What users are looking for online finance in times of crisis

/in /by

The COVID-19 pandemic is being contained around the world. This had a significant impact on the lives of everyone in the community and on each of us independently. We’re concerned about our loved ones’ health, but we’re also concerned about their financial futures. In addition to housing and food, individuals are concerned about where to find the money to pay for it. Taxes must be paid, cash must be withdrawn, online payments must be made, money must be transferred to loved ones and investments must be managed. From March 8 – March 14, 2020, total number of people searching for “financial aid” on Google increased by 203 percent in a week.

Due to quarantine or other constraints, many businesses are unable to operate normally. It’s no surprise that consumer habits are shifting dramatically. They have different habits when it comes to money management, including different ways of saving and spending. Users began to look for applications in the “Finance” category 31% more often for the week of March 8 to 14, 2020.

Consumers utilise an average of 10 financial products on a daily basis. It’s understandable that people have trouble keeping up with all the changes is order to keep their financial situation stable. Because of the current state of the economy, it is critical that businesses provide their customers with the most current and accurate information possible. Since last year’s same week had a 61% increase in interest in the question “how to invest,” this year’s same week saw an 84% increase in interest.

Consumers should not have to worry about your financial well-being as much as they should.

It is possible for businesses to supply consumers the useful and relevant information even in these difficult circumstances. This will show your customers that you’re not only concerned about what’s best for yourself. Maintaining consumer trust in financial organisations is a difficult task.

Are you stumped when it comes to providing assistance to your customers? For those in the financial sector, we provide a variety of options.

Take time to understand and sympathise with your customers’ worries.

Financial organisations, of course, have a duty to help their customers. The difficulty is how to show that you are aware of the most pressing concerns and challenges. For instance, you may set up a phone customer support for people who have trouble making electronic payments. Your mobile app or YouTube channel can also be used to post self-service invoicing or online payment lessons. In addition, make it apparent that you’re willing to assist.

Accurate information should be made available to the public.

Consumers may rely on businesses to supply them with accurate and current information. It’s important to understand that perhaps the situation is both complicated and ever-evolving. Your audience will be able to see data and recommendations from you as well as from third parties. Google Trends can be used to assist users understand what’s going on in the world around them.

Be willing to change your mind.

Many consumers are concerned about their ability to pay their bills and other financial commitments. A company needs to be nimble so that clients feel a sense of security and stability at this point in the game. You can, for example, grant new customers an grace period for their initial payment before charging their credit card. You can also tailor your service to the specific needs of your customers.

In these trying times, financial institutions can help their customers by providing them with access to financial advisors who have a thorough understanding of their needs. It will not only benefit your clients, but it will also increase their confidence in you, allowing you to establish long-term connections with them.

Fourth Amendment Exceptional Or Fantastic

/in /by

The Norm Is That:

Probable cause, confirmed by an oath or affirmation, must be established before a warrant can be issued for a search or seizure, which violates the rights of all persons to be free from unnecessary searches and seizures.

In the virtual world, we’re currently disputing the use of this as such Fourth Amendment provision. Scott Greenfield and Orin “Same As We Might well Everywhere Else” Kerr got into a scuffle and over comment section on Simple Justice.

Kerr: In my opinion, your decision is between your personal dream of what the Establishment Clause might be and a virtual representation of where the Fourth Amendment actually is. When the decision is (b) because you really do not like the 4th Amendment that we currently have, you complain.

Greenfield: If I want my own personal dream of the 4th Amendment, what is wrong with that?” The Fourth is in a terrible situation, with a general norm that is only lip serviced prefacing a million exclusions. It’s something I would like to see happen. My ideal world is one in which there are no more exceptions to the rule…

Although I concede to simplifying Kerr’s position, you may read the full paper in the law review for yourself if you’re interested. However, it sparked my thoughts on exceptions. There are only so many exceptions that a rule can stand before it becomes a non-rule. As an indication of the magnitude of the problem, only a few examples will be shown.

Police ought to have specific legally articulable facts and conclusions from those facts that cause them to conclude that “criminal conduct may be afoot” before they can use the Terry frisk (Terry v. Ohio). The adjective “unreasonable” is what’s causing all of the troubles. There is no such thing as an unreasonable request, so long as 5 outside from 9 people agree that it is not.

Since Terry was originally intended for pedestrians, we’ll extend it to include drivers who are pulled over for no apparent reason. Police should be entitled to inspect every vehicle in the event of an arrest since it is legal to arrest someone over a traffic infraction. (Atwater v. of Lago Vista) But hold on! In Gant v. Arizona, less than 1 percent of the time, they won’t be able to conduct a search as a result of an arrest. You know, you can’t fraudulently accuse them of removing your things if they have a valid reason to tow your car (an other 99.99 percent of the time).

How about a few checks while we’re driving? Everyone being pulled over by officers, even if there was no evidence of any wrongdoing? There’s an exception for bad guys (Michigan v Sitz), but because checking everyone entering the country is required, you might as well throw around an immigration roadblock exception away from town as well (Illinois v. Lidster).

Exigent circumstances, such as those in full view or on wide fields, are also permitted. Wait. That last one is too significant to be mentioned in passing. “Exigent circumstances” indicates that if the police suspect it’s an emergency, they may not have time to seek a warrant, and we’re not going to force them to do so.

In some cases, a search warrant is obtained and signed by a judge, but even in those cases where a mistake is made (as in U.S. v. Leon), the Supreme Court may construct a good faith exception, which might become the rule by which all others are judged.

What happens if evidence is gathered in an illegal manner? We don’t want to interfere with both the District Attorney’s ability to use it before the Grand Jury in this case (United States v. Calandra). The inevitable discovery concept will justify its admitting if they can establish they would (may) have received the evidence otherwise.

Enough. Even if I haven’t covered everything, I think you get the idea. On the Kerr/Greenfield gap, I’ve spoken before and won’t do it again. But, and this is a big but, may I ask…

Contributors

/in /by

Some of the contributors post under their own name, some under nicknames, some pseudonymously. All are practicing criminal defense lawyers, and all are bloggers in their own right. Here are their biographies:

12.44(a): aka Dallas lawyer Robert Guest, he can be found blogging at his regular gig at DCDL. His nickname comes from Texas Penal Code section 12.44.

Blonde Justice: Author of Blonde Justice, where she’s been CDL blogging since May 2004.

Norm Pattis: Author of Fighting For Freedom One Client At A Time, and Defending Sex Crimes, and Lawyers For All and co-author of the Section 1983 blog. Clearly has too much time on his hands, so he agreed to contribute here as well.

Jamie Spencer: Also known to ramble on nonsensically at ACDL and ADLB. Currently posts under Publius, because he hasn’t figured out how to be both an administrator and author under his own name.

Quixote: aka Jeff Gamso of Gamso for the Defense, here tilting at windmills. Because inside every cynic is a romantic, and every criminal defense lawyer is both.

Ishmael: A perpetual optimist, always looking for the best in humanity, who subscribes to the belief that malevolence should never be assumed when mere stupidity will suffice.

Locke: An enlightened philosophical sort, who believes what he believes based on his actual experiences and primarily blogs about the criminal defense view from the trenches.

Publius: Catch all pseudonym for any contributor that wishes to use the name.

A few more contributors have agreed to sign on. Their bios are forthcoming.