Author Archive

Jun
18

Employers seeking applicants’ social media passwords are up against some big opponents. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has publicly announced their opinion against employers seeking applicants’ Facebook passwords. Some states are also taking a stand against these employers.

A number of states have proposed legislation which would make asking applicants and employees for their social media passwords illegal. The lawmakers introducing these bills have called the practice an “infringement on constitutional rights,” akin to “asking an employee for a date,” and “an egregious privacy violation” similar to “requiring someone’s house keys.”

States that have either considered proposing or already proposed legislation include California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Michigan. In Minnesota, Republicans Sen. Sean Nienow and Rep. Mary Franson have proposed similar legislation. The states have faced understandable opposition from the business community, arguing the practice is not widespread. Legislators in California admitted their bill is preventative; it was not introduced in response to a high number of complaints.

In Maryland, a bill has passed the General Assembly, and is waiting for the Governor’s signature. It is the first state with similar legislation to reach this far. The Maryland bill faced similar opposition from the business community, where opponents argued the business reasons for seeking this information far outweighed any potential privacy concerns with information publicly available on the Internet. Other companies argue that this information is necessary because the nature of their business involves confidential information. The Maryland Division of Corrections, whose actions seeking passwords prompted the legislation, noted that a number of applicants were rejected for employment because their Facebook pages indicated gang affiliation.

Employers must stay on top of state legislation addressing this issue, particularly if their business requires more extensive background checks of employees.

May
21

Employers have certain restrictions on what they can and cannot ask in interviews.  They cannot ask specific questions of an applicant regarding his or her marital status, age, religion, or if they are planning to have children.  Recently, however, some employers have sought information from applicants which many see as an invasion of privacy and even illegal – the applicants’ Facebook passwords.

With social media becoming such an integral part of our lives, employers are starting to seek information about their applicants’ and employees’ social media presence.  Much of this information is public.  What is not public can sometimes be gained by an insider at the company, be it a friend who allows the employers to view the applicant’s page, or a Human Resource director who adds an applicant as a friend.  Some employers are going further, asking applicants for their log-in information, or asking them to log-in, right there in the interview.

The practice has been linked to a story published last year, in which an applicant to the Maryland Division of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSCS) was asked for his log-in information.  The applicant provided the information because he needed the job.  Many opponents to this practice argue the economy puts many applicants in the same position, turning the practice into something less voluntary, as employers argue.  While this practice has been suspended by DPSCS, it drew significant attention from employee advocates, including the ACLU and the federal government.

After these stories broke, Facebook warned employers that accessing applicant and employee accounts to check private information is potentially illegal.  Facebook representatives note that providing others with personal log-in information is a violation of their privacy terms which all users agree to when they sign up for an account.  Erin Egan, Facebook chief privacy officer recently wrote a lengthy blog post against the practice.

It is important that employers understand that there may be significant legal consequences for requesting an applicant’s or employee’s social media passwords.  Our experienced attorneys can help employers establish best practices for legally identifying and addressing problem applicants and employees.

Mar
16

In addition to the numerous criminal and administrative consequences which result from a DWI conviction, a consequence which can be detrimental to a person who travels for business or leisure has recently become a bit easier to overcome.

Until recently, any person with a DWI conviction was barred from entering the country for a period of time after the conviction. The bar has caused thousands of dollars in lost revenue for the country’s tourism industry, as many people were unaware of it until they were forced to cancel their plans after being stopped at the border.

Beginning March 1, those with one minor conviction may apply for a free Temporary Resident Permit. This option has been available for some time, however the process has been made shorter and cheaper. The option is available to those with a DWI conviction, if it is the only conviction on the person’s record.

Some good news!

Mar
14

One of the first questions an attorney will ask when a person meets with them regarding a DWI arrest is: do you have any priors? This is because a DWI is what is called an “enhanceable offense.” This means that certain factors, called “aggravating factors” make a DWI arrest more severe than it would otherwise be.

Aggravating factors include:

  • Prior qualified impaired driving incident within 10 years;
  • A blood alcohol level (BAC) of 0.20 or more upon arrest;
  • A child under 16 in the car at the time of arrest.

Aggravating factors determine which of the four tiers of DWI offenses a person is charged with:

  • Fourth-Degree DWI: Misdemeanor offense, with a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. This is charged when a person commits a DWI with no aggravating factors.
  • Third-Degree DWI: Gross misdemeanor offense, with a maximum penalty of one year in jail and/or a $3,000 fine. This is charged when a person commits a DWI with one aggravating factor, or when a person refuses to submit to testing. Based solely on prior convictions with no other aggravating factors, this would be a second DWI within a ten year period.
  • Second-Degree DWI: Also a gross misdemeanor offense, with the same maximum penalty as a third-degree DWI. While the maximum penalty is the same as a third-degree DWI, there are certain minimum penalties imposed, which are greater than those for a third-degree. This is charged when a person commits a DWI with two aggravating factors, or when a person refuses to submit to chemical testing and there is one aggravating factor present. Based solely on priors with no other aggravating factors, this would be a third DWI within a ten year period.
  • First-Degree DWI: Felony level offense, with a maximum penalty of seven years in prison and/or a $14,000 fine. This is charged when a person commits his or her fourth or more qualified impaired driving incident within a ten year period, his or her second or more felony DWI, or has previously been convicted of certain crimes involving injury or death while impaired by a substance. Based solely on priors, this would be a fourth DWI within a ten year period.

If you are arrested for DWI and you know that your record includes a prior DWI, it is important to speak with an attorney regarding your rights and the consequences that you may be facing.

Mar
13

Arguably the most common question asked of criminal defense attorneys handling DWI cases is: should I take the test? When a person is stopped by an officer on suspicion of a DWI, a number of tests are performed.

The most important answer to this question is: refusing to test is a crime. If you are arrested for DWI, brought to the station, and asked to take a blood, breath, or urine test, you cannot refuse all three or you could be charged with a gross misdemeanor. If you are asked to submit to a blood test and you refuse, but you are not offered an alternative, you cannot be charged with refusal until you are offered an alternative which you also refuse.

The three important parts of interaction with the police in a DWI investigation are as follows: the stop, the arrest, and the subsequent test. In order for police to pull over a car, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. This may be as innocuous as speeding, or as dangerous as swerving or driving on the wrong side of the road.

Next, before an officer can arrest a person, he or she must have probable cause to arrest. This is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, and can be obtained in a number of ways. The officer may ask the person to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) or may ask him or her to perform field sobriety tests (one leg stand, horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk and turn test, etc), which may provide the officer with probable cause to believe the person was driving, in operation, or in physical control of the vehicle while intoxicated. An odor of alcohol, watery and bloodshot eyes, or other physical signs of intoxication may also contribute to probable cause.

Finally, the officer will take the driver to the station and ask him or her to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test. Refusing to take any of these tests is a gross misdemeanor. No attorney can advise you not to take the test because advising you not to take the test would be advising you to commit a crime, which no attorney can ethically do.

Mar
12

Many individuals facing criminal charges ask this question, either because they believe their charge is not very serious, or they believe they cannot afford private representation. The answer to their question is often “it depends.”

Even if a person is simply charged with speeding, they may be required to appear in court. Even in these simple cases, court hearings can be complicated and an attorney can help navigate these hearings on your behalf, and can use their experience to attempt to have your charges dismissed, or negotiate either a lesser penalty or a plea bargain to keep your record cleaner.

The complexity of the charge may also be a factor. For example, if you did not have current proof of insurance with you when you were pulled over for speeding, often times you will be able to contest this charge yourself. On the other hand, a first time DWI offense includes administrative consequence in addition to criminal penalties, which an attorney can help you navigate.

While these charges above may or may not require the services of an attorney, a gross misdemeanor charge includes more complicated court hearings and the potential for one year in jail and/or a $3,000 fine. A common gross misdemeanor is a DWI charge within 10 years of one prior DWI conviction. A felony charge is greater than a gross misdemeanor, and comes with the potential for more than one year in prison and/or a higher fine. In either of these, consulting with an attorney is essential to help navigate the system as well as negotiate lesser penalties.

Mar
12

Welcome to the SeilerSchindel Criminal Law Blog Series. In this series, we will look at some of the common issues confronted by our clients and discuss other topics related to criminal law. This series is meant for individuals interested in learning more about Minnesota criminal law, and we hope that anyone facing potential criminal charges will benefit as well. We encourage you to post comments and share our blog with your friends, family members and colleagues.

Aug
09

You read our recent article on Solicitor General and Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan. She was recently confirmed by a majority of the full Senate and will become the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Please share your thoughts on Kagan’s confirmation and/or her role as a Justice?

Jun
27

Summer will be hot in DC, but even more so with confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan beginning soon.

Jun
27

The BP oil spill is at the top of international news, with attention currently focused on what the spill means to BP. Read on to learn about what liability BP and its executives may face in the wake of this disaster.