. Often, creditors will file thousands of cases per month. At ninety dollars ($90.00) each, this results in large sums of money going to support the overhead required to operate a small claims court. Regardless of the economics, however, the average person is at a huge disadvantage once a collection action has been filed.
The attorneys at SFT Lawyers can represent you to ensure your rights are protected! CALL TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION. (219) 841-5683.
