Michigan drunk driving accident Attorney receives messages, the drunk driving fatalities decreased

Michigan drunk driving accident Attorney receives messages, the drunk driving fatalities decreased

Our Michigan drunk accident drive, the lawyers who look exciting news that they receive from mothers against drunk driving (MADD) this morning. Drunk driving fatalities have dropped to their lowest level on record!

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration drunk driving fatalities 10.839 are loud death appeal to a seven percent decline in 2009! This means for MADD, is their efforts have not unnoticed or to lose. This decline means in fact that deaths have been cut by about half of as MADD was founded 30 years ago and almost 20 percent of the campaign to eliminate drunk driving four years before. This means that 300,000 lives have been saved!

The Michigan drunk driving accident lawyers of Buckfire & Buckfire MADD all their efforts to support and will continue to be a proud supporter of the organization. We see the result of auto accidents every day by our clients and know how serious the injuries, which can be created from these accidents. Drunken driving is a serious crime and is good news to know that the number of drunk driving fatalities is declining.

Victims of drunk drivers by have rights. If you or a family member drunk driving motor-vehicle accident injuries as a result of Michigan suffer, please contact our Office now at (800) 606-1717 , to speak with an experienced lawyer about your case.

With drunk driving accident Attorney and writer Daniel L. Buckfire on your rights to drunk Michigan drive action to no obligation advice pronounce you free of charge, call him at (800) 606-1717 .

One comment to "Michigan drunk driving accident Attorney receives messages, the drunk driving fatalities declined"

Message:

Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.

Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the following field: [If you can't read the text, press F5]


View the original article here

Supreme Court: privacy of text messages? You got to be kidding!

Supreme Court: privacy of text messages? You got to be kidding!

The Supreme Court of the United States, hear a case next year in which this question answered:

If your employer, you send a mobile phone/pager questions and you on your personal messages, do you have an expectation of privacy?

My answer: "damn no!"

Apparently was a police officer in Ontario, California his pager use, send to Secually explicit e-Mails to his girlfriend. His boss found out and bad things happened.

His argument? "I had to numbers on the personal messages... so I expect that she would be private?"

This argument makes sense on any level. How, exactly, he thought that anyone would ever be able to decide, what "personally" was and what "work related?"

Well... as is the case get there? The 9th Circuit Court of appeals...(a circuit that contains California) decided that the search violated the fourth amendment explicit private emails after this guy.

My prediction: slam dunk-reversal and a clear decision that if the fight were you with your employer you are lose your job.

One comment to "Supreme Court: privacy of text messages?" "You got to be kidding!"

Message:

Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.

Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]


View the original article here

Supreme Court: privacy of text messages? You got to be kidding!

Supreme Court: privacy of text messages? You got to be kidding!

The Supreme Court of the United States a case hear next year, in which answered this question:

If your employer, you send a mobile phone/pager questions and you on your personal messages, do you have an expectation of privacy?

My answer: "Heck no!"

Apparently was a police officer in Ontario, California his pager use, emails explicit to Secually send to his girlfriend. His boss found out and bad things happened.

His argument? "I had to numbers on the personal messages... so I expected that she would be private?"

This argument makes sense on any level. How, exactly, he thought that anyone would ever be able to decide what was "personally" and what "work related?"

Now... as is the case get there? The 9th Circuit Court of appeals...(a circuit that contains California) decided that the search violated the fourth amendment explicit private E-mail to this guy.

My prediction: Slam dunk-reversal and a clear decision, that if you fight with what your employer gave you, you are to your job will lose.

One comment to "Supreme Court: privacy of text messages?" "You got to be kidding!"

Message:

Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.

For security purposes, you give the graphic text in the box below: [press F5 if you can't read the text]


View the original article here