Searching Cell And Smart Phones Requires A Warrant In PA

April 3, 2015/in Pennsylvania Law /by DRK Attorneys

In 2015, most people in North America carry some type of mobile device with them on a daily basis. Whether your device is a basic cellphone or a deluxe smartphone there is a plethora of information about you, your contacts and your activities contained within the device. A recent criminal case in California ultimately resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court declaring its position on the special distinction cell and smartphones hold as devices with immense data and personal information storage capabilities.

Reference To The American Revolution

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Roberts noted that a key impetus of the American Revolution was the revulsion against “general warrants”. The colonial era tactic known as serving general warrants, “allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity.”

Chief Justice Roberts succinctly summarized the basis of the court’s opinion by drawing the connection to the sanctity of one’s personal information in the United States, regardless of era. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand,” the chief justice also wrote, “does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the founders fought.”

Technology Enables Law Enforcement To Obtain Warrants Faster

The Chief Justice also noted in his opinion that technology now makes it easier and faster for obtaining search warrants. With the use of email and tablet computers, law enforcement can in some cases obtain a search warrant in under thirty minutes.

No Warrant, No Access

If you are detained by law enforcement, they can not review the contents of your cell or smartphone without first obtaining a warrant.

All of the criminal defense attorneys at DRK Lawyers are former assistant district attorneys. We understand criminal cases and defense from both sides of the courtroom. We use our trial experience and knowledge of the government’s tactics to help defend our clients every day in the state of Pennsylvania. If you are facing criminal charges, please contact our team today. There is no charge for your initial consultation.

Foreclosure Fraud In Pennsylvania: Are Your Documents Legal?

April 1, 2015/in Federal Fraud, Pennsylvania Law /by DRK Attorneys

If you are contending with a notice of foreclosure it is important to first determine if your mortgage documents are legitimate. Since the housing market collapse in 2009, it has been become public knowledge that many mortgage lenders cut corners and even broke the law in the rush to cash in during the home buying boom.

Banks And Lenders Created Fraudulent Documents

In many cases, banks were doing business at such break neck speeds that there were serious process mistakes made that resulted in incorrect and technically invalid documents being created and issued to consumers and other lenders. This could have happened in a variety of ways and can have a serious impact on consumer’s ability to fight a foreclosure case. Some examples of lender misconduct include robo-signing, defective transfers, and inaccurate documentation to the extent that it renders the documents in question invalid.

Robo-Signing

Robo-signing is the practice of having documents signed and notarized by a computer. It may sound harmless, but in the case of mortgage documents this practice is actually illegal. By law mortgage documents are required to be signed by an actual person, not a computer program, and to witnessed and signed in front of a notary.

MERS

MERS is an acronym for the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. This is an electronic tracking system that resulted in a great deal of confusion as to who actually owned the loans that were being tracked and transferred via MERS.

There was such an enormous amount of activity, first during the boom when the loans were created and again during the bust as loans were re-sold and transferred, that many loans were not transferred correctly or were improperly securitized. Many banks and lenders cut corners and failed to obtain the proper paperwork when they initiated the transfer.

No Legal Standing To Foreclose

In many instances where the loan transfer was not legal; the wrong party is attempting to foreclose. Such parties who bring suits find out that they do not have legal standing and must drop the case. In other cases, the bank may not actually possess the physical documents of your loan and mortgage and as such, they have no legal standing to foreclose on the property in question. Some courts have invalidated the mortgage and dismissed the bank’s claim entirely.

Predatory Lending

Predatory lending is the act of giving loans to borrowers under false pretenses; knowing that borrower would never be able to repay. Some potentially illegal actions that lenders were known to engage in include:

Artificially increasing the value of the home
Submitting altered docs to misrepresent down payments
Taking actions to secure loans for people under circumstances that were less than honest

In such cases, the loans that were originated might have been invalid from inception.

At DRK law offices we have experienced attorneys available to consult with you about your foreclosure proceedings. There is no time to waste when you are fighting a foreclosure notice, please contact our team today.

Pennsylvania Father Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter In Daughter’s Auto Accident

March 26, 2015/in Auto Accident, Manslaughter, Pennsylvania Law /by DRK Attorneys

A devastating automobile accident over Labor Day weekend left three teenagers dead and the father of the car’s driver contending with involuntary manslaughter charges. A New York City area family with a vacation house in the Poconos is at the center of this tragic situation.

The car’s driver is allegedly a fifteen year old girl without a driver’s license or even a learner’s permit. It is alleged that the fifteen year old driver was allowed by her father to drive from the NYC area to the Poconos on the day preceding the deadly accident.

Learner’s Permit Requirements In Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, teen drivers must be aged at least sixteen years to be eligible to obtain a learner’s permit. Additionally, learner’s permit drivers are allowed to operate the vehicle only if there is someone aged twenty one or older in the car. Additionally, there may not be anyone in the car other than an immediate family member(s). The rules for learner’s permits are similar in New York State with sixteen being the minimum age required to be eligible for a permit.

Aggravated Misdemeanor

By allowing his fifteen year old daughter to operate any vehicle on a public road, the father was in violation of the law and in commission of what is known as an aggravated misdemeanor. Had the daughter been pulled over on the drive from NYC or at any time when she was behind the wheel the father most likely would have been charged as such. The question of whether or not the girl was speeding or driving recklessly would not come into play because without a permit or a license, she is simply not permitted by law to drive. As such, even if there had not been an accident, both the daughter and the father would have still been in violation of the law.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Tragically, in this case, there was an accident and three teenagers lost their lives when the fifteen year old driver flipped her father’s SUV. She was allegedly speeding and other passengers in the car did request that she slow down. Although her father was not in the vehicle at the time, he was charged with involuntary manslaughter due to the fact that he was the owner of the SUV and allegedly gave his daughter permission to drive the car on the day the accident occurred.

A parent can face criminal charges stemming from the actions of their minor child in their absence if it is determined that they gave permission to the child or provided the means the child employed while in commission of violating the law.

Separate Defense Teams

Most likely in this case, the father and daughter will have separate defense teams. These legal teams will mount defenses that will most likely be in conflict with each other. The father’s team has already claimed that their client did not give his daughter permission to drive the SUV on the day the accident happened. The daughter’s defense team will most likely claim that the girl’s father did indeed give her permission to drive the SUV on the day in question.

If it can be proven that result of the person’s action was the cause of somebody else’s death than a conviction on an involuntary manslaughter charge is a likely result.