Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Privacy News Your Rights Online

Lawyers Using Databases To Grab Clients 319

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawyers Using Databases To Grab Clients

Comments Filter:
  • Ah... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:37PM (#8716761) Journal
    Capitalism at it's best.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:14PM (#8717222)
      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.
      • by ALpaca2500 ( 125123 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:45PM (#8717644) Homepage
        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
    • Re:Ah... (Score:5, Funny)

      by stilwebm ( 129567 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @03:43PM (#8718303)
      Capitalism at it's best.

      It's called a captive market.
  • by jolyonr ( 560227 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:37PM (#8716764) Homepage
    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
    • by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:44PM (#8716845) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • 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.

      • by ePhil_One ( 634771 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:32PM (#8717485) Journal
        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.

        • by danaris ( 525051 ) <danaris@m a c .com> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:58PM (#8717777) Homepage

          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

          • "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
          • 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

          • by sckeener ( 137243 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @04:54PM (#8719126)
            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.
        • 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.
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:37PM (#8716767) Homepage Journal
    Reminisent of North [imdb.com] (another Elijah Wood film) where Jon Lovitz plays North's lawyer [imdb.com], 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."

    • by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:50PM (#8716929) Homepage Journal
      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.

  • Using spam to punish criminals. Priceless!
    • by spoonyfork ( 23307 ) <spoonyfork@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:08PM (#8717151) Journal

      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.

      • by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:36PM (#8717531)

        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.

        • by kellman ( 8394 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @04:34PM (#8718859) Journal
          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 [bbc.co.uk].

          -- 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.

          • by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @04:55PM (#8719137)

            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 [timeswatch.org], 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?

          • 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 [theage.com.au]

            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 a
    • 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."

  • The saying ambulance chaser...

    C'mon folks...at least make the leeches work for their money..
  • by chrisopherpace ( 756918 ) <cpace@hnsNETBSDg.net minus bsd> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:39PM (#8716785) Homepage
    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!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:39PM (#8716790)
    To go to jail for spamming, and then get spammed by a lawyer?
  • ambulance chasers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chimpo13 ( 471212 ) <slashdot@nokilli.com> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:39PM (#8716791) Homepage Journal
    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...
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:39PM (#8716794)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • 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!
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • "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.
    • 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...
    • Bottom Line (Score:4, Interesting)

      by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:58PM (#8717021) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Re:Bottom Line (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:23PM (#8717352) Homepage Journal
          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.

          • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:39PM (#8717561)
            Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Re:Bottom Line (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Ironica ( 124657 )
            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
    • by rark ( 15224 )
      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 dry
  • by moviepig.com ( 745183 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:40PM (#8716800)
    Not only does money talk, it also listens.
  • Privacy Issue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:42PM (#8716822) Homepage Journal
    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???
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Re:Privacy Issue (Score:3, Interesting)

        by millahtime ( 710421 )
        "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.
        • Re:Privacy Issue (Score:4, Informative)

          by jmauro ( 32523 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:54PM (#8716983)
          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.
        • Re:Privacy Issue (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tanguyr ( 468371 )
          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
        • 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'.

      • Re:Privacy Issue (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mcmonkey ( 96054 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:05PM (#8717107) Homepage
        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.

      • 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.

      • Re:Privacy Issue (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:48PM (#8717673) Homepage Journal
        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.

  • by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:42PM (#8716828)
    Will this be a new punitive measure? "I hereby sentence you to six months in prison and one hundred pieces of spam."
  • by Minwee ( 522556 ) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:43PM (#8716835) Homepage
    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.
  • 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?
    • by Wun Hung Lo ( 702718 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:01PM (#8717063)
      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...
  • I used legalmatch.com [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.
    • "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???
  • by BradySama ( 755082 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:45PM (#8716872)
    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.
  • He was in a casino (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:46PM (#8716878) Journal
    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?
    • by forand ( 530402 )
      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, i
      • 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 fo
    • 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 t

    • 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
    • by faedle ( 114018 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:11PM (#8717185) Homepage Journal
      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.
  • by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:46PM (#8716884) Homepage Journal

    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

  • by marmot1101 ( 663704 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:50PM (#8716924)
    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.
  • First Spam (Score:3, Informative)

    by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:51PM (#8716945) Homepage Journal
    IIRC... the first spam was from a law firm...
  • Oh well. (Score:5, Funny)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:54PM (#8716974)
    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.

  • ...when you can chase paddy wagons instead? This redefines the term "captive clientele."
  • Titanic (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:58PM (#8717029)
    If the Titanic was loaded with lawyers, it wouldn't have been a disaster.
  • This is not so new (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nuggetboy ( 661501 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:59PM (#8717046) Homepage
    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).
  • by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:59PM (#8717047)
    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

  • I don't mind... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spoonyfork ( 23307 ) <spoonyfork@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:05PM (#8717102) Journal
    ... 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?

    • "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...
    • Re:I don't mind... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @03:59PM (#8718486) Journal
      ... 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 [jerf.org].

      (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.)
  • by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:05PM (#8717111) Homepage
    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.
  • by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:06PM (#8717116)
    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.
    • 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.

  • by Shoten ( 260439 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:09PM (#8717159)
    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. :)
  • by painehope ( 580569 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:10PM (#8717177)
    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 ).
  • by JediLuke ( 57867 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:17PM (#8717245) Homepage
    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.
  • by cliveholloway ( 132299 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:25PM (#8717387) Homepage Journal
    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 ;-)
  • by StressGuy ( 472374 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @02:50PM (#8717695)
    "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

  • by HungWeiLo ( 250320 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @03:02PM (#8717818)
    SELECT vehicles FROM tbl_People WHERE ID='ambulance' AND country='US'
  • my experience (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SparkMan ( 4115 ) * on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @03:10PM (#8717943)
    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.
    • Re:my experience (Score:4, Informative)

      by Down8 ( 223459 ) <(Down8) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @03:22PM (#8718084) Homepage
      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
  • by Miara ( 724648 ) <miara2003NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @04:27PM (#8718773)
    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?
  • losing the point. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by darkonc ( 47285 ) <stephen_samuel@b ... m ['gre' in gap]> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @05:23PM (#8719444) Homepage Journal
    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.

"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." -- Nikita Khrushchev

Working...