Source: http://barnettelawoffice.blogspot.com/2014/07/
Timestamp: 2017-06-23 22:22:49
Document Index: 311480984

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 64', '§ 64', '§ 64', '§ 64', '§1692']

Tennessee FDCPA Lawyers,
Tennessee Telephone Consumer Protection Act Lawyer
Breath Test If you have been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in Davidson County, Tennessee, you are likely familiar with the Intoximeter EC/IR II. This device is utilized by law enforcement officers in Nashville Metro after a DUI arrest to determine an individual’s blood alcohol content (BAC). Contrary to what you may have heard, breath testing devices, like the Intoximeter EC/IR II, are not without flaws and routinely produce inaccurate results in DUI cases. For example, symptoms associated with diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), liver disease, heartburn, asthma or other illness have historically enhanced the results of breath test machines in Tennessee. The same is true for some types of chewing gum, breath mints and cough syrup. Only seasoned DUI defense lawyers like Jason Barnette and those at Barnette Law Offices can successfully challenge the results of the breath test in Tennessee. Prior to the administration of the Intoximeter EC/IR II test, law enforcement officers are required by Tennessee law to hold the subject under constant observation for a period of at least 20 minutes to ensure no foreign substance is introduced into the mouth of the subject. Otherwise, the breath test result is inadmissible. In a DUI case in the Nashville Metro area, police officers are the individuals designated to administer the breath test. However, law enforcement officers typically receive minimal training about how the machine actually functions. A good Tennessee DUI defense attorney can determine whether the officer in your case followed protocol and properly administered the breath test. If you disagree with the results of the breath test after being arrested for DUI, you have a right under Tennessee DUI law to request a blood or urine test. In fact, the State is required to initially cover the cost of the test if you are unable to pay for the test at the time of your arrest for DUI. Every case is different and every DUI lawyer is different. You want a DUI lawyer with the most experience, the best reputation and most importantly, the ability to get you the best result. If results matter to you, call Barnette Law Offices today for a free consultation! Field Sobriety Test In Tennessee, if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe a driver is DUI or impaired, he may request that the driver perform field sobriety tests. Be advised that in Tennessee, field sobriety tests are voluntary. There is no criminal or administrative penalty for refusal of field sobriety tests during a DUI investigation. Field sobriety tests are divided attention tests which require an individual charged with DUI to follow instructions and perform physical maneuvers requiring balance and coordination. According to NHTSA, an individual with a BAC above .08 g/dL will have difficulty performing these standardized tests. In Tennesee, the most common field sobriety tests utilized are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the Walk and Turn Test, and the One Leg Stand Test (note the HGN test is inadmissible). Numerous reasons exist as to why an individual may struggle with field sobriety tests other than intoxication or impairment. For example, these tests are routinely administered late at night to individuals who are tired and frightened with the consequences of a DUI arrest fresh on their mind. Medical conditions, including pre-existing injuries and weight, can impact the field sobriety test results. If you have been arrested for DUI in Nashville, Davidson County or anywhere in Tennessee and performed field sobriety tests, it is crucial that you contact an attorney right away to explore all possible defenses to the allegation of the arresting officer. The Nashville DUI Lawyer Jason Barnette and Barnette Law Offices are ready to put their skill and knowledge to work for you! DUI Drugs Law Enforcement officers throughout Tennessee and particularly, Nashville have recently started cracking down on drivers perceived to be impaired by controlled substances or drugs. Many believe that in order to be arrested for DUI with drugs or controlled substances in Tennessee, an individual must have taken some type of illegal substance. It may surprise you to learn that in Tennessee, a driver can be arrested for DUI simply for driving after taking prescribed medication. In defending against a DUI with drugs charge, it is critical that you be proactive in your defense. For example, upon release from custody, securing an independent blood or urine test immediately following the arrest can be a useful tool to prove the amount of drugs or controlled substances consumed was not enough to cause impairment. Oftentimes, law enforcement officers in DUI cases never take the appropriate steps to secure blood or urine test samples through the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. Law enforcement officers throughout the State of Tennessee are being certified as Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) trained to secure evidence in DUI cases. In cases involving DUI with drugs or controlled substances, it is imperative that you contact an attorney skilled in DRE tactics to defend you. It is imperative that you contact a DUI attorney skilled in DRE tactics, like Tennessee DUI Lawyer Jason Barnette and those at Barnette Law Offices, to defend you.right away! Technorati Tags: Nashville DUI Lawyers,Nashville DUI Lawyer,Tennessee DUI Lawyers,Tennessee DUI Lawyer,Wilson County DUI Lawyer,Robertson County DUI Lawyer,Sumner County DUI Lawyer,Rutherford County DUI Lawyer,Murfreesboro DUI Lawyer,Williamson County DUI Lawyer,Franklin DUI Lawyer,East Tennessee DUI Lawyer at
Cheatham County DUI Lawyer,
Nashville Criminal Defense Lawyers,
Rutherford County DUI Lawyer,
Tennessee DUI Lawyers,
Williamson County DUI Lawyer,
Wilson County DUI Lawyer
A. INTRODUCTION The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) is a hot topic today in the collection industry. Lawsuits alleging violations of the TCPA are increasing, and because statutory damages may be awarded under the TCPA for each violation and without any cap, such suits threaten collectors with potentially ruinous liability through class action litigation. (See, e.g., Foreman v. Data Transfer, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 1995) 164 F.R.D. 400, 404-405.) The TCPA potentially imposes amalgamated damages against debt collectors in a way not permitted under other statutory schemes designed to regulate collections. See, e.g. FDCPA, 15 USC 1692k(a)(2)(B) (capping statutory class action damages at $500,000 or 1% of the collector’s net worth). When one considers that $500, or even $1,500, in statutory damages may be imposed for each violative cell phone call under the TCPA, it becomes readily apparent that even a few hundred, much less thousands (or millions) of calls, may lead to truly ruinous damages if an “adding-machine” approach is taken to the statute’s interpretation. This article attempts to pierce the rhetoric that has grown up around the TCPA, and to put its “urban legends” into perspective. Please note this article is not designed to be a comprehensive analysis, but rather it is intended to provide consumers, with a brief overview, and to act as an “A B C” primer. I. The TCPA Applies to Debt Collection After the TCPA Legislation was adopted, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the federal body tasked with enforcing and interpreting the TCPA, issued a formal Order, entitled “Notice of Proposed Rule Making” on April 17, 1992 (hereinafter, the 1992 TCPA Order). This Order initially and originally interpreted the TCPA and the implementing Regulations related thereto. 1 In the 1992 TCPA Order, the FCC wrote: “The overall intent of Section 227 is to protect consumers from unrestricted telemarketing . . .” (1992 TCPA Order at ¶ 19, p. *3.) But, the 1992 TCPA Order also specifically recognized that some businesses, such as debt collectors, used various types of telephone dialers, including “automated” and/or "predictive" telephone equipment that could fall within the TCPA. Nonetheless, the FCC commented that, to the extent the practice of using automated equipment complied with other State or Federal debt collection laws (such as, presumptively, the FDCPA), this "non-telemarketing use of auto dialers [was] not intended to be prohibited by the TCPA." (1992 TCPA Order, ¶ 15, emphasis added; bracketed language added.) Indeed, the 1992 TCPA Order carefully distinguished the telemarketing conduct sought to be regulated by the TCPA from the “commercial” conduct of debt collectors: [I]n all debt collection circumstances, a prior or existing business relationship took place between the caller and the called party or the calling party is acting in an agency capacity for the creditor. . . [A] debt collection call that otherwise complies with all applicable collection statutes, is a commercial call that does not adversely affect the privacy concerns the TCPA seeks to protect. (1992 TCPA Order at ¶ 16.) Again and again, the FCC in later orders continued to recognize that debt collection calls were viewed differently from telemarketing communications for the very reason that (1) collection calls “do not transmit an unsolicited advertisement,” and (2) because “debt collection calls are not directed to randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers, but instead are directed to the specifically programmed contact numbers for debtors.” (In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 2008, CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 07-232 (1/4/08) ¶¶ 9-12 (hereinafter, 2008 TCPA Order). 2 Moreover, the FCC has flatly ruled that “calls solely for the purpose of debt collection are not telephone solicitations and do not constitute telemarketing.” Id., at ¶ 11. In short, the Legislative history of the TCPA discussed above, the FCC's historical interpretations of the TCPA, as well as its own implementing regulations which interpret the TCPA, 3 all demonstrate that the TCPA was aimed at curbing unsolicited telemarketing communications made by the use of so-called “automatic telephone dialing systems” directed to private residential homes, under circumstances where the communications invade the recipient’s privacy and lead the recipient to incur costs. But the TCPA was not designed to deter (1) legitimate (non-telemarketing) commercial calls, (2) calls to individuals with whom the caller, directly or indirectly, possessed an established business relationship, and/or (3) calls made with the consent of the recipient. 4 Nonetheless, in its 2002 and 2008 TCPA Orders, the FCC seemingly ignored its own history and the previous distinctions between telemarketing and other types of commercial communications such as debt collection. For example, in the 2008 TCPA order, the FCC explicitly observed: “The plain language of section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) prohibits the use of autodialers to make any call to a wireless number in the absence of … the prior express consent of the called party. We note this prohibition applies regardless of the content of the call, and is not limited only to calls that constitute ‘telephone solicitation.’” 2008 TCPA Order, 11 (emphasis added). This is the FCC’s current position today. II. THE PROVISIONS OF THE TCPA RELEVANT TO DEBT COLLECTORS AND CALLING As most relevant to collectors calling cell phones, the TCPA, at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), provides: (b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment (1) Prohibitions It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States (A) To make any call (other than a call … made with the prior express consent of the party called) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice (i) to any emergency telephone line. . . (ii) to the telephone line. . .of a hospital … (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call; (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the party, unless the call. . .is exempted by rule or order by the Commission. . .(Emphasis added.) The plain language of 47 USC § 227(b)(1)(A) makes clear a violation of the TCPA occurs when an autodialed call is made to a cell (wireless) phone without the prior express consent of the called party. (2008 TCPA Order, ¶ 9; see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200.) In short, the elements that must be established to prove a prima facie violation of the cell phone provisions of the TCPA are: (1) A call to a cell (wireless) phone by either: (a) using an “automatic telephone dialing system,” and/or (b) leaving an artificial or pre-recorded message. (2) Where the call is made without the prior express consent of the recipient, and (3) Where the recipient is charged for the call. D. WHAT IS AN AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEM (“ATDS”)? An essential requirement of a TCPA claim is that the phone call be sent to a cell phone by use of auto dialing technology which either (1) utilizes a so-called “random or sequential number generator” or (2) automatically leaves a prerecorded, as opposed to a live, message. These restrictions, arise from the Congressional finding that “automated or pre-recorded telephone calls were a greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls.” 2008 TCPA Order, at ¶ 17. Consequently, the heart of the TCPA’s restrictions focus on the regulation of calls made by the use of a so-called “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”). TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). 1. What Constitutes An ATDS Under Federal Law? The term “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”), as defined under the TCPA, is a highly specific term of art. The TCPA defines an ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity” (a) to “store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator” and (b) to “dial such numbers.” TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(a)(1)(A) and (B). The mere fact that a dialer automatically pulls a number out of a database and calls the phone number, should not be considered as having been made by an automatic telephone dialing system. (In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC rcd. 17459, 17465 N. 96 (Sept. 18, 2002)); but compare 2008 TCPA Order, ¶¶ 12-14.) The ATDS provision of the TCPA was designed to address the type of telephone solicitation that Congress found to be especially abusive, namely automated calling devices which are able to “generate” millions of telephone numbers, and which are then automatically dialed without any human control. When dialed sequentially, this technology has the capability to tie up all of the lines assigned to a particular business or individual -- for example, 283-8820, 283-8821, 283-8822, and so forth, (because often business or individuals have multiple phone numbers that vary only by one or two sequential digits). In the Appendix to the Senate Hearings on the TCPA is a document entitled “Why the Legislation Is So Important.” See S. Hrg. 102-918, at 68 (Oct. 10, 1991). Specific problems identified relate to automatic dialing systems which generate and dial numbers in sequence, thereby tying up all the lines and preventing any outgoing calls. Id. In the “Background and Need” Section of a Congressional Report accompanying the TCPA House bill, the history noted a ban on automatic telephone dialing systems was necessary because such systems: are programmed to dial sequential blocks of telephone numbers, including those of emergency public organizations and unlisted subscribers. Since an [automatic telephone dialing system] can “seize” a recipient’s telephone line once a phone connection is made and may not release the line when the recipient hangs up, they can result in an intrusive and potentially dangerous use of telecommunication equipment. H.R. REP. No. 101-633, at 3 (1990); see also Telemarketing/Privacy Issues: Hearing Before the Subcom. On Telecomm. And Finance, 102d Cong. 2 (1991) (Statement of Rep. Markey, Chairman). What constitutes an ATDS subject to regulation under the TCPA has spawned considerate debate. The FCC itself has not helped to clarify the issue by asserting that virtually any automated dialing device qualifies – ignoring the requirement in the TCPA itself that defines an ATDS be reference to “a random or sequential number generator.” 47 USC § 227(a)(1). Clearly despite the FCC’s statements to the contrary, not every phone system with an automated dialing capability qualifies as an ATDS subject to the TCPA. Although interpretive case law is sparse, one federal court sitting in California has clearly held that not every call sent through the use of automated calling equipment, or a predictive dialer, qualifies as an “ATDS” under the TCPA. Instead the court ruled that only the subset of calls automatically dialed by the use of “a random or sequential number generator” was covered by the TCPA. Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster (N.D. Cal. 2007) 2007 WL 1839807 at *5-6. Significantly, the District Court rejected the FCC’s own interpretation that every predictive dialer qualified as an ATDS. It concluded that the FCC’s broad interpretation was not entitled to deference as it was manifestly at odds with the definition of an ATDS contained inside the statute. The federal judge instead ruled that only equipment (whether or not automated or predictive) that contains “a random or sequential number generator” qualifies as an ATDS subject to the TCPA requirements. Id. Because most phone systems used by collectors do not use such number generating technology (even if they contain predictive dialers), they are not covered by the TCPA. The Satterfield decision has been appealed, and an appellate decision is currently pending. 1. In 1992, the FCC enacted its original implementing regulations pursuant to an explicit grant of authority from Congress, as set forth in 47 USC § 227(b)(2) (“The commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the requirements of this subject.”) The FCC’s Regulations construing the TCPA are set forth at 47 CFR § 64.1200, et seq. Since 1992, the FCC has periodically issued newer interpretive regulations and orders. The last interpretive order was promulgated on January 4, 2008. Return To Text 2. See, e.g., 2008 TCPA Order, at footnotes 17 and 18; 1995 TCPA Reconsideration Order, ¶ 17 (“We have specifically noted that ‘prerecorded debt collection calls [are] exempt from the prohibitions on [prerecorded] calls to residences as . . .commercial calls. . .which do not transmit an unsolicited advertisement.”). See also 1992 TCPA Order, ¶ 39 (“With respect to concerns regarding compliance with both the [Fair Debt Collection Practices Act] and our rules in prerecorded message calls, we emphasize that the identification requirements will not apply to debt collection calls because such calls are not autodialer calls (i.e., dialed using a random or sequential number generator) and hence are not subject to the identification requirements for prerecorded messages in 64.1200(e)(4) of our rules”). Return To Text 3. See, e.g., 47CFR § 64.1200(a)(2)(iii) (there is no liability under the TCPA for most calls made for a commercial or business purpose which do not include an unsolicited advertisement or solicitation). See also 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(2)(ii). Return To Text 4. The TCPA also established what is commonly known as the national “do not call list” whereby residential telephone subscribers may “opt out” of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls at their home. See 47 CFR § 64.1200(e)(2). Return To Text at
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is a federal law that governs what actions a debt collector can take while trying to collect a debt. Collection attorneys are also governed by the FDCPA. As such, collection attorneys should take note of several recent rulings in 2005 from federal courts around the country regarding the FDCPA. Oral Disputes of Debts Count, Too The Ninth Circuit has held that debt collectors cannot tell consumers that they will assume a debt is valid unless they receive written notification of a dispute. A consumer can dispute the validity of a debt in writing or orally. Although there are some sections of the FDCPA that require written notice, the Court declined to impose the written notice provision on other sections. The Court reasoned that it would not make sense to read a written notice requirement into §1692g(a)(3) because other sections of the FDCPA require debt collectors to take note of consumers' oral disputes. The Ninth Circuit followed Supreme Court rulings that have held that courts should not insert language into a statute unless the failure to do so would result in absurd or unreasonable results. Collectors Must Notify Credit Bureaus of Orally-Disputed Debts The FDCPA requires a collector to notify the credit bureaus that a debt is disputed if the collector has reason to know the debt is disputed and reports about the debt on a consumer's credit report. This requirement applies even if the consumer disputes the debt orally. This requirement has been extended by recent court rulings. First, the debt collector does not have the authority to decide unilaterally if a consumer's dispute has any merit. As long as a consumer has disputed the debt, the collector is required to inform the credit bureaus of the dispute. Second, a simple inquiry by a consumer about the validity of additional charges is an oral dispute of the debt and requires reporting to the credit bureaus that the debt is disputed. Lastly, a collector has to report that the debt is disputed in a timely manner. Summary judgment was denied for a collector in a recent case in Pennsylvania where the collector took seven months to report that the debt was disputed. The court believed that a jury could find that seven months was an unreasonable delay and a violation of the FDCPA. Affidavits for Garnishments are Covered by the FDCPA In an important ruling, the Sixth Circuit has recently held that debt collectors and collection attorneys who sign and file affidavits to obtain garnishments in state courts are fair game for FDCPA lawsuits. Technorati Tags: Tennessee Debt Collection Defense,Tennessee Consumer Lawyer,Nashville Debt Collection Defense,Tennessee Debt Collection Defense Lawyer,Nashville Debt Collection Defense Lawyer,Beat Midland Funding,Beat CACH,Beat Asset Acceptance Collection lawyers will now have to be more careful about what they and their clients say in these affidavits. In the Sixth Circuit case, the collector's attorney filed an affidavit stating that he had a reasonable basis to believe that the debtor's property was nonexempt and garnishable. The debtor's property, however, was Social Security benefits, which are exempt. The court also stated that the FDCPA violation was an independent federal claim from the state court action and therefore the Supreme Court's Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal courts from reviewing state court decisions, did not apply. Repeated or Continuous Telephone Calls Can Mean Trouble Recent court decisions reaffirm that repeated or continuous calls to a consumer by a debt collector can bring about FDCPA violations. In one case, six voice-mail messages left on a consumer's home answering machine over a 10-day period was sufficient to defeat summary judgment and could be viewed as harassment, false threats or unfair practices. In another case, the debt collector was denied summary judgment where it called a consumer multiple times without leaving any messages. The court determined that the possible FDCPA violation turned on the volume of calls made and on the pattern of the calls. In yet another case, a debt collector was found to have violated the FDCPA by repeatedly calling a consumer after the consumer had hung up the telephone. The Financial Pain of FDCPA Violations Consumers have the right to file a lawsuit against any debt collector or collection attorney who violates the FDCPA. The consumer can recover actual damages, statutory damages of up to $1,000 and attorney's fees and costs. Some of the secondary costs to debt collectors and collection attorneys include decreased collection rates, increased insurance rates and the costs of defending a lawsuit, just to name a few. As the recent rulings point out, avoiding FDCPA violations is the best road to travel. at